In looking at the Armstrong and the Barbour readings, I found that it seemed that both authors were ultimately conveying the message of exploring new ways of knowing truth in light of our modern world, but chose different ways of going about it.
Obviously, the Barbour reading was more in-depth than the Armstrong reading, and focused more fully on science. Barbour went about his discussion by looking at claims about religion through the lens of not only the 'hard' sciences, but also examining religion socially and to some extent, psychologically. Armstrong explored modern views on religion both in the scientific and philosophic communities, ultimately offering her alternative to what she sees as the problem with the modern way of perceiving God.
Both authors strive to test the boundaries of the way we perceive God in light of the changes in the world today.
I agree, Armstrong is saying religion needs to be rethought. She explains that a craftsman cannot logically explain why he can make the perfect wheel but he can. That is Armstrong's claim about why there can be something true in religion even though it cannot be explained by logic.
ReplyDeleteBarbour feels the same way in that religion needs to be viewed differently and must adapt to scientific advances. If it does not do so it will become irrelevant as modern people rely more upon logos than mythos.
I noticed that both pieces seem to focus on stereotypes about religion and science. It is noted by both authors that science and religion have two different goals, and ask different questions in the quest for knowledge. Barbour writes that both sides "seek knowledge with a sure foundation" yet the scientific side wants to search through logic and data, and the religious side wants to search through scripture.
ReplyDeleteBarbour explores different ideas about religion and science through different people in history. He explores biblical literalism, which brings us to another point that part of the problem with comparing two sides is how to interpret scripture.
He also points to the problem that it is hard to test religion through experiments and theory. Religion, Barbour states, consists of individual experiences, stories, and rituals. To the scientific community, this is not logical.
Armstrong states that "mythos and logos" in past cultures were both essential and complementary. Logos was reason, a way to function. Mythos was where a person turned to when it came time to think about the meaning of life and understand emotions. Like religion, myths are ways of seeking inner peace and the meaning of life. Like Armstrong states, it was never meant to be an "accurate historical event." This helps calm the conflict between science and religion.
What I took from these two readings, mainly, was that religion and science are based off of different aspects of thinking and purpose. I also noticed that past culture was greatly compared to modern culture, and how this will impact greatly our way of thinking as time goes on.
In comparison of the two authors, it appears that the two share some similarity in regards to style and yet at the same time both of them focuses differently in regards to the ideas of Science and Religion.
ReplyDeleteArmstrong and Barbour shared similar styles by how the two authors seem to focus on either science or religion, but somehow never examining both equally. Armstrong seem to examine science and religion with premodern terms, such as the Greek words "mythos" and "logos" , and I feel that she examined it in regards to premodern cultures and how they became familiar with these concepts in her analysis, but later on she does examine the modern skeptic and how people today tend to rationalize everything. I agree with what she has to say about the modern skeptic because we as a modern society want to know things with concrete factual evident and things that are mysterious are typically shunned because we don't want to just accept, "it is what it is, there are no reasons why." Modern society wants to examine things rationally as mentioned by Armstrong. I must admit that I do this sometimes and refuse to just accept a certain concept without knowing why it happens.
In particular, what I found interesting about Armstrong's analysis is how she went into depth with the concept of myth throughout her argument. The striking part to me was when she mentioned that this concept was up to the audience in order to make the "truth" of a myth, their own reality. At first, I thought about how practitioners of Catholicism interpret the Bible in order to live its message throughout their own lives.
Likewise, Barbour breaks a large concept into smaller sub-categories. However, unlike Armstrong, it appears that Barbour has a stronger favoring towards science rather than religion as evident by how he mentioned specific branches of sciences such as molecular biology, physics, and chemistry in his argument. Personally, I feel like I can relate more to the thoughts of Barbour because I am a biochemistry major and throughout his analysis, Barbour gave specific scientific discoveries, such as the structure of Deoxyribonucleic Acid and how it was responsible for many of the basic mechanisms genetics and biological activities. I can relate to Barbour's examples and analysis because he is giving examples that I personally understand through my own studies.
Overall, I feel the conflict between science and religion in both of these authors analyses, Armstrong when she mentioned how philosophers and scientists begin to see see religious knowledge as something theoretical and not practical. Likewise, Barbour gave some modern day examples in which science and religion struggles to integrate, such as how the power of religion will be gone forever if creation was explained through evolution.
Each of the responses above offered valuable points. However, I do want to raise to the forefront again the issue of 'truth'. I think that it's central to this discussion because neither of the two authors, at least in their stated theses, are attempting to present religion as 'untrue'. Armstrong's piece does do this in a way that can get dangerously close to explaining religion into a story, but still in her stated thesis, her overall point is that truth can be understood in a different way than the way the world sees it today. Both authors agree that religion has truth in it (although we don't get far enough in either reading to see just how far this will take us), but perhaps not truth in the same form we have been accustomed to searching for.
ReplyDeleteI very much liked the distinction that Armstrong made between logos and mythos. As a personal fan of the greek methods of debate I myself will often refer to each argument someone makes by category. I always tend to prefer logos, though pathos and mythos can oftentimes stir a crowd more easily. I especially agree that people turn myths into their own truth and reality. Bibcal scripture has a place in logical discourse not as a set of historical fact but rather a set of stories that may be based in truth.
ReplyDeleteLiteral interpretation of the bible is oftentimes what conflicts with what science has 'proven' at least beyond a reasonable doubt. As Barbour points out, religion must adapt. Pope Benedict has written about the growth of the church over time, offering the idea that God is letting humanity develop slowly.
While I may not especially enjoy that piece by Benedict, it does at least acknowledge that by necessity the church is a dynamic institution. If it is to remain static it would essentially become irrelevant. Nietzsche gets into this idea in his Parable of the Madman.
I would put forth that truth in all religion in equal; that is to say that Catholicism has no greater claim to 'the truth' than Judaism or Hinduism or Zoroastrianism or even the gods of the Greeks or Romans or Egyptians. A faithful will understand why others deny his god when he understands why he denies all other gods.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that they both begin by saying that religion in practical ritual and theology in the academic sense both should be treated as serious subjects worth focusing on. Armstrong focused largely on society's "taming" and domesticating of a god like figure.
ReplyDeleteSimultaneously, De Lubac focuses on a difficult concept requiring the balance between conflict and coexistence of a truth. I like what Andrew said about the literal interpretation of the bible in conflict with scientific fact and its relationship to Armstrong's beliefs. Armstrong focuses on the tendency for the idea behind our religious stories staying around and the myth dropping away.
I think it's difficult to believe something so strongly (our faith) and yet allow aspects of it to change (the transition of what is once held as a fact, changing to an allegory). For example, what once was held as a literal story (i.e. creation) might now be seen as largely symbolic. How do we allow our firm beliefs to be coupled with an ever changing world and can we theoretically out produce religion? Perhaps religion is largely therapeutic and religion has the purpose of calming us as science develops. I'd like to disagree with a belief that "A faithful will understand why others deny his god when he understands why he denies all other gods." As every religion believes, fundamentally, that they have a unique franchise on truth. Our own sacrosanctum concilium tells us that Catholicism is the only truth, though other religions possess a common "Spark of truth."
Here is Jacob's comment. He was having some techincal issues, so I am putting it up for him:
ReplyDeleteIt appears as if each author, both comparatively and individually, discusses the themes of religion and science with respect to different topics surrounding our overall worldview and explanation of practical occurences. I particularly appreciate the depth of Barbour's content analysis regarding the theological topics being discussed. His organization allows the material to be easier to grasp and touches upon a wide variety of points surrounding the subject matter. Both authors utilized a scholarly approach to the subject matter which helped show the different ways in which one could approach the interrelated topics within science and religion.