Abstract
Stripped of its seventeenth and eighteenth century Deistic, if not theistic, sensibility, science entered the twentieth century as agnostic and indifferent, if not outrightly antagonistic, toward religion. Religion was often viewed as the enemy of modern science; and its theology was presumed to be intellectually vacuous. “Real science” was clearly understood to be objective, empirical and rational. It bore no relationship to theology, none of any cognitive import — except perhaps to eliminate theology as contributing toward any understanding of the cosmos. This view of the relationship between science and religion was further reinforced by logical empiricism. In the latter’s view science aimed to establish empirically testable, generalized explanations of observable but problematic phenomena. Such phenomena might be freely falling bodies or the deviation of a planet from the expected path of its usual orbit. As the phrase “logical empiricism” suggests, in its view the objectivity of science rested with an evidential base of empirical facts, facts which were independent of any hypothesized theory under question and available to all through sense observation. And the rationality of science was ascribed to the logical testability of its explanatory hypotheses.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations ( New York: Harper and Row, 1963 ), 55.
Popper, Conjectures and Refutations,37.
Pierre Duhem, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory,translated from the 1914 French edition by Wiener (New York: Atheneum Press, 1954), II, ch. VI, 180–190.
Duhem, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory,ch. VI, “Physical Theory and Experiment,” 218. First published in French, 1906.
Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1972 ), 288.
See W.H. Newton-Smith, The Rationality ofScience (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981 ), chs. III - VI for a critical examination of this development in Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn, and Feyerabend. A more recent, but briefer, presentation of the development of the unit of scientific rationality is provided by Eman McMullin, “The Shaping of Scientific Rationality” in E. McMullin, ed., Construction and Constraint: The Shaping of Scientific Rationality ( Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990 ).
Popper, Conjectures and Refutations.
Ibid.,ch. 4, “Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition,” 127.
See Nancy Murphy, Theology in an Age of Scientific Reasoning (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990) for an exemplary treatment of a theological rationality which parallels scientific rationality. For an up to date comprehensive treatment of a “postfoundationalist” rationality across the disciplines of science and theology see J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, The Shaping o`Rationality: Toward Interdisciplinarity in Theology and Science ( Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1999 ).
Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge,see especially ch. 3, “Epistemology Without a Knowing Subject,” 106–152.
Despite Edward O. Wilson’s more recent and more sophisticated appreciation of the philosophical presuppositions of his evolutionary enterprise, he begins Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998) pleading guilty to anticipated charges of “ontological reductionism, scientism” only to dismissively call for moving on! 11.
A good place for Anglo-American philosophers to enter Heelan’s hermeneutical philosophy of science is Ch. 1, “Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, and Philosophy of Science,” and Ch. 13, “Hermeneutics and the History of Science,” in his work Space-Perception and the Philosophy of Science (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983 ).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Balestra, D. (2002). In-between Science and Religion. In: Babich, B.E. (eds) Hermeneutic Philosophy of Science, Van Gogh’s Eyes, and God. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 225. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1767-0_32
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1767-0_32
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5926-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1767-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive