The Forbidden Gospel by April DeConick

The Humanities and Science

Posted: 05 Sep 2013 06:54 AM PDT

This semester I am teaching a course on cognitive science and religion.  It is called The Bible and the Brain, and I am writing a book under the same title.  The course is exploring ways that religion can be better understood when we take into consideration the cognitive abilities and limitations of human beings.  More on these ideas as the semester progresses.

As I am teaching this course, I am aware that there continues to be an uproar about whether the humanities should be in dialogue with the sciences and if so to what degree.  Steven Pinker has written for the New Republic an impassioned plea for humanities' scholars to get with it and engage the sciences HERE. He articulates in this piece a call for humanities scholars to show more interest in science, especially in the downward spiral that is strangling us in the wake of post-modern critique.  There have been many responses, most like Leon Wieseltier, also published by New Republic, HERE. The title of his piece summarizes pages of his own impassioned plea which he calls "Crimes Against Humanities: How Science Wants to Invade the Liberal Arts. Don't let it happen."

There was a time in my life when I was very content to go along teaching and writing what I would call strictly humanities content.  I saw very little connect between anything scientists did and my own work and interests.  That is until I married a physicist.  I realized three things very quickly.

First, the scientific understanding of the world is our reality.  We live it everyday.  We have no choice but to engage it.

Second, scientists are studying the universe and human beings, the same subjects that I study as a humanist, and they have information that is essential to how we all understand ourselves and our world today.  This information is so essential that it will likely alter the way we have been perceiving our academic disciplines.  I see this particularly in terms of cognitive studies and embodiment which can help us reformulate the way we "do" history and understand religion.

Third, if we as humanists don't jump into the conversation that scientists are engaging in very public ways, we will be leaving the interpretation of knowledge about humans and the world to them.  Frankly I think we have been so slow on the uptake that this has already happened. In other words, scientists (and social scientists for that matter) are going to continue to run well-funded experiments on our subjects, subjects that we as humanists hold near and dear.  And then they are going to control its interpretation, when in fact, they know very little about the subjects we study, like religion, for instance.

A case in point.  I read a fascinating book this week by Drs. Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquili, called Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief.  I couldn't put it down, riveted to the results of their SPECT scans on Tibetan monks and Catholic nuns during meditatively induced states of Unitary Being.  Since I study mysticism, their findings really caught my attention.  But what also caught my attention was the fact that their understanding of religion is under the weather so to speak.  They equated religion with a form of mysticism that is relatively recent in human history (derivative of Underhill and James) and tried to overlay that on Neanderthal burial and cult practices.  They argue that all religion originates from someone's mystical experience and that the purpose of religion is to perpetuate those experiences of unitary being.  So here we have scientists with really good experiments, but with little knowledge of the field of religious studies in which to make good sense of them.  But their views are popular and well-cited in the literature.

So from my position, Wieseltier's advice is really bad advice.  If we don't engage the sciences as humanists, we are not just doing ourselves a disfavor, but the public too.  We are leaving the interpretation and popularization of our field open to scientists like Richard Dawkins, rather than doing it ourselves and doing it better.
Rate1

Replies

  • Indeed, this is a typical discussion that occurs in apologetics and other writings as far back as I can find.  Even the New Testament talks about "science so called" and the worship of that which was created instead of the creator.  So, yes this topic has a long history including periods when science, philosophy, and theology shared the same room.  Inevitable they separated and it became clear, eventually, that they could not successfully merge completely.  It is true that "scientists" such as even Galileo professed a strong religious connection.  However, belief systems were extremely convoluted then as they are today.  May today have great trouble separating fact from speculation or "scientific theory" ; not realizing that the definition of theory does not contain the word fact or any word that could imply that.  Indeed the definition of many terms can change a worldview if one permits the true meaning to permeate the mind and place perception and paradigms on the balance.  Most would find, I believe, that science "so called" has been weighed in the balance and found guilty.  Is there a place where science and Theology can fins common ground? Possibly.  But therein lies a danger many do not realize.  The subtleties of this worldly belief system are such that even the very elect might be deceived by them.

    Reply
Sorry but you must be a member of this group to reply to this topic.

This website is powered by Spruz

What Each Area of the Site is Meant For: Blogs - This is your personal space. This is where you should post thoughts that are not intended for extensive further discussion. Observations from personal study and events that have occurred in your life belong here. Unless your post ends with questions or makes it apparent that discussion is to follow, it should probably be a blog. As discussed later, blogs are limited to those who hold to historic Christian beliefs. Forums - This is for open discussion relating to the topic posted. Dialogue is encouraged to stay on topic, so if a side conversation begins, open a new discussion. This is where the majority of the activity has taken place so far. Topics should remain general in nature, while in depth discussion on narrow topics should take place in groups. Groups - This is a place to congregate with people who have similar interests and positions in order to have open discussion. The conversation in here is not required to remain on topic, so it is more ready to follow rabbit trails. This is where you should go if you want to gather with a particular kind of theologian. Before initiating a new group, we ask that you consider posting a question in the discussion forum area to see if there is enough interest to justify a separate group. The reason we encourage such action is that, in the event that a group is inactive for 6 months or more, the moderators of Scriptural Studies reserve the right to close down and delete the group due to inactivity. Events - This is available to anyone that wants to post an event that you think the members of Scriptural Studies may be interested in. Contact Denis, Rabbi Del, Rifkah, or Marti for more details on advertising. Our Attitude of conduct: In case you missed them on your way in, take some time to become acquainted with the conduct we expect on this site. You may find our Attidudes on the main forum page. Our purpose at Scripural Studies is that the conversations move in a Gracious way. We define Gracious in the following way: 1) Not closed minded 2) Not self-promoting 3) Not characterized by mass amounts of cut-and-paste proof-texting 4) Not characterized by mass amounts of cut-and-paste from other places 5) Irenic 6) Not slanderous 7) No spamming 8) Perpetual venting bitterness 9) Not confusing or disruptive But in all things you'll be welcome here