For more information about religion and science issues go to www.metanexus.net
A Report on Wentzel van Huyssteen's Talk
"Deconstructing the Postmodern Challenge to Science and Religion."
Presented by
Reuben Wetherbee and Patrick Danner
The title of this particular lecture is "Deconstructing the Postmodern
Challenge to Science and Religion", a daunting topic to say the least,
and it was given by Professor J. Wentzel van Huyssteen (I had the good fortune
of meeting the good professor beforehand, and he seemed goodnatured as well
as having a sense of humor about himself). But as intimidating as the title
was, the lecture was actually quite intelligible.
Billy then proceeded to read Professor van Huyssteen's resume. The fact
that he was from South Africa struck me immediately, and I imagine he may
have many interesting stories regarding the politics of academia, as well
currently at the Princeton Theological Seminary, and will have three new
books published in the spring. Billy concluded his comments with his trademarked
plea to those present to move to the front rows.
And so we begin the synopsis of the fourth lecture. Wentzel declared that
he was delighted to be here for the first time. He mentioned that he was
impressed by the scope of the course. He then began to advance into his
lecture by commenting on how complex religion and science are. He said that
the postmodernist challenge was one of the most complex aspects of the whole
debate. He asserted that most people would agree that there is much energy
in this dialogue (and I must confess to agreeing with him, as would anyone
who reads our listserver's articles), and it is an exciting intellectual
event in itself. As our class has shown us, and he proceeded to remark upon
(I must say it was quite heartening to be able to comprehend what he was
saying), this is a complex issue, so that no simple generalizations are
valid.
His comments on the similarities between religion and science included ideas
we have seen in Barbour, as well as some that were refreshingly new. Science
and religion have no discrete or separate identities, and are constantly
subject to shifting boundaries. Both exist in social and historical contexts,
as well as exist within living, developing, and changing modes of reflection.
(I did not fully grasp it then, but as the lecture progressed I realized
that these statements are the core of the postmodern challenge). Culture
has been determined by the sciences, which are considered to be the apex
of rational thought.
Theologians take conflict as a challenge and try to create a dialogue, as
well as trying to identify faith as an autonomous unit. (At this point I
was forced to wonder if there are any theologians who are atheists, and
simply study how peoples perceive God in their surroundings.) Although it
is faith that keeps the dialogue going, it encourages stereotypes that can
cause further conflict. He commented on the now familiar perceptions that
science is superior since it is rational and deals with evidence and falsifiable
theories, while religion is based on faith in defiance of empirical evidence.
The view of science as an alternative over superstition is too simple a
picture, and it is necessary to dig deeper and respect the complexities
of a shared epistemological pattern. (I understood just by looking at the
title of the lecture that this is complex. So much so that I thought using
the word about five times in the first ten minutes was a little redundant.)
The good professor touched on the familiar scientific materialism / Biblical
literalism situation as well as the whole perception of conflict, and pointed
out similarities in structure and goals.
Professor van Huyssteen then expanded to talking about how sometimes scientific
minds shift when they reach the limits of the own work and think of science
as a surer path to God. With the advances in relativity and quantum theory
science can now approach the ultimate questions. (When I get my physics
doctorate, I promise to come back and give a thoroughly indecipherable lecture
on the subject.) Mentioned were some of Paul Davis' ideas regarding the
mystery of the end of the universe and the search for other modes of knowledge.
Now he began to discuss the postmodernist challenge aspect of the situation
in regard to an understanding of the shortcomings of science when dealing
with quasi-theological claims. Feminists criticize scientists like Davis
because they believe that statements made with the authority of science
are, in fact, intertwined with preconceived patriarchal notions. (I think
I would have enjoyed an elaboration of the feminist argument, if only for
the entertainment value of hearing the basis upon which an extremist group
criticizes science (note: the criticism probably actually is in regard to
why this is not science), but as our lecturer often said, he wished he had
time to describe in greater detail as well.)
Although such claims by scientists are welcomed by theologians, statements
of that type may indeed uphold a patriarchy. He said it is difficult to
envision what a postmodernist form of science would look like, and I'm not
going to bother to try, since it'll probably never happen. Is it really
possible to change modes of thought? I doubt it, but we may see some interesting
ideas in the remainder of the course (if I'm correctly guessing what lies
ahead for us as a class, which is no guarantee). (Supposedly) this patriarchy
is so well established that it can not only be seen, but it can be predicted
who will accept it. Postmodernism is a serious challenge to the modernist,
who believes that there is only one reality, and views science and religion
in the way that Barbour is trying to progress beyond (science: rational
progress to all answers, God: transcendent, powerful).
