Doctor Mama Amon
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 30, 2018
- 2,089
- 2,725
- Thread starter
- #21
A response to Sexless: Are contacts between religious and scientific knowledges always and everywhere antagonistic?
I. Introduction
Sexless is trying to answer the question: Given that knowledge is justified true belief, and since reveled knowledge and reasoned knowledge are two types of knowledge, each based on its unique source, is the relationship between two always convergent or they are sometimes divergent, to the extent that, one does not know where to stand in case of divergency?
But, I suggest that his answer is unsuccessful, with reasons provided below.
The claim that, "Religion and science are two antagonistic disciplines" does not obtain everywhere and every time. In fact, it is just one of the many views on the possible relations between faith and reason, and it is too shallow, as I shall soon show.
The key philosophical issue regarding the problem of faith and reason is to work out how the authority of faith and the authority of reason interrelate in the event where a religious belief is justified by scriptures as true and simultaneously rejected as false by science.
With reasons provided, I shall argue for the position according to which faith reason encounter is both convergent in some senses and divergent in some other senses.
Concerning the claim that, "For many years scientists have criticized church doctrines that they lack experimental proof," is an over exaggeration.
Only some of the "church doctrines" have been criticized along this line. In some case the church surrendered and retreated where scientific evidence was overwhelming, while in other areas the church resisted based on "an argument from transcendental mysterianism."
The "argument from transcendental mysterianism" can, and should stand, where there is no contrary empirical and/or logical evidence, which has been produced via he scientific method of inquiry or it is the case that the subject matter is not accessible via the scientific method of inquiry.
As we stand today, no one doubts that, science and technology have had a major impact on society, and their impact is growing. It has had two key functions: to enable us to know things, and to enable us to do things.
Drastically it has changed our means of communication, the way we work, our housing, clothes, and food, our methods of transportation, and, indeed has changed, even the length and quality of life itself. It has also generated changes in the moral values and basic philosophies of mankind.
Specifically, according to Russel (1953:6), the scientific outlook which emerged in the 18th century, the modern world is mainly governed by a philosophy according to which:
- (1) Statements of facts, as opposed to statements of values, should be based on observation, not on unsupported and sectarian authority (argument from subjective authority);
- (2) The inanimate world is a self-perpetuating system in which all changes conform to natural laws, as opposed to supernaturally revealed laws;
- (3) The earth is not the center of the universe; and
- (4) The concept of "teleological cause," as opposed to "efficient cause," is a concept which is scientifically useless. (Russel 1953:6)
Accordingly, in a given domain of knowledge, Scriptures can, and should be our vital references for whatever transformation we want to make in the church, if and only if there is no superior sources of knowledge, which forcefully contradicts their claims. This position is supported by the following historical precedents:
- The Biblical claim that the sun revolves around the earth has been defeated by scientific evidence from astronomy.
- The Biblical claim that God created humans on the seventh day has been defeated by the scientific evidence from the Darwinian theory of evolution.
- The Biblical claim that God sustains the planetary system in its physical equilibrium has been defeated by the physics of Newtonian laws of motion.
- The primitive claim that each and every penis-to-vagina sexual act cumulatively contributes to the coming to be of pregnancy (the homunculus theory) has been overturned by the modern reproduction theory, according to which pregnancy results from the fertilization of one ovum by one sperm.
- The Biblical claim that human sexuality is a binary variable which can assume male or female values has been overturned by genetics which reveals that human sexuality is a non-binary variable which can assume values such as male, female, eunuch, intersex, and so on.
- And the Biblical claim that humans have an immaterial attribute called a soul have been overthrown by genetics which posits a material attribute of DNA as a specific difference between human animals and non-human animals.
As such, "fundamentalism, conservatism and penguinism" which are blind to scientific evidence, as Sexless says, are not, and can not be, universal cornerstones of all church doctrines, and have never been.
However, I agree with Sexless concerning the claim that fundamental social and religious doctrines should not be allowed to change according to particular cultural interests of some people, since culture is always spatial-temporally relative while there are some anthropological truths which are universals across cultures.
In a sense then, the "pope wants to merge science and church doctrines" in cases where church doctrines have either been superseded by scientific evidence, or it has been established that the two overlap. In the case, faith and reason are like two wings of human knowledge.
I shall fully explain this conclusion below for the benefit of those who have never dived into the waters of faith-reason encounter discourse.
II. Understanding the problem of faith and reason encounter
Human knowledge can be acquired via various sources. These sources of knowledge can be categorized into several main types, including sense experience, authority, reason, intuition, revelation and faith. Each of these sources offers a unique perspective on acquiring knowledge. Here’s a brief explanation of each:
Sense Experience: Sense experience involves gathering information through our five senses—sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. This type of knowledge is based on direct observation and interaction with the world around us. For example, seeing a rainbow, feeling the warmth of a fire, or tasting a ripe fruit are all examples of knowledge gained through sense experience.
