Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science ((BSPS,volume 225))

  • 322 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations ( New York: Harper and Row, 1963 ), 55.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations,37.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Duhem, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory,ch. VI, “Physical Theory and Experiment,” 218. First published in French, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1972 ), 288.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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 ).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ibid.,ch. 4, “Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition,” 127.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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 ).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge,see especially ch. 3, “Epistemology Without a Knowing Subject,” 106–152.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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 ).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics