By Scott Matkovich | 07/11/2024
Religious thought has played an important role in the history of humanity from the ancient to the modern world. For thousands of years, humanity assumed that the invisible world of religious truths stood above the physical world. This invisible world was the source of all truth, beauty, and goodness.
Spiritual reality informed the physical world, imbibing it with meaning, value, and purpose. The goal of human life was to discover this invisible realm of meaning, think critically about it, and use it as a foundation for life.
For much of human history, the quest for truth via the sciences, Western philosophical traditions, and other academic fields was a quest to understand this invisible world. One example of this quest can be found in Plato’s writings.
Plato, a Grecian revolutionary philosopher and Aristotle’s teacher, believed that the physical world was an imperfect reflection of the world of “forms” – an idealistic world of perfection that stands outside of space and time. Platonic philosophy taught that this invisible world of forms is what everything in our physical world was attempting to imitate.
Our thoughts, being immaterial, have access to this world of forms. That’s why, for example, human beings can envision what a perfect circle looks like, even though we’ve never experienced one.
Similarly, when a furniture designer sets out to design a chair, that designer has the thought of what the chair should be like and aim to make that concept into a reality. To the extent that the designer can imitate the concept with the actual chair will determine how good the chair turns out to be.
Immediate Knowledge and Experience of the Invisible World
We can see that, for Plato and other important philosophers, this invisible world of forms and concepts is never far off, but it can be immediately known and experienced.
Similarly, many religions appeal to an invisible reality as one that informs our lives. From a religious perspective, this invisible reality often includes divine beings like God, gods, angels, and demons. The interplay between the invisible and visible world is ongoing, and nearly all religious practices and beliefs assert that we can know about this world.
Consider the teachings of St. Paul in the New Testament: “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.” (Romans 1:19-20)
Suffice to say that both religious and philosophical traditions have taught that there are two realms – a physical and immaterial realm. Both religion and philosophy have taught that these realms were equally real and dependent on each other.
The Split Between Religious Belief and Modern Science
The idea that the material world participates and aims toward an invisible reality began to be questioned during the Renaissance and into the Enlightenment. Though most people remained religious during this time, the role of human reason and human ability became a central theme.
For example, whereas paintings had primarily focused on religious stories and symbolism in the pre-modern world, it was common for the wealthy to have pictures of themselves painted during the Renaissance. Instead of art focusing on the religious world, the focus turned to the natural world. The emphasis was changing from Creator to creature.
This trend continued and intensified into the 19th and 20th centuries. In academia, the writings of Fredrick Nietzsche, Charles Darwin, Bertrand Russell, and many others shifted the tide away from the invisible, religious world. Theistic belief began to decline as man became the measure of all things.
The Rise of Logical Positivism
Especially important during this time was the rise of logical positivism. Seeking to reduce reality down to purely materialistic mechanical parts and relationships, logical positivism asserted that anything that cannot be scientifically verified is meaningless.
Because statements like “God exists” could not be scientifically verified, they were not only false but also meaningless. Religious thinkers during this time were helpless to defend their views against the tidal wave of naturalistic philosophical arguments.
Culturally, there was not much of an incentive for religious people to study philosophy or science during this time. The vast majority of religious believers retreated to a life of faith or a type of blind trust.
If there was a conflict between science and religion, religious people would appeal to their religious text as authoritative, while academia gladly appealed to science. Naturalistic science quickly became – and still is – the standard for truth. Religion was relegated to a history at best and, at worst, a mythology.
The Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy
In addition to the rise of scientific naturalism, the early 20th century gave rise to divisions even among religious people. The fundamentalist-modernist controversy highlighted different interpretations between the role of science and religion.
The fundamentalists believed that the Bible was divinely inspired and without error. If there was a discrepancy between what science taught and what the Bible claimed, science was wrong. The modernists, on the other hand, were more accepting of scientific conclusions and believed that new scientific revelations should be entertained.
