Essays and Reflections
Myths, Models, and Paradigms
A Comparative Study in Science & Religion
Ian Barbour
What follows is a synopsis of salient parts of the book along with
a brief commentary.
Definitions:
- Cognitive functions of language - description, prediction, manipulation
of nature
- Non-cognitive functions - express intent, ethical stand, attitudes
- Useful fiction - neither true nor false (no relation to nature)
Background Dilemma:
A series of scientific discoveries brought about tremendous technological
advances, and it seemed as though the objectivity of science offered
a far more accurate view of reality than did religion. So if scientific
methodology were applied to all field of study, religion could be done
away with.
A series of philosophers and scientists declared that religion was
not only superfluous, but language about it was meaningless;
only science could have meaningful discussion. Of course the
meaning of meaningful/meaningless was never fully established, because
to do so would require the use of that "meaningless" language
(self-referentially incoherent: when a statement negates itself);
moreover, the requirements of meaningfulness were so strict as to rule
out even most scientific language as meaningless.
Enter our fearless author, trying to show that science is not as objective
as it appears to be, nor is religion as subjective.
Symbol and Myth:
- Metaphor - momentarily express one thing in terms of another:
"king of the jungle" or "with a heavy heart";
open-ended with no limits to the comparison; emotional overtones,
but also an ontological claim (statement of being).
- Symbol - a substitution of quality; whereas a metaphor is
transient, symbols (especially religious symbols) become part of a
community and influence; they can have more than one context; do not
need to be taken literally
- Height: "ascend to heaven"; the "exalted one";
- Fire: "the consuming flames of hell"; "it will
be purified with fire"
- Light: "enlightened one (Buddha)"; "God is light"
- Religious model - an extended symbol that becomes the basis for
interpretation in many contexts: "God is a Father to his children."
- Myth - Any story that is taken to manifest part of the cosmic
order (cosmology asks what is reality made of).
- Myths offer a way of ordering experience: a cosmic framework to
live in.
- Myths tell man about himself.
- Myths express a saving power in human life. (Ideal, Actual, Saving
power)
- Myths provide patterns for human actions. (Right and wrong; ritual)
- Myths are enacted in ritual.
- Functions: Psychological, Social, Cognitive
Scientific Models:
- Experimental model are physical models of another physical
system: scale (space), working (temporal), analogue (aspect).
- Logical models have no basis in the physical world, and are
simply derived from axioms of a formal deductive system: geometry.
- Mathematical models use quantitative variables to represent
a physical system: equations of supply and demand; computer models
of weather.
- Theoretical models is an analogy, whereby an imagined process
is understood in familiar terms which leads to the development of
a theory; billiard ball model of gas leads to Kinetic Theory of Gases.
Interpretations of Models in Science:
- Naïve realism: The