Science and religion

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Science and Religion in Harmony, Tiffany Window called Education (1890).

Science and religion (or science and religion ., English Science and Religion ) is an interdisciplinary field of research that examines the interactions between science and religion. Here, science is primarily understood to mean natural science, in particular physics , cosmology , evolutionary biology , genetics and neurology , but also the philosophy of science , the history of science and, less frequently, psychology . Religion means on the one hand the traditional religions, such as the three large monotheistic religions Judaism , Christianity and Islam , but also spiritual aspects such as prayer and meditation and especially the question of God.

Subject of research

Science and religion emerged as an academic research area in America and Europe in the 1960s. The physicist and theologian Ian Barbour (1923–2013), who in 1966 published the fundamental work Issues in Science and Religion , is considered to be the founder of this interdisciplinary field .

The cross-thematic university subject examines the relationship between the two views. In addition, new concepts and models are being developed that try to put the relationship between the two perspectives into perspective.

An example of this is neuroscientific research into meditation , a widespread spiritual practice in Hinduism and Buddhism . Meditation influences the state of consciousness and thus, scientifically verifiable and consequently, the activity of the brain . A study on twins found that 40-60% of religiosity in humans has genetic roots.

The theologian Hans Küng (* 1928) as well as the physicists Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (1912–2007) and Hans-Peter Dürr (1929–2014) are important representatives of this extensive area in German-speaking countries .

In addition to university research, religious institutions also deal with the question of the relationship between science and religion, as well as authors of esoteric and New Age literature.

Interaction models

In order to better classify the different relationships between science and religion, different researchers developed interaction models , such as the four relationship models conflict, contrast, contact, confirmation by John Haught, the eight models by Ted Peters, which are divided into four conflict models and four cooperation models. Ian Barbour also speaks of four models. These interaction models enable a more scientific focus of the diverse relationships, instead of the public perception, which only concentrates on the media-effective conflict models.

Conflict / confrontation model

A conflict model arises from an attitude that either wants to exclude or incorporate science or religion. Such models often lead to violent conflicts.

Scientific materialism : This point of view takes the view that the material world is the only existing reality ( reductionism ) and that it is only methodologically correctly examined by modern natural science. The transcendent reality of religion is often denied any right to exist. Representatives of this direction are the astrophysicist Stephen Hawking (1942–2018), the chemist Peter Atkins (* 1940), the biologist Richard Dawkins (* 1941), or - in Germany - the philosopher Michael Schmidt-Salomon (* 1967).

Scientific imperialism : In connection with religious and spiritual phenomena and experiences, such as B. Experiences of God , hypotheses are formulated and checked with the help of natural science. God is partially recognized in this model, but sometimes also fulfills the role of a "stopgap God", with whose help scientifically inexplicable things, e.g. B. Infinity , should be "explained". The Indian Gopi Krishna (1903–1984) belongs to this direction and calls on biology to conduct scientific research into the phenomena of Kundalini awakening. Attempts and discussions to classify religion at least abstractly as a stage in the psychological or social development of mankind also belong here . Many classically religious terms such as B. Eternities are not defined in natural science and are therefore not the subject of research.

Church authority : For a long time the Vatican claimed the right to have the last word in the field of scientific knowledge. Although he previously allowed research into this matter, he intervened several times to "correct" questions that could directly question the truthfulness of the Bible or the authority of the Church. Well-known "cases" are Galileo Galilei and Darwinism . Later, v. a. since the end of the 19th century and until today, some scientific representatives have also led to rejection or even rebellion against religious models of explanation with regard to divine or transcendent reality.

Religious fundamentalism : In the early 20th century, religious fundamentalist creationism developed in the USA , which today still criticizes scientifically based Darwinism, which created a broad potential for conflict, especially in North America and Australia. A “softer” view speaks of intelligent design , which can be recognized in nature and which refers to an intelligent creator. The great majority of Muslims consider the theory of evolution not only wrong, but also incompatible with the Koran.