The main constraint to senses is species-specific cognitive closure. This means that we lack representational access to the correct reality of some part of the world.
This is to say that, the human mind is representationally closed to the answers to certain problems, not because those problems are inherently more difficult than solvable scientific problems, but because the particular structure of our minds obstructs understanding of their answers.
Reason: Reason is the use of logical and rational thinking to acquire knowledge. It involves critical thinking, deductive and inductive reasoning, and evaluating evidence and arguments. Reasoning allows us to analyze information, draw logical conclusions, and make informed judgments. Through reason, we can identify cause-and-effect relationships, recognize patterns, and make logical deductions. Reasoning is crucial in scientific inquiry, problem-solving, and decision-making.
The main constraint to senses is species-specific imaginative closure. This means that we lack imaginative access to the correct representation of some part of the world.
This is to say that, the human mind is imaginatively closed to the answers to certain problems, not because those problems are inherently more difficult than solvable scientific problems, but because the particular structure of our minds obstructs understanding of their answers.
Authority: Authority as a source of knowledge involves relying on the expertise and credibility of others who possess specialized knowledge or experience in a particular field. This can include experts, professionals, scholars, or individuals in positions of authority. Authority can provide knowledge by consulting reliable sources, such as academic research, expert opinions, or trusted publications. We often turn to authority when we lack personal expertise or when the information is beyond our direct experience.
Intuition: Intuition is a source of knowledge that relies on instinctive or “gut” feelings without conscious reasoning or evidence. It involves a deep understanding or insight gained without apparent logical processes. Intuition is often associated with subconscious information processing and drawing on past experiences. It can manifest as a “hunch” or an immediate understanding of a situation without being able to articulate why. While intuition can be influential in decision-making, it is subjective and can vary between individuals. Intuitions sometimes conflict.
Revelation (Faith): Revelation refers to knowledge that is believed to be revealed by a divine or supernatural source. It is often associated with religious or spiritual experiences in which individuals claim to receive direct communication or insight from a higher power. Revelation can provide profound insights into religious doctrines, moral principles, or metaphysical truths. However, it is subjective and personal, relying on individual experiences or claims of divine intervention. This source has the same problem as intuition. Sometimes one claims to know something by means of revelation. For example, “It was revealed to me in a dream” (or a vision).
Faith: According to some contemporary philosophers of religion faith has two rather different meanings. As a trusting and confident attitude toward God, faith (fiducia) may be compared with trust in one’s fellow human beings. Asa cognitive act or state whereby men are said to know God or to have knowledge about him, faith (fides) may be compared with our perceptual awareness of our material environment or our knowledge of the existence of other persons”
This seems to mean that principally faith can be separated from a truth-claim about its object and be confined only to the realm of attitude and action. On the first view, faith is an affective or emotional matter or a matter of the will; it is not a cognitive or intellectual affair. In this sense, the question of the rationality of faith cannot properly arise, because faith is an ultimate commitment that cannot be adjudicated by anything prior or external to itself.
As such it can be rational to have faith even if it is not rational to believe in God’s existence. This is a non- cognitive interpretation of faith. Thus, with these two elements – cognitive claims about God and specific attitudes toward Him – faith can be assessed by both theoretical and practical rationality.
In short, these sources of knowledge are not mutually exclusive, as they can interact and complement each other. For example, scientific discoveries may be based on both sense experience and reason, while religious beliefs may incorporate elements of faith and revelation. Critical thinking and evaluating evidence are important for assessing the reliability and validity of knowledge gained through these various sources.
Thus, faith and reason are both sources of authority upon which beliefs can rest. This implies that there are cases where one needs to employ faith alone (Sola Fides) because the subject or phenomenon in question may be mysterious. On the other hand, a situation may warrant the use of human reason (Sola ratio), for example, man (Adam) uses his intellect and ingenuity in christening (naming) all animals created by God.
Against this background, the contacts between faith and reason can be discussed at two different levels. The first level of contact is called Religious Epistemology which deals with the rational status of the basic claims of faith. And the second level deals with the relationship between a data set available to the human mind through revelation and a data set available to human mind therethrough his senses and reason.
From the above sources of knowledge, we can get two types of knowledge, namely prior knowledge (a priori knowledge) and posterior knowledge (a posteriori knowledge).
Prior knowledge is a type of knowledge that a person has when they know some fact without having any evidence from experience; their justification for knowing it comes simply from thought, revelations or intuition.
Posterior knowledge is a type of fact that a person knows because they have evidence from their experiences that supports the fact being true. This evidence might come from their senses, from memory, or from what other people tell them.
Given the fact species-specific cognitive closure, it follows that, posterior knowledge faces cognitive closure limitations while prior knowledge does not.
Thus, regarding the relationship between the data of revelation and the data of reason, pace cognitively closed knowledge which can only be accessed via revelations, we either have convergence or divergence. The question then is how do we set priorities in the case of divergence.
III. Management of faith-reason encounters in Christianity
Given the above problem statement, is there a conflict between religious faith and secular reason in Christianity? The answer is both "yes" or "no" but depending on which knowledge domain is under consideration.
Historically, the relationship between the world and the church has continually been one of the most controversial points within Christian thought.
There have been rough periods of indistinguishability between the church and the world, and there have also been great times when Jesus might describe the church as being like the unhidden city on a hill–shining its light brilliantly towards the people and reflecting the light of the Father. Throughout all these times, the constant question has been how Christians should balance theology with Greek philosophy.
Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian of Carthage possessed opposite opinions on this matter. Both Clement and Tertullian believed and practiced Christian theology as truth, but they each approached the involvement of pagan philosophy in Christian theology in completely different ways.
Clement
On one hand, Clement, was a liberally-minded intellectual and philosophical Christian. He attempted to synthesize Christian belief with Greek culture, namely Platonism. He focused primarily on appealing to the truth that was found in Platonic interpretation in order to connect it to Christian theology. Although he still appealed to divine revelation as being a source of understanding, Clement proposed the concept of harmonizing divine revelation with philosophical ideas.
However, Clement was not an advocate for reducing Christian thought to that of mere philosophy or lifestyle to make it more appealing or acceptable to the culture. His point was that of analogizing philosophy to a puzzle with a missing piece; the gospel of Christ was what the pagans were missing, and prompting them towards that conclusion was Clement of Alexandria.
There is one thing about Platonism that Clement did find so appealing and conductive towards the understanding of Christian truth. Unlike the early pantheonic Greek system of belief, Platonism rejected the idea of a pantheon of gods and goddesses. Instead, they focused on a singular and ultimate spiritual reality.
To Clement, the right kind of philosophy was a work of Divine Providence, or the truth revealed to those who did not have the methods to acquire the answers that Jerusalem had. Clement’s perspective proposed that philosophical thought was God’s way of preparing the Greeks for Christ, just like the Old Testament Law for the Jews. In the best of Greek interpretive philosophy, Clement found the echoes of Christian truth that could lead philosophical minds to Christ.
Tertullian
On the other hand, Tertullian (155-240 AD) once wrote: “What indeed has Jerusalem to do with Athens, the Church with the Academy, the Christian with the heretic?… After Jesus we have no need of speculation, after the Gospel no need of research.”
Athens, in Greece, was the Home of Philosophers. It was the center-stage of Western philosophy for centuries, starting with Socrates and his student Plato who founded his own school of philosophy there in 387 BC, calling it, very creatively, ”The Academy”.
Jerusalem, in Israel, was the Home of Theologians. It refers to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Tertullian concluded that the former did not require additional sources than what was within the Christian faith and belief.
Generally Tertullian’s opinion on theology is often represented by his famous rhetorical question: “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”
In other words, Tertullian allowed questioning and seeking within the boundaries of apostolic succession and the apostolic rule of faith. Outside sources used for supplementation, and especially interpretation, of the witness to the truth of Christ–truth that transcends all human inquiry and investigation–was reserved for divine revelation alone. Tertullian believed Athens (Greek philosophy) should have nothing to do with Jerusalem (Christian theology).
Tertullian’s goal in dividing Greek philosophy from Christian theology was to produce a purely Christian system of belief that remained untainted by pagan or secular modes of thinking.
The truth, he would argue, does not need lies to help it be explained or supported. He drove home his point that the most important knowledge is consistent with and in conformity to the apostolic message of Christ.
Tertullian rejected the practice of explaining Christian theology by using foreign philosophical ideas, writing, “The Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed because it is absurd. And he was buried and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible.” According to Tertullian, science and philosophy could not lead one to religious faith.
Yet, the two great minds of the Church in the fourth century, Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, would travel from Asia Minor to Athens in order to study at its university while still laymen in their early 20s, and take from the ‘non-Christian’ education tools that would serve the Church for the rest of their lives!
A synthesis
To this day, neither perspective on the matter rings more true than the other. In their fullest capacity, they can both become helpful and harmful to the face and fact of Christianity. To be in the world is to know its own values and philosophies. To be of the world, however, is to adopt those values along with the Christian theological values.
There is a fine balance between the two that was not practiced perfectly by Clement or Tertullian. Tertullian, who attempted to protect the Christian faith, shut himself off from the rest of the world. He didn’t utilize the surrounding culture as a way to gauge if his thinking was reasonable. On the other hand, Clement, in his attempt to synergize the philosophical with the theological, allowed the truth unrelated to Christ to change his theological interpretations and teachings.
The city on a hill that cannot be hidden is supposed to protect itself, but not at the expense of shutting out the surrounding people. It is supposed to synthesize itself with the people, but it should not surrender its values in consequence.
An excessive amount of fortification against culture puts the basket over the light, extinguishing it, and too much accommodation of culture begins to reflect the light of the culture rather than the Father.
There comes a state of vigilance to maintain the balance between the two opposite ideals. Protect yourself from the infiltration of unbiblical values, but don’t hide your light. Administer yourself to the culture that surrounds you, but don’t allow that culture to introduce improper interpretations of what we believe to be true. A proper combination of both paradigms allows us to live in the world, and yet remain unstained by it
Thus, while there is still great disagreement about the question today on many frontiers my own view is that faith and reason are like two wings on which a person rises to the contemplation of truth. If either wing is broken, you can only get so far. They’re complementary goods, as the following two examples demonstrate.
A good example comes from "counting systems," which is a case for the mutual dependence between "mathematical faith and mathematical reasoning." There are many numbering systems, as we can count in base 2, base 3, base, 4, base 5, base 10, base 16 and so on. The base of the "counting systems" tells us the number of digits with which we can count. For example, base two has two digits only (0,1); base two has three digits only (0,1,2), base four has four digits only (0,1,2,3), base five has five digits only (0,1,2,3,4), and so on.
We use a given "counting systems" based on the belief that the set of digits it embraces is useful enough for us while doing the work of counting. Based on this belief the counting process, which involves permutations and combinations, is a purely rational system.
This way, faith in a given base and reason related to digital permutations and combinations, are like two wings on which a person rises to the contemplation of truth. Similarly, Biblical faith and biblical reasoning actually work very well together this way.
In general, faith is a prerequisite for reason. In order to reason about anything we must have faith that there are laws of logic which correctly prescribe the correct chain of reasoning. Since laws of logic cannot be observed with the senses, our confidence in them is a type of faith.
The Christian believer expects to find a standard of reasoning that reflects the thinking of the biblical God; that’s what laws of logic are. Since laws of logic are necessary for reasoning, and since the Christian faith is the only faith system that can make sense of them,8 it follows that the Christian faith is the logical foundation for all reasoning.
On the other hand, the unbeliever cannot account for laws of logic with his or her own worldview. This isn’t to say, of course, that non-Christians cannot reason. Rather, it simply means they are being inconsistent when they reason; they are borrowing from a worldview contrary to the one they profess.
Since reason would be impossible without laws of logic, which stem from the Christian faith, we have a very good reason for our faith: without our faith we could not reason. Even unbelievers (inconsistently) rely upon Christian principles, such as logic, whenever they reason about anything. So the Christian has a good reason for his or her faith. In fact, the Christian faith system makes reason possible.
IV. Conclusion
So, my thread, whose argument is criticized by Sexless, sought to answer Tertullian’s contentious question, "What has Athens got to do with Jerusalem?," where "Athens" stands for "irregular situations arising from sexual development disorders" and "Jerusalem" stands for the "binary sexual model" as often described by theologians, who read the Bible with one of their eyes closed to the fact that "eunuchs" constitute a separate natural sexual category.
Finally, I showed that, the distance between the capital cities of Hellenism and Christian revelation, while often difficult to navigate, need not be daunting, if we read the Bible with both eyes open.
It is a distance that must be travelled anew in the twenty-first century, in light of what Pope Francis says about "couples living in irregular situations" in the recent declaration entitled, "Fiducia supplicans."
V. References
1. Abraham Adebanjo Okunade(2023), "Is the Conflict between Faith and Reason real or imaginary?," Pharos Journal of Theology, 104.1 (Online).
2. Brandan Barbee(2021), Church History Snapshot: “What Indeed Has Athens to Do With Jerusalem?” (Online)
3. Mohsen Javadi (2019), "Faith, Reason and Revealed Knowledge in the View of Shia Scholars," Journal of Philosophical Theological Research, 21.81: 59-۔72
4. Phillip Chia and Juanda Juanda (2020), Understanding The Relationship Between Faith And Knowledge, Didaskalia 3.1:1-6.
5. Bertrand Russel(1953), The Impact of Science on Society (London: Simon & Schuster)