by Paul Pardi
Whatever one's view of religion, one cannot deny its central importance to most humans. As no other human endeavor has garnered more support, produced more antagonists, occupied as much thought, spanned as many nations and epochs, and carried so heavy a burden as religion, it seems fairly safe to say that religion touches the core of human experience. Yet, it is the "trans-human" aspect of religion that explains its significance. For, as Paul Tillich wrote in Christianity and the Encounter of World Religions, "Religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary and which itself contains the answer to the question of the meaning of our life."
Since religion deals with such "transcendent" matters, the burden of inquiry regarding religion lay at the feet of philosophers. Philosophers of religion strive not only to provide insight into truths about a deity or deities (typically materialized as arguments for or against the existence of a god or gods), but they also strive to examine the nature of religion itself. The outcome of this examination ranges from viewing religion as interaction with the transcendent, be it personal or impersonal, to presenting religion as a mere human contrivance aimed at promoting human survival and social order.
Another task undertaken by philosophers is that of analyzing religion vis-à-vis dominating movements in other disciplines. Currently, this role is occupying a significant amount of energy on the part of those doing philosophy of religion. One particular area of interest of late is the relationship between religion and philosophical naturalism. A host of professional conferences are being held, new books and articles on the topic are being written by theists and non-theists, and there seems to be no sign that the trend will subside anytime soon. Those who view religion primarily as a relationship with a transcendent, personal being or beings see naturalism and theism as incompatible. Others who view religion as a social construction are arguing that religion and naturalism can coexist because they deal with different "domains of authority."
The religion-science debate is not new. But it has been given new life by a widespread, almost monolithic commitment to naturalism, which has dichotomized the debate more than it ever was in the past. In a recent issue of Books and Culture, Alvin Plantinga noted that "naturalism is extremely popular at the moment; just about every other issue of the New York Review of Books carries a review of another book intended to interpret ourselves to ourselves along these lines." For Plantinga, naturalism promotes the idea that "there is no such person as God" and humans must be understood apart from any theistic underpinnings. Plantinga himself has been doing an extensive amount of writing about naturalism and its relationship to religion, particularly Christian theism. He argues that not only are arguments for naturalism (as a worldview) fairly weak, but that naturalism's claim to be religiously neutral simply is false. Coming from the Reformed Christian religious tradition, Plantinga views religion as essentially the relation of humanity to God, which then has something to say regarding our relationships to one another.
On the other side of this issue are those trying to promote naturalism as the only rationally viable worldview. The Society of Humanist Philosophers, for example, will host a conference September 25-26, 1999, at the University of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the theme of which is "Science and God: A Naturalist Examination of Cosmology, the Anthropic Principle, and Design Theories." Some of the lecture titles include "A New Critique of Theological Interpretations of Physical Cosmology," "Natural Explanations for the Anthropic Coincidences," and "The Failure of Religious Hypotheses," which are aimed specifically at arguing for naturalism. In addition, the conference will feature a debate between a theist and non-theist entitled "Naturalism vs. Theism: Where Does the Evidence Point?" Finally, Michael Martin and Keith Parsons will be teaching a course, "Naturalism and Its Alternatives," which can be taken for college credit through the society's Center for Inquiry Institute
However, not everyone takes an either/or position. One example of an argument for the "co-existence" approach to naturalism and religion can be found in a new book by the eminent scientist and philosopher Stephen Jay Gould. In Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould, deviating a bit from the position of many of his colleagues, argues for a position he calls NOMA (for Non-Overlapping Magisteria). His argument is that the "domains of authority" for religion and science do not overlap but are concerned with different aspects of the human condition. Science is concerned with facts about the natural world whereas religion can speak authoritatively in the areas of meaning, value, and human purposes (though one might wonder by the end of the book whether religion has any substantive role in Gould’s worldview). Of course, Gould is not saying anything new. However, that someone of his notoriety -- and reputation for being a naturalist -- is seriously entertaining the question given the modern sociological dominance of the scientific community brings into relief the persistence of the issue.
Others are entering the fray as well. This week, for example, the Royal Institute of Philosophy is having a conference on "Naturalism, Evolution and Mind" at the University of Edinburgh. Less than two months from now, September 9-11, 1999, the Science and Religion Forum will hold a conference entitled "Human Significance and Modern Cosmology." Finally, the Society for Indian Philosophy and Religion also is aware of the relevance of the issue and plans to examine it in full August 1-4, 2000, when it will hold an international conference in Calcutta to discuss questions of science, religion and philosophy. It should be noted that, though the Society for Indian Philosophy and Religion approaches philosophy of religion from the specific vantage point of Indian religious and philosophical thought, it has opened its conference to "the philosophical, religious and scientific traditions of the World’s great civilizations." More will be said about this conference at a later date, but it is important to note is that the relation between science and religion is not just a question being entertained by thinkers in the West.
There certainly is going to be much more discussion on the relation between religion and naturalism. The current flurry of discourse is just the fringe of a much greater storm on the horizon. The philosophical community has its work cut out for it.
RELATED LINKS
* "Methodological Naturalism," by Alvin Plantinga