There is an attempt to interpret the world in new and broader ways. Different
values shape the way we think. Postmodernism severely challenges not science,
but attempts to measure the importance of narrative scientific knowledge
(the word narrative immediately called Berry and Swimme to mind). The notion
of story is important for theologians as well as philosophers of science.
While the modernist believed that science was uninterpretable, post-modernism
shows it to be theory-laden. It breaks down the boundaries between objective
spectator and participants.
The post-modernist challenge to science as progress, as a valid means of
inquiry, and its global applications, is formidable. It views science as
a dynamic process, grounded in social practices. Here Professor van Huyssteen
touched on the separate realms of constructive and deconstructive postmodernism.
He then talked about Joseph Rouse, a postmodernist who argues for a simpler,
narrative form of science. Among Rouse's ideas are: science tells a story
until it can be researched, stories are important in everyday life (believe
me, a physics lecture makes a great bedtime story; I can fall asleep quicker
in class than I can at night), and we would do better to take science's
own claims with no further additives (the rest of the audience found the
fact that this was termed Californian amusing).
The lecture then went the direction of evaluating the effects that have
come from post-modernism on the dialouge between science and religion. Since
post-moderism tends to deconstruct everything in sight and break down any
sense of truth or certainty, a sort of "retreat to certainty"
sometimes occurs. People get fed up and say "Well hey, something has
got to be true." He gave the example that when some Protestants are
cornered, they may tend to stop arguing and start preaching. People tend
to run back to their own private clubhouses where everyone speaks the same
language and shares the same world-view.
Many of these reactions are against the post-modernist acceptence of pluralism.
He pointed out that pluralism can cause a kind of isolation between theologians,
philosophers, and scietists. I saw this as sentiment that you can believe
what you believe, and I'll believe what I believe, but don't you dare try
to convince me that your ideas could possibly be "better" than
mine in any way. Therefore, dialouge is avoided for fear of cramming your
ideologies down someone's throat. What the result of this is a whole bunch
of little communities not talking to each other.
One thing that he kept coming back to is that post-modernism is quite a
complex thing. One of the challenges to Christianity is to redo "faith
in God" with rationalism. Because of the challenges of deconstructionism,
religion has been seen as too much story and not enough fact. Where faith
was all important in the past, now issues of rationality and credibility
are raised. Are Christians convinced that Christianity is the most adequate
interpreation of the world as understood by science? (I think that one problem
that can occur here is that religion can be turned into an academic discipline
and lose any meaning that it might have had.)
But he then points out that it gets even more complex as the shaping of
rationality itself is brought into question. Before post-modern times one
could at least say, "Yes that makes sense." Post-modernism can
even take apart what it means to make sense. Rational discourse is no longer
a safe place to hold discussions.
The big question that he asks is, "How can we possibly have a meaniful
conversation in this post-modern world." For instance, for theology
the post-modern shift makes it tough to be able to discuss the idea of revelation
with scientist. There is no common link. We are just a bunch of little communities
talking amugnst ourselves (to quote Paul Baldwin) not having the ability
or the langauge to communicate with other camps of thought.
What he suggest's that the answer to this problem is to find the ways in
which post-modernism could still allow a discourse. Some of these similarities
are they are both culture dependent. They can both be seen historically,
and they also share fallibility and a lack of certainty. But science and
religion still are quite different and he points out that an ultimate faith
in God may be very different then a "belief" in science.
The quite receptive audience then had a chance to ask some questions. Since
I felt some of them were just plain dumb, I'll focus on the more relevant
ones. One thing that was brought up is that the fragmentation and specialization
of education has made it quite impossible for any conversation to occur.
His answer was that there is still good opportunities for conversation,
but they must be on a smaller level. I think that fractionalization has
perhaps been the greatest reason for the lack of discourse that is now occuring.
It used to be that science was a kind of theology and theology was a kind
of science.
Some ideas of Arthur Peacock were brought up that there has always been
this need to combine religion and science. The problem is that in many cases,
one can't do it on a grand scale. When one is forced to choose one viewpoint
or another conflict arises. That is why I like this class. We can discuss
for example, an all-knowing God versus free will, but not be in agreement
at all about salvation doctrine. Big questions can "get in the way."
The importance of small conversations is key.
Another point that was brought up is that it has taken science a long time
to "fess up" to the fact that they must have "faith"
in what they are doing.
In his closing statement he pointed out that there is an ambivalence toward
open discussion between religion and science that is being created by post-modernism.
Many are withdrawing back to thier private clubhouse where they can be safe
from attack. This is balanced against the thought that the boundaries that
have in the past made a sharp distinction between religion and science are
now dissapearing.