Contrast / coexistence model

The coexistence model or "two languages" model regards science and religion as two independent different perspectives that complement each other but cannot be directly reconciled. According to this, natural science is responsible for explaining the real material world, while religion is responsible for the transcendent reality, both of which are necessary, as the physicist Albert Einstein (1879–1955) put it: "Natural science without religion is lame, religion without natural science is blind." ( Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ).

Hans Küng speaks of the complementarity model and demands that »all illegitimate transitions be avoided and all absolutizations rejected«. Theologians and natural scientists should question each other critically in order to revise misinterpretations.

Arnold Benz points out that science and religion not only differ linguistically, but also start from two different areas of the experience of reality. In science it is objective measurements; in religion it is experiences in which a person participates. The two levels of perception meet, for example, in amazement and ethics.

Dialogue model

In dialogue models, questions of science and religion overlap at several points. Questions are examined from the perspective of natural science and from the perspective of religion and the results are weighed against each other. For example, the astrophysicist Bruno Binggeli compares Dante's journey to the hereafter with today's knowledge of astrophysics . This model of interaction between science and religion is generally not very widespread, but it wins in the ethical question that may arise today. a. due to the growing resentment of broad sections of the population regarding nuclear and genetic engineering, is becoming more important.

Integration model

The integration model describes new approaches to combine modern knowledge of the natural sciences with religious or spiritual and even esoteric opinions, which are mostly rejected by religion. There are models that say that the creation story of Genesis (light> plant> animal> man) and Darwinism would confirm each other. Especially in the New Age movement, new models are constantly being designed that try to bring natural science and religion / spirituality together as a harmonious structure.

The theology of evolution by Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955) and the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) are also assigned to the integration model .

Current topics

cosmology

The Big Bang model is able to scientifically describe the creation of the universe. However, as far as the cause of the Big Bang is concerned, there are only different hypotheses. Instead of a coincidentally created cosmos, God offers himself to the believer as the "spiritual primordial ground, primordial support and primordial sense of the world and man".

Furthermore, it is argued that the slightest deviation in the fine-tuning of the natural constants would have led to a hostile cosmos, which is why physicists developed the previously unproven and - if at all - difficult to prove hypothesis of the multiverse ; however, theoretical models indicate this possibility. The anthropic principle is also cited as a possible explanation. It is also often denied that such fine-tuning even exists. From the theological point of view it is argued that this statement suggests that a Divine Providence contributed to the Big Bang so that life could arise on earth at all.

See also: Fine tuning of the natural constants: Teleological and theological explanation with criticism

Evolutionary biology

The conflict between biblical belief in creation and Darwin's theory of evolution formed the toughest fronts; But there were also various integration models.

The majority of European Catholic and Protestant theologians advocate theistic evolution . They assume that God did not “leave” “his world” after a one-off creation, but rather received his creation in a mostly hidden way in a Creatio Continua (“continued creation”) and possibly also intervened in it. This view of course also includes the scientifically recognizable world.

genetics

The discipline of genetics sparked intense discussions, especially on the ethical issue. The fronts did not only run between scientists and theologians, the topics also met with strong public interest. 1995 was the year of controversy as to whether scientists were allowed to obtain patents on information relating to the human genome , two years later it was about the cloning of living things and 2000 about embryonic stem cells . Questions about how far can humans "play God" or intervene in nature and who owns the human genetic makeup triggered a wide echo in the media. While the Vatican condemns research on embryonic stem cells as morally illegitimate (especially if and because fertilized egg cells are killed in the process), moderate Protestants argue that Christian charity requires improving human health and well-being, including with embryonic stem cells. Jewish ethicists also believe that God allows embryonic stem cells to be used for therapeutic purposes.

