Nancey Murphy - Bridging Science and Faith: The Power of Critical Realism

Summary

In this conversation, the speakers discuss the relationship between science and theology, particularly the theme of realism. They explore the historical and philosophical underpinnings of realism in both fields, examining the legacy of thinkers like Descartes, and contrasting realism with its opposites, such as anti-realism in science and theological non-realism. They highlight how modern perspectives on science and theology increasingly reject simplistic or purely subjective views, offering a more nuanced understanding of knowledge. The dialogue underscores the importance of critical realism in both domains, especially in light of contemporary challenges like social constructivism.

Takeaways

• 😀 Realism in both science and theology holds that there is an independent reality that our theories aim to describe or explain.
• 😀 The debate on realism in science has its roots in modern philosophy, particularly in the work of René Descartes, who emphasized the mind's role in understanding the world.
• 😀 Anti-realism challenges the idea that theories accurately reflect external reality, instead suggesting that our understanding is shaped by perception or social context.
• 😀 In science, anti-realism suggests that while we can gather data, we can never fully know the underlying reality, as everything is mediated by our senses and cognitive processing.
• 😀 In theology, anti-realism proposes that religious statements are more expressions of human consciousness and awareness than objective claims about the divine.
• 😀 The rise of social constructionism has influenced both science and theology, suggesting that knowledge is not purely objective but shaped by societal and cultural factors.
• 😀 Philosophers like Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn challenged realism by emphasizing falsifiability in science and the role of incommensurable paradigms in scientific progress.
• 😀 The concept of 'verisimilitude' (closeness to truth) is crucial in discussions of scientific theory progression, particularly when moving between competing theories.
• 😀 Historical figures such as Ian Barber and Arthur Peacocke promoted critical realism, arguing it was a useful framework for understanding both scientific and theological theories.
• 😀 The debate about realism and anti-realism has grown more complex with the rise of relativistic views, making it harder to claim that one theory or worldview is closer to objective truth.

Q & A

What is the primary focus of the conference mentioned in the transcript?

The conference is focused on the relationship between science and theology, specifically the theme of 'The Quest for Consonance in Theology and the Natural Sciences'.

Why does the speaker find the theme of realism in science and theology somewhat strange?

The speaker finds the theme strange because they believe the question of realism in philosophy is outdated and not particularly relevant to modern discussions, as ordinary people generally assume that the real world exists and the focus should be on understanding and explaining it.

What philosophical criticism is discussed regarding modern philosophy and its divergence from ordinary language?

The criticism is that modern philosophy has diverged too far from the way ordinary people use language, particularly when questioning the existence of the real world, which most people take for granted.

What is the argument surrounding optical illusions and our senses mentioned in the transcript?

The argument suggests that since all our knowledge of the world is mediated by our senses and processed through the brain, it's difficult to know whether we are truly in touch with reality or just perceiving optical illusions, thus raising questions about the accuracy of our perceptions.

How does the speaker view the historical role of Descartes in the development of modern philosophy?

The speaker acknowledges that Descartes, as the father of modern philosophy, introduced the idea that knowledge begins with ideas in the mind. However, Descartes' approach also led to the problem of how we can know if the ideas in our mind represent the real world accurately.

What is the distinction between realism and anti-realism in science, as discussed in the transcript?

Realism in science posits that there is an objective reality that scientific theories aim to describe, while anti-realism challenges this by suggesting we can never fully know the underlying reality, only the data or observations generated by it.

How did the logical positivists of the 1920s approach the question of realism in science?

The logical positivists rejected the idea of reality being mind-dependent (as suggested by Hegelian idealism) and argued for an objective world that can be known, emphasizing that knowledge should be based on verifiable and observable data.

What is the significance of Karl Popper's falsificationism in the context of scientific theory?

Karl Popper's falsificationism asserts that scientific theories should be judged based on their falsifiability, meaning that a theory is valuable if it can be tested and potentially proven false, rather than confirmed through repeated observations.

What is critical realism in theology, and how does it relate to anti-realism?

Critical realism in theology suggests that theological theories can describe objective truths about God and the world, while anti-realism, particularly in modern liberal theology, argues that theological statements are expressions of human religious awareness, not direct statements about God.

How does the sociology of science influence the debate on realism and anti-realism in both science and theology?

The sociology of science introduces the idea that scientific and theological theories are socially constructed and influenced by the cultural and historical contexts in which they arise. This perspective challenges the idea that scientific and theological knowledge can be purely objective, as it is shaped by social factors.