A classic example of this division was the Scopes Monkey Trial, a landmark case brought against John Scopes in 1925. Tennessee had recently outlawed the teaching of Darwinian evolution in public schools, and Scopes was accused of breaking the law.
The famous film, “Inherit the Wind,” was made about this trial. In the end, John Scopes loses the trial, and the verdict is seen as a victory for the fundamentalists.
However, history was not so kind. Fundamentalists were quickly overtaken in academia by scientific materialism: the view that everything that exists is ultimately comprised of matter and energy and that all phenomena ultimately have a natural/material cause.
By the early 1960s, the separation between faith and science was so obvious that even Time magazine published a cover story in dramatic red and black lettering that asked, “Is God Dead?” The article highlighted the rise of atheism and secularism in the universities.
During this time, it was difficult to find professing religious thinkers in academia. If one’s own beliefs were religious, they would have been kept reserved.
A Resurgence of Theism in Philosophy
The division between religion and academia did not last forever. By the 1960s, there began to be a resurgence of theism in philosophy. Philosophers like William Alston and Alvin Plantinga began to publish academically rigorous books that challenged logical positivism.
Plantinga, noted especially for his reformed epistemology, levied serious challenges against the prevailing naturalistic analytic tradition. These new Christian philosophers contended that logical positivism was self-refuting. If logical positivism claims that “Anything that cannot be scientifically verified is meaningless,” then logical positivism itself is meaningless since it cannot be scientifically verified.
These scholars showed that one could practice philosophy at a professional level and still be religious. Their work, along with others, had a profound effect within academia – so much so that in 1966, Time magazine republished its cover story. This time, it asked, “Is God Coming Back to Life?”
Today, there is no shortage of professors in academia who are religious. While deep philosophical divisions remain, it seems that many scholars have found a way to integrate their faith within the realm of critical reflection. But how exactly can a new investigation into the invisible world coincide with modern science?
Where Do We Stand Today in Academia Regarding Religion and Science?
If we step back for a minute and consider the debate between religion and science, it’s not so much a debate about the validity of scientific evidence or religious beliefs. Today, in higher education, you will find science professors who are religious, religious philosophers who are happy to accept scientific evidence, and everyone in between. This apparent conflict between faith and science has dissolved and has been replaced by a myriad of views about how they can be assimilated.
In retrospect, it turns out that religious doctrines were never against modern scientific conclusions per se, even though some religious practitioners may have been. Similarly, the scientific process never sought to disprove religious doctrines, even if some scientists were.
The heart of the debate was less about science and religion and more about assumptions regarding reality, the visible and invisible world, theism and atheism. Does the invisible realm really exist, and does it inform the physical world? Or is the material universe all there really is?
While different traditions in religion sought to maintain the reality of the immaterial or spiritual world, modernistic science tried to eliminate or reduce the possibility of any immaterial realities altogether.
Today, one may argue that the field of science is undergoing a transformation of its own. The consensus of what is considered “scientific” is being questioned and deconstructed in the same way religious beliefs were in the past century.
In fact, when one studies the philosophy of science, it becomes clear that there is no one universally agreed upon definition of the term science. Why? Because science is a tool of human inquiry and can be used for different means. Using the scientific method to study the effect of a foreign molecule on the human immune system is a much different type of science than studying the origins of consciousness or quantum theory.
Once science gained cultural authority by the end of the 20th century, scientists with their own worldviews blurred the lines between scientific and philosophical inquiry. Certain reductionistic philosophical conclusions were presented as the scientifically acceptable conclusions, and all other non-reductionistic views received a cold shoulder from academics.
Blurring the Lines between Science and Religion
Whether we find ourselves sympathetic to religious belief, scientific inquiry, or both, it’s becoming clear that dogmatic assertions that one must reject science if religious or vice versa have received considerable challenges. In fact, though religious fundamentalists and logical positivists still exist today, many academics do not adhere strictly to either perspective and are more open to considering a degree of assimilation between science and religion.