Confrontation models

Both natural science and religion claim to make “true” statements about the world or about “reality as a whole”. And this can lead to conflicts between the two perspectives. At its core, religion is also based on the “truth” of a scientifically unprovable, transcendent reality that man means in a revelation given by God (e.g. Christianity, Judaism or Islam) or in one's own mystical, meditative immersion (e.g. B. Buddhism, Hinduism). Natural science claims that its “truths in space-time” can be checked at any time through repeatable experiments , at least on the elementary level; It is different with complex theories and historical conclusions.

The question is how these overlaps are classified. For a long time it was assumed that the two approaches were fundamentally incompatible. In recent times, some European theologians and natural scientists assume that natural science and theology each have their justification in their own domain, since they interpret (overall) reality in different ways and that a dialogue is fruitful. In the Anglo-Saxon region in particular, there are also philosophical-theological drafts that want to combine both areas.

Religion claims areas of natural science

In the early modern period , the natural sciences began to emancipate themselves from the theological interpretation of the world. In the background of this development is probably the philosophical direction of nominalism , which gained strength in the late Middle Ages , which solved the problem of universals in such a way that it proceeded from the sensual perception of actually existing things, from which the general concepts (universals) were derived. This empirical path of knowledge ultimately also became the scientific one.

Initially, newly gained knowledge did not lead to conflicts. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), even in church service, was able to develop the heliocentric worldview without the threat of church consequences. Not so with Galileo Galilei (1564–1642). He supported Copernicus' heliocentric view of the world through empirical observations with a telescope and believed that he could prove it and therefore tried to propagate it. Galileo was thereupon forced to revoke his view by the Roman Catholic Church, which now saw its interpretive sovereignty threatened. He was placed under house arrest from 1633. However, through research by other scientists, the heliocentric worldview was soon tacitly tolerated by the church. Galileo was not officially rehabilitated by Pope John Paul II until November 2, 1992 .

The condemnation of Giordano Bruno as a heretic is sometimes presented as a conflict between religion and science, analogous to the Galileo case. This is not the case, as Bruno was condemned on the basis of his natural philosophy of God. Bruno did not get his findings from empirical research or mathematical calculation, especially since Bruno was critical of mathematics. "His vision of an infinitely animated universe still meets with rejection from the Catholic Church and the ruling natural sciences alike."

Another conflict between Christian churches and representatives of the natural sciences, in which the churches saw their understanding of creation threatened, resulted from the development of the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin (1809–1882). According to him, the animal and plant species on earth did not emerge in a seven-day act of creation, as a literal interpretation of the Bible suggests, but through processes of adaptation to the habitat through variation and natural selection that lasted millions of years. In his work The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871) Darwin advanced the thesis that humans, like animals, are also subject to the process of evolution and have common ancestors with apes . This view leads to fierce controversies to this day, since according to religious explanatory models, humans do not only exist in a mortal , physical state of being, but also in a quasi-eternal, god-like state of being because of their soul . The churches saw and still see the inadmissible interference in Darwin's assertion that his explanation with the theory of evolution would apply to the "whole" human being, so also - according to theological explanation - for the "eternal", immortal in human beings, which also after the Death of the biological body would live on in the otherworldly reality. Even today, creationists reject the theory of evolution as a whole, including with regard to the mortal, biological "part" in humans, and instead advocate a direct divine creation of all (basic types of) plants and animals, and especially humans (see, among others, word and knowledge ). From a creationist / evangelical point of view, the main reason for rejecting the universal theory of evolution is the incompatibility with the doctrine of sin. Accordingly, it was only through the sin of man that suffering and death came into the world. So these cannot have evolutionarily changed the animal kingdom before humans.

Science claims areas of religion

As a result of the positivism established by Auguste Comte (1798–1857), religion has lost its right to exist for many scientists. It is assumed that religion at best “fills the gaps” for which natural science has not yet found adequate explanations. In scientism , the opinion is held that the "knowledge" of science is superior to the "belief" of religion and is potentially sufficient to explain the world. Religion is at a lower level in the development of knowledge ( three-stage law ).

