Ontological forms of religious meaning and the conflict between science and religion
- PDF / 275,732 Bytes
- 22 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 31 Downloads / 182 Views
Ontological forms of religious meaning and the conflict between science and religion John D. Hathcoat • Janette Habashi
Received: 14 June 2011 / Accepted: 24 September 2012 / Published online: 6 October 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012
Abstract Epistemological constructions are central considerations in vivisecting an expressed conflict between science and religion. It is argued that the conflict thesis is only meaningful when examined from a specific socio-historical perspective. The dialectical relation between science and religion should therefore be considered at both a macro and micro level. At the macro level broad changes in the meaning of science and religion occur; whereas at the micro level individuals immersed within particular expressions of these concepts socially construct, re-construct, and appropriate meaning. Specific attention is given to expressions of meaning surrounding sacred texts in this dialectical relation. Two ontological forms of meaning are examined through a qualitative content analysis of 16 interviews with individuals from various religious affiliation and academic attainment. A monistic ontology constructs textual meaning as facts that have the qualities of being both self-evident and certain. Potential tension arises with scientific discourse given empirical evidence may either confirm or conflict with scriptural interpretation. The pluralistic ontology constructs textual meaning with multiple categories, which in turn have the qualities of being mediated by human consciousness and uncertain. The science-religion dichotomy appears to be less susceptible to conflict given the uncertainty embedded in this construction of scriptural meaning. This paper implies that truth as correspondence may not necessitate the conflict thesis. Keywords
Science Religion Conflict Realism Ontology Epistemology
Since the publication of Religion in an Age of Science by Ian G. Barbour (1990) the degree to which science and religion are said to be compatible has been at the forefront of academic discourse. Barbour (2000), very broadly speaking, argued that science and Lead Editor: E. Taylor. J. D. Hathcoat (&) Stillwater, OK, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. Habashi Tulsa, OK, USA
123
368
J. D. Hathcoat, J. Habashi
religion may be interrelated in one of the following ways: (1) Conflict—science and religion are inherently incompatible, (2) Independence—science and religion ask different questions and use distinct methodologies, (3) Dialogue—science and religion engage in joint problem solving activities, and (4) Integration—theological doctrine and science are complementary. Whether or not one agrees with Barbour’s typology, it is evident that the appropriation of scientific discourse remains challenging for many religious believers (Ayala 2000). Conversely, particular expressions of religious discourse appear to be problematic for many advocates of science (e.g. Dawkins 2006). Though many individuals fail to construe a conflict between science and religion (Sch
Data Loading...