One of the most important American figures working toward an integration between science and religion was John Templeton. An investor by trade, he offered up huge sums of money to any thinker who could contribute meaningful progress toward integrating science and religion. Some notable Templeton Prize winners are Jane Goodall, Mother Theresa, and Charles Taylor.
Another winner of the Prize was John Polkinghorne, a physicist and Anglican priest. He was a monumental voice in offering a model of integration that many on each side of the debate could accept.
Polkinghorne held that both science and theology were avenues of knowledge. Both sought to discover reality. Instead of competing with one another, each field was investigating different aspects of reality.
He famously said that science attempts to understand “how” the world works, while religion attempts to explain the “why” of the world. He believed the God uses the laws of nature and that God’s fingerprints can be seen in the creation of the universe, as discovered through science.
The Role of Evidence
If we accept that both science and theology are avenues for knowledge and that both offer us something valuable, how do we decide what to believe? What criteria should we use? Let me offer two popular models, though there are others.
Strong Rationalism
On a model of strong rationalism, in order for anything to be believed – either in science or religion – it must be possible to prove that belief system is true. The proponent of strong rationalism would claim that to prove something, the evidence must be good enough to convince a rational person.
In this tradition, we see religious scholars like Thomas Aquinas and in philosophy, John Locke. While strong rationalism holds a very high standard for belief, those who subscribe to this view would hold an equally high standard for a skeptic of this belief. That is, if you’re going to believe in skepticism, you must have proof for it.
One argument against strong rationalism is that “proof” is often in the eye of the beholder. While one philosopher may find a proof for God’s existence convincing, another may remain unconvinced.
Rational investigation into a particular philosophical position rarely leads to a consensus among most philosophers, despite how much proof is offered.
Another criticism is that strong rationalism is self-refuting. As a theory, it doesn’t have overwhelming evidence and many rational people reject it as a model for belief.
Finally, some versions of strong rationalism look very similar to logical positivism because they would only allow for propositions that can be verified through sensory experience.
Critical Evidentialism
Instead of focusing on proof and verification, critical evidentialism focuses on falsification and critical examination of evidence. Instead of trying to prove a hypothesis as true, critical evidentialists work to prove a hypothesis as false.
Wherever we land on these big questions about the role of evidence and belief, each step requires careful and critical thinking. Neither a religion nor model of science can inform our approach toward evidence. There’s no doubt that this job belongs to philosophy.
Navigating the Ever-Evolving Landscape of Thought
The search for truth, reality, and goodness is central to all human life. Every person wants to know what’s true and what is good.
Cultural shifts in our thinking about religion, science, and philosophy reflect the grand, developing story of humanity’s attempt to discover reality. The storied history of religion and its relationship with academia will no doubt continue. New discoveries in science will still challenge religious doctrines while perplexing questions of meaning and value will continue to challenge a materialistic paradigm.
The Philosophy Degree at American Public University
The online bachelor's degree in philosophy at AMU is designed for students seeking to understand the foundational aspects of Western philosophy and apply critical thinking and ethical reasoning to various fields. This program is beneficial for adult learners interested in seeking job opportunities in law, government, business, and education.
The program is delivered online, offering flexible scheduling to accommodate the needs of students with various commitments. This format allows students to engage with course materials and participate in discussions from anywhere with an internet connection.
The courses cover the history of Western philosophy, logic, ethics, the philosophy of science, and metaphysics. Students have the chance to develop skills in comprehension, philosophical inquiry, analytical reasoning, and communication.
Students will critically analyze philosophical texts, construct well-founded arguments, apply philosophical concepts to real-world situations, and participate in rigorous intellectual discussions. They will also have the opportunity to explore how philosophical inquiry informs various contemporary issues and enhances understanding in fields such as ethics, business, and social justice.
For more details about AMU’s program offerings, visit our program page.