In the 20th century Comte's thesis of neopositivism was taken up and further developed. The theologian Hans Küng accuses the latter of serving the philosophy of science as a worldview in a philosophically often unreflective way , although the verification method was logically refuted by Karl Popper (1902–1994) as early as the middle of the century .

Coexistence models

With his falsificationism , Karl Popper pointed out that every scientific knowledge must in principle be falsifiable in order to enable scientific progress, which sets limits to the scientific interpretation of the world. Statements that a scientist makes about reality are therefore always provisional and must reckon with the possibility of being refuted by other statements, by better theories . The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is the predictability of subatomic particles have a clear boundary, just as the Gödel's incompleteness theorem to the limits of mathematical evidence points in finite systems. A radical representation of a (neo) positivist position can thus be regarded as just as meaningful or absurd as a literal interpretation of the biblical story of creation.

Conversely, when it comes to explaining natural phenomena or facilitating human life through technical aids, natural science has repeatedly clearly shown the limits of religion to the theological interpretation of the world in the early modern period .

Hans Küng and other contemporary thinkers deduce from these indicated limits of religion and natural science that both have equal rights today and are complementary to one another. Accordingly, they make statements about different levels of reality. This is how theology would today e.g. B. make ridiculous if you tried to explain the processes in a nuclear power plant with the Bible or dogmatic considerations, whereas existential questions of humanity such as "Where do we come from?" And "What is the meaning of life ?" Are still domains of religion and today of philosophy are.

The New Testament scholar Gerd Theißen puts it this way:

“ Science asks about the factual, theology about meaning and value. "

A similar view was also taken by the paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (see Nonoverlapping Magisteria , NOMA for short).

Critics of NOMA, such as the British evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins, see it only as a way for theologians to evade verifiability. Furthermore, according to Dawkins, such a separation into different areas is simply not possible. A divine being that interacts in some way with world events is inevitably entering the natural sciences. In addition, questions that cannot be answered in principle by natural science are just as inaccessible to theology.

Dialogue models

This article or section needs to be revised. Details should be given on the talk page. Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

The Christian religion claims to refer to the whole of reality and to explain it as God's creation. Religion encompasses not only the reality that can be represented by the sciences and their laws, but also the reality of God beyond space and time.

In contrast, natural science tried and continues to try to get to the bottom of the “phenomenon of religion” and its appearances, such as the experience of God, mystical experience, transfiguration , illumination or inspiration , with its empirical means. Numerous attempts in this regard have failed and got stuck in the discussion. B. also those that are related to theologically explainable phenomena such as ego knowledge, conscience or free will . These include failed or controversial attempts by religion described transcendental experiences exclusively with the help of drugs or a magnetic field to "produce" (see, for. Example. Religion helmet of Michael Persinger ). The open-minded religion / theology accepts these and other attempts as long as natural science does not itself carry out “religious”, “ideological” generalizations or even scientifically inadmissible attempts to interfere with theology. Against the background of a pluralistic world, religion and theology nowadays also call it evidence of credibility when they see such inquiries from natural science as a challenge and enter into dialogue with it. The queries of the classical criticism of religion to religious belief are well known. Dealing with these questions is seen as an aid to freeing true faith from “ suspicion of ideology ”.

