In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

   147 Daniel Garber 5 S Religion and Science, Faith and Reason Some Pascalian Reflections There seem to be two main approaches in the literature to the question of the relation between science and religion. The bad, old approach is exemplified by two books from the nineteenth century: John William Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science and Andrew Dickson White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom .1 Both are classics in the literature, the first written by a scientist in the defense of free inquiry, and the second by an historian, the first president of Cornell University, as part of his brief for a secular university grounded in the sciences. There are some subtle differences in their approaches to the subject. Draper is concerned with religion in general, while White An earlier and very different version of this essay was given to the Divinity School at the University of Chicago as the John Nuveen Lecture in October 2001, and published in Criterion , the magazine published by the Divinity School. Thanks particularly to Lea Schweitz for her help and discussion. But I was very unhappy with the essay, and continued to work on it, giving intermediate versions to various audiences. (Particularly valuable were the extensive discussions over the paper at the 2002 Summer School in Early Modern Philosophy at Macea, Romania. Thanks particularly to Anamaria Pascal and Horia Patapievici for their discussions.) While the version I gave at the Catholic University of America shares some text with the original publication, the point is altogether different. Though I am still not altogether happy with it, I am sending it out into the world again. I would like to thank the audience at the Catholic University of America for its help in bringing the essay to its current and much improved state. 1. John William Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1874); Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1896). Draper’s History had a 21st edition by 1890. 148   Daniel Garber is concerned with theology. Draper’s criticisms are directed against religion as such, while White is more focused against the Roman Catholic Church. But both are united in seeing the two institutions of science and religion as, in some sense, fundamentally opposed to one another. Their stories derive from one particular strand of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment , which sees evil, dogmatic, and anti-rational religion standing against progress, as represented by the new scientific worldview. The key examples of this view might be the condemnation of Galileo in early seventeenth-century Rome and the battle over evolutionism and creationism that started with Darwin and his opponents and continues to the present day. But the more recent literature has a very different tone. According to this view of the matter, there is no real contradiction between science and religion. This view is nicely exemplified in the work of Ian Barbour and his followers. Barbour’s thought about religion and science is centered on a fourfold schema that is supposed to encompass all the views that have been taken.2 The four categories are conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. The views of Draper and White, that religion and science are inherently in conflict, obviously fit into Barbour’s first category. The view that science and religion have their separate and equal domains, and that they co-exist by not interacting with each other, is what Barbour means by independence. Dialogue is the category into which Barbour puts views that stress the similarities between science and religion, while maintaining that they are distinct enterprises: “Dialogue emphasizes similarities in presuppositions, methods, and concepts, whereas Independence emphasizes differences.”3 Finally, integrationists attempt to merge science and theology into a single picture, a natural theology or a theology of nature , or a genuine synthesis of religion and science. Barbour’s sympathies are explicitly with dialogue and integration. He opposes those who see science and religion as in inevitable conflict, and considers independence as an opportunity lost: “compartmentalization avoids conflict, but at the price of preventing any constructive interaction.”4 Barbour then goes on to show how religion and science can enter into dialogue with each other 2. This is the organizing principle in Ian G. Barbour, When Science Meets Religion (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000). 3. Ibid., 23. 4. Ibid., 2. [18.190.156.80] Project MUSE (2024-04...

Share