T.H. Huxley on Science & Religion
The antagonism between science and religion, about which we hear so much, appears to me to be purely factitious — fabricated, on the one hand, by short-sighted religious people who confound a certain branch of science – theology – with religion; and, on the other, by equally short-sighted scientific people who forget that science takes for its province only that which is susceptible of clear intellectual comprehension; and that, outside the boundaries of that province, they must be content with imagination, with hope, and with ignorance.
Thomas Huxley, The interpreters of Genesis and the interpreters of Nature (1885)
Dave
on January 16th, 2011
T. H. appears to be the progenitor of Gould’s Non-Ovelapping MAgisteria or NOMA.
First – Theology is not a “science” in the sense Huxley is using. Huxley, no doubt, had textual and the German school of “higher criticism” in mind – a “science” which has expended its most vigorous efforts in the destruction of Christian faith. Theology is the proper study of the religious Christian for, in its essence, theology is the knowledge ‘of’ God – not ‘about’ God. It is relational not analytical, but it is a realm of knowledge, some would say the highest realm of knowledge, and as such is a science.
Second – Huxley introduces the NOMA thesis, a false deinition based upon a false dichotomy. Science, he says, “takes for its province that which is susceptible of clear intellectual comprehension:” Religion is “imagination, with hope, and with ignorance.”
Both of these statements are demonstrably false as recent developments in the sciences will readily attest. One might hypothesize that the further “science” withdraws from its religious roots – the study of God’s creation – the less it is susceptibal to clear intellectual comprehension. It is the Christian religion which gave science its impetus – the imagination and hope which drives us to overcome ignorance. Atheistic science is ultimately skeptical and, as such, embraces ignorance.
Christopher
on January 13th, 2012
I was just browsing google looking for Thomas Huxley quotes when I found this, but I just can’t let this go. I don’t think “demonstrably false” means what you seem to imply. If science is the study of God’s creation, then when said study of God’s creation deviates from established dogma, why side with dogma? Wouldn’t that mean that God has left all the proof with the scientists?
Theology would have to be knowledge “about” God and not “of” because otherwise there isn’t a distinction between religion and theology, hence making the term redundant.
I think what Huxley means is that through science we replace ignorance with knowledge. But aside from that which science has already established, religion has free reign to believe absolutely anything, as there’s nothing to contradict those beliefs.
But if science is indeed the study of God’s creation, then wouldn’t they draw the exact same conclusions as religion?
rogermorris
on January 14th, 2012
Christopher,
The short answer to your last statement, in my opinion, is “yes”. All truth is God’s truth. That includes truth about reality as defined by accurate scientific interpretation of good quality scientific data. It also includes accurate interpretation of revelatory truth.
The Christian faith that will survive 21st Century scientific rationalism will be that faith that respects good quality interpretation of good quality scientific data and is courageous and confident enough to use this knowledge to inform and challenge that Christian faith. Avoiding “God of the Gaps” and obvious cognitive dissonance is vital.
There might be tension between science and Christian faith, for sure, but there is no inherent incompatibility. That is a lawyer’s fallacy – a false dichotomy – peddled by the extremes of the science faith discussion.
Darwin and Huxley on accommodationism « Why Evolution Is True
on May 14th, 2012
[...] despite his attacks on faith and on preahers, he himself seemed to be a bit of an accommodationist. This quote, from his The interpreters of Genesis and the Interpreters of Nature (1885), could have easily been [...]