Here are a few examples of a possible dialogue in this regard: The French religious philosopher Pascal Boyer tries to explain religion in evolutionary terms as a kind of “vacation” for the brain. Religion has no specific “place” in the brain, it uses the same cognitive systems that are not accessible to consciousness, but that are also used in creative activities. In the meantime, numerous recent findings in brain research about brain processes in conscious decision-making represent an important question. They provide (controversial) experiments and arguments that e.g. For example , unconscious brain activity occurs even before a subject has made a conscious decision to move his hand. A number of researchers, v. a. in medicine and psychologist , interpret these new findings in such a way that humans have no free will and this is only an illusion . This view, however, represents a great challenge for mankind, which as a rule - similar or equal to theology - accepts a person who is too good and badly capable and responsible for his actions. (→ See also: Free will # brain research ). In contrast to this, theology can provide an explanatory model according to which free will would not be possible without a second instance that exists alongside biological existence. This second instance explains theology with the divine existence of man in God. Accordingly, both the above-mentioned “preprogrammed” biological and the religiously transcendent reality in humans would each provide an alternative for actions, namely a biological and a divinely motivated one. Free will would thus be expressed because humans could at least freely choose between these two alternatives.

Attempts by sociology , including Niklas Luhmann , to interpret religious phenomena as functions in a society, make inquiries to theology.

The natural sciences can also benefit from inquiries from theology. The religious conviction that man as a whole is God's creation can serve as a critical corrective wherever people are primarily to be ramified through research, the world of work or technology. Very controversial examples would be: the cloning of people as a “spare parts store” for organs or the controversial aid to the killing of old or terminally ill people ( active euthanasia ).

In many cases, on the one hand, theology can warn against a dehumanizing approach to scientific knowledge and point out the limits of human (un) worthy feasibility. On the other hand, it can also mean perspectives, e.g. B. against the background of Christian charity and mercy , to show and offer that express human hope for a better world and for justice in love . In other words, it can also conduct a scientific dialogue with natural science in those categories that are the subject of research in theology but do not exist in natural science.

The anthropic principle is also a starting point. The assumption that the cosmos is geared towards the human capacity for knowledge is no proof that man is wanted in the cosmos. For the believer, however, this can be a support in the belief in the meaningfulness of existence.

“ The reality that we can speak of is never reality in itself, but [...] a reality that we have created. If [...] it is objected that after all there is an objective world that is completely independent of us and our thinking, [...] it must be countered [...] that the word "there is" comes from human language and therefore cannot very well mean something that is not at all related to our faculty of knowledge. For us there is only the world in which the word "there is" has a meaning. "

- W. Heisenberg : In: Physics and Philosophy. S. Hirzel, Stuttgart 1959.

Integration models

Evolution theology (Teilhard de Chardin)

→ For more details see : Teilhard de Chardin

The theologian, natural scientist and mystic Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955) assumed that the cosmos was going through a targeted development. The urge to unite caused matter to cluster together more complex forms and molecules ( cosmogenesis ), which eventually led to the emergence of life. The processes of biological evolution culminated in the fact that humans and human consciousness developed (noogenesis).

But for Teilhard, the human being as he is now is not the final stage of the purposeful evolutionary movement. Human beings will also develop through social evolution . The aim of this development will be a spiritualized unity of all being, which he calls " point omega ". The development towards the “point Omega” is already indicated and anticipated by Jesus Christ (Christogenesis). The mainspring of this entire evolutionary process is the principle of love, which will ultimately bring about a unity of God's and world reality.

Process philosophy (Whitehead)

→ For more details see : Whitehead, Characterizations and Consequences

With his process philosophy, Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) claims to unite natural science, theology and philosophy in one system of terms. Matter, thoughts or desires are real after him. Not the smallest, solid atoms, but constant change, the alternation of events are the core of reality. Whitehead calls being in relation as the indivisible basic unit of all reality “real individuals”. According to him, matter is nothing more than the repetitive sequence of events. God shows himself in Whitehead's system in the "creative act" of a real individual. In doing so, it transcends itself. This transcending can only be thought of as being in relation to another, since everything is only "relation" / event. This God, this other therefore includes all the possibilities of the world and goes beyond it ( transcendence ), allowing at the same time immanent whose "order in the making". Whitehead's philosophy was theologically further developed by his student Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000) in process theology.

