Abstract
This chapter looks at the relevance of science-religion courses in the educational field, underlining the necessity of the tools in this domain in order to develop an encompassing consciousness of dialogue, meaning a consciousness of the dialogue structured on the comprehensive dimension, specific to the Ecclesial and Patristic Tradition. From this perspective it is important to avoid the prejudices given by different ideologies which have cultivated reductionist positions. To facilitate the understanding of course content, to diversify the opportunities for concrete educational application, and to offer optimal training of skills to prepare and adapt such knowledge for the different levels this chapter is structured in the synthetic manner.
TopIntroduction
Science and Scientism
Scientism is the ideology which, while concealing the requirements of authentic science, proclaims in the name of science the possibility to get to know the world and the life through science alone. In today’s society, the sociologist Pierre Thuillier summarises the ideology of scientism in three postulates:
- •
Science is the only genuine knowledge.
- •
Science is able to respond to all questions and to solve all practical problems, provided that they are phrased in rational terms.
- •
It is legitimate and desirable to grant to the scientists the responsibility of coordinating activities in a variety of areas.
These premises are rarely explicitly formulated, while slogans cosmetizing ideological narrative are preferred in media coverage, such as ‘science at the service of humanity, progress and liberty’. We can speak of a real myth of science, since through ideologizing science it is granted religious functions. This ideology disregards the need for a rigorous scientific approach, rather seeking to impose a materialistic perspective and a reductive method.
When science meets ideological environments, it is important to have a demarcation of specific narratives. The question of whether science can be exempt from any ideology has become particularly significant over the last hundred years in the context of ideologies devastating for humankind (such as communism) that have claimed to represent science (Marxist science). The ideological narrative is seeking legitimation, in contrast to the scientific one which is descriptive. An ideological position results from a representation of the world that motivates and legitimises certain human practices. The aim of an ideological discourse is not to describe and analyse the functioning of the world, but to achieve and strengthen the cohesion of a particular social group.
The interference between scientific discourse and ideological discourse is risky, especially when rigorously defined concepts with clear meanings are extrapolated to the more general realities. Ideological representations used in scientific discourse are sometimes independent from the authors' intentions. Therefore, a thorough analysis is required in order to discern the scientific content of the discourse from its ideological valences. Thus, the use and manipulate science for propaganda purposes may be avoided, preventing the deliberate spreading of particular ideologies.
Our contemporary society cannot be conceived without the support of science and technology. We can also talk about a mutual support between science and power. Understanding science as power, as Francis Bacon does, has a relevance for the actual world, all the state authorities being interested in promoting some research directions that have the purpose to strengthen economic or political power of a country or of multinational companies. Moreover, science and scientists are forced to answer many contradicting interests of our society. In this case, ethical principles must stand before, established by the corresponding authorities, to avoid the risk of wrong utilization of science results. There is no doubt that science and technology have brought many advantages to humanity, but this doesn’t mean that we must have total confidence in science that it will solve all our problems. Over the time, there were many scholars that pointed that science development may also have negative effects, for the essential reality of human existence. In this case science must remain focused on finding profound truths of reality, and avoid any political or ideological influences, that could create conflicts and tensions between scientists.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Scientism: Scientism represents the denaturation of science by ideologizing the results of the scientific process. This ideologized form of science pretends complacency of human reason. It is believed that through science everything can be explained and foreseen. Science ideologization can appear especially in a morally and religious disoriented society. In this situation, when living the mystery of the divine presence inside man is blurred and, therefore, loses its signification of guiding light of life, being substituted by different shallow ideologies, one of them with a scientific justification desired with any price (Lemeni, 2009 AU15: The in-text citation "Lemeni, 2009" is not in the reference list. Please correct the citation, add the reference to the list, or delete the citation. , p. 263).
Education: If education is that “action that aims to make children a fulfilled man”, this concept can be relevant in understanding the contemporary reports between theology and science, by finding that through specific competencies, both approaches suggest human edification through a polishing process, both being structured like becoming gestures of man in the field of knowledge. Education represents nowadays, most often, a gesture of acquiring information, or skills, but less modeling man inside the paternity that only theology hasn’t disposed of its manifestation process. From a theological point of view, we continue to see education as the gesture through Christ shared to his disciples, in a concrete way, what He Itself was living, namely His divine life. Theological education cannot be a formal gesture of transmitting knowledge (Lemeni, 2009 AU12: The in-text citation "Lemeni, 2009" is not in the reference list. Please correct the citation, add the reference to the list, or delete the citation. , p. 96).
Syncretism: Syncretism represents the denaturation of any kind of dialogue (including the dialogue between theology and science) through diffusing and confusing mixtures. Syncretism involved a double loss, of truth and identity. Unfortunately, in the contemporary world, we find a tendency to use the dialogue between theology and science as a pretext for imposing syncretic gnosis. Especially, results from quantic physics are mixed with elements of oriental religions, with concepts from different religious and philosophical traditions, resulting in a syncretic blend (Lemeni, 2009 AU16: The in-text citation "Lemeni, 2009" is not in the reference list. Please correct the citation, add the reference to the list, or delete the citation. , p. 268).
Epistemology: Actual scientific epistemology can be an opening and meeting frame with different forms of knowledge. Contemporary paradigm of science implies significant epistemological mutations. In actual scientific epistemology, it was recovered the value of sense and symbol in knowledge, developing the possibility of a dialogue between theology and science in the knowledge plan (Lemeni, 2009 AU13: The in-text citation "Lemeni, 2009" is not in the reference list. Please correct the citation, add the reference to the list, or delete the citation. , p. 101).
Incompleteness: In 1902, the logician Bertrand Russel disqualified the certitude given by Cantor’s proofs, presenting his paradox sets. Russel and Alfred Whitehead have developed a strong axiomatic system for framing types of mathematical reasoning in their system. These logical rules were trying to avoid the paradox. The system was, on the other side, very complicated. The mathematician, David Hilbert realized an easier system, trying to include all types of right judgment. He wanted to prove that this system is not contradictious, resulting that mathematics offers certainly knowledge. The essence of Hilbert’s schedule was shattered by the brilliant logician Kurt Gödel. This man, through his theorems of incompleteness, shows that any system with formal rules, large enough that it can contain arithmetical elements, has also unprovable sentences. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem shows that a theory that implies mathematical-axiomatic thinking, cannot be complete, meaning that it can have different internal limits or that cannot completely describe mathematically shaped physical reality. Gödel’s theorem is an expression on what structurally exists in the created reality of the world – meaning the limit. There is a correspondence between Gödel’s logical theorems and Heisenberg’s indetermination principle from quantum physics, by the fact that both express the inherent limitations of each axiomatical thinking or theory. Thereby, a scientific theory cannot pretend anymore that it’s the exclusive result of axiomatical thinking, in which intuition and spiritual experience have no role (Lemeni, 2009 AU14: The in-text citation "Lemeni, 2009" is not in the reference list. Please correct the citation, add the reference to the list, or delete the citation. , p. 141).