I argue that for psychological and social reasons, the traditional “Conflict Model” of science and religion interactions has such a strong hold on the nonexpert imagination that counterexamples and claims that interactions are simply more complex than the model allows are inadequate to undermine its power.
Yes, well put. The warfare thesis indeed has such a strong hold on the nonexpert imagination that it seems to be impervious to facts.
Taxonomies, such as those of Ian Barbour and John Haught, which characterize conflict as only one among several possible relationships, help. But these taxonomies, by themselves, fail to offer an account of why different relationships prevail among different communities and how they succeed one another within particular communities that is, they contain no dynamic elements.
True, most taxonomies of the various ways religion and science interact are inadequate. They miss the most important interaction of all.
To undermine the power of the “Conflict Model,” we should be seeking to offer alternative models for science and religion interactions that can both incorporate the range of stances articulated by scholars like Barbour and which can offer an account of the process by which differing attitudes succeed one another.
Yes, and until historians more actively elucidate the most important interaction—where religion is the queen and science the handmaiden—progress will be limited. How are we to understand the evolutionist’s stream of religious mandates (such as here) followed by their insistence that evolution is nothing more than objective science (such as here and here)? I’m afraid all the alternative models historians can suppose will not help until the basic, fundamental assertions of evolutionary thought are acknowledged.
For a start the full content of the paper is behind a pay firewall. I wonder too if CH has read the actual paper because the quotes above are only from the abstract...
ReplyDeleteCornelius,
ReplyDelete"With the incessant drumbeat of the warfare thesis—the conviction that, where they interact, religion and science are in conflict—amongst pundits and the media, one occasionally wonders if historians are working hard enough."
The media is well aware of all the nuances of this debate. They are not misinformed. They are evolutionists and secularists who are using the war thesis to promote their worldview. In their reporting the expert who agrees with their view is the featured and no one else exists.
.
It seems even this author sees the conflict hypothesis as descriptive, with regards to evolution (Olson, p. 78):
ReplyDelete"In a very few cases, there is the kind of direct confrontation between subgroups of religious figures and subgroups of scientists that the conflict thesis effectively highlights— such, for example is the current confrontation between American biblical literalists and evolutionary biologists regarding the origin and modification of species—but even here, I would call your attention to the fact that literalists still represent a minority of American Christians and that for most biologists, the issue is primarily an issue of professional power and authority, a-la-Turner. The key question is, who shall have the authority to determine the criteria by which some claim is judged to be scientific, and to control science curricula—scientists or those who speak on behalf of a particular religious position."
And I wonder how this will be resolved. Somehow I doubt re-branding science as theology because of adherence to methodological naturalism, and joining the DI culture wedge is going to solve the conflict.
Or am I mistaken, and is Hunter saying "In fact it [evolution] is arguably far more dangerous than racism and homophobia" part of a moderate approach to dialogue with evolutionary biologists?