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ J. Gordon Melton, Martin Baumann (Ed.): Religions of the World. V. 6, pp. 2550f.
  2. ↑ Antoine Lutz and a .: Long-term meditators self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony during mental practice. doi: 10.1073 / pnas.0407401101
  3. ↑ Koenig, LB, & Bouchard, TJ, Jr .: Genetic and Environmental Influences on the Traditional Moral Values ​​Triad - Authoritarianism, Conservatism, and Religiousness - as Assessed by Quantitative Behavior Genetic Methods. In: McNamara, Patrick (Ed.): The neuroscience of religious experience . tape 1 . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 2009, ISBN 978-0-511-60552-9 , pp. 47-76 .
  4. ↑ J. Wentzel Vrede van Huyssteen (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. Vol 2. 2003.
  5. ^ Gopi Krishna, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker: Biological basis of the experience of faith. 1971.
  6. ^ Turgut Demirci: The compatibility of the scientific theory of evolution with Islam. In: Master thesis. University of Vienna, 2016, p. 44 , accessed on August 28, 2020 (Austrian German).
  7. ↑ Mohammed Alassiri: Evolution is the disguised friend of Islam . In: Nature Human Behavior . tape 4 , no. 2 , February 2020, ISSN  2397-3374 , p. 122–122 , doi : 10.1038 / s41562-019-0771-7 ( nature.com [accessed August 29, 2020]).
  8. ↑ Nature . 146 (1940), pp. 605-607.
  9. ↑ Hans Küng: The beginning of all things. 2008, p. 57.
  10. ↑ Honorary doctorate 2011 of the theological faculty
  11. ↑ Andreas Büchi: God and Physics. In the macrocosm and the microcosm, researchers reach the limits of scientific knowledge. The Swiss astrophysicist Bruno Binggeli on the relationship between spirit and matter. Observer, Zurich December 24, 2014, pages 26–35.
  12. ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church
  13. ↑ Faith ABC of the EKD. Retrieved June 18, 2019 .
  14. ↑ Thomas Thiemann: What was before the Big Bang? Science in Dialogue, accessed on June 18, 2019 . .
  15. ↑ Hans Küng: The beginning of all things. 2008, p. 177.
  16. ↑ Charles H. Townes : Why are we here? - Where are we going? In: In the beginning there was no god. Patmos, Düsseldorf 2004, ISBN 3-491-72477-5 , pp. 29-44.
  17. ^ VJ Stenger: Natural Explanation For The Anthropic Coincidences. (PDF; 64 kB)
  18. ↑ Patents - Is The Human Genome Patentable? Law Library (English).
  19. ↑ Now everything is possible . In: Der Spiegel . No. 10 , 1997 ( online ).
  20. ^ Stem cell research in Germany. iPS cells as an opportunity? , wissensschau.de 2010.
  21. ↑ Embryonic stem cells. Religions disagree about the embryo's right to life . wissensschau.de, 2011.
  22. ↑ A. Eusterschulte: Giordano Bruno to introduce. Junius, Hamburg 1997, p. 12 f.
  23. ^ J. Kirchhoff: Giordano Bruno. Rowohlt, Reinbek bei Hamburg, 4th ed. 1993, pp. 7 ff and other.
  24. ^ J. Kirchhoff: The unholy alliance . In: Der Spiegel . No. 7 , 2000 ( online ).
  25. ↑ Hans Küng: The beginning of all things. 2008, p. 112f.
  26. ↑ Hans Küng: The beginning of all things…. P. 46.
  27. ↑ Gerd Theißen: Evolution. In: Tobias Daniel Wabbel: In the beginning there was (not) a God: Scientific and theological perspectives. Patmos, 2004, ISBN 3-491-72477-5 , p. 150.
  28. ↑ Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion . Ullstein 2008, p. 78 ff.
  29. ↑ Pascal Boyer: And God created man. 2009, p. 67.
  30. ↑ Gerd Theißen: Evolution. In: In the beginning there was (no) a god…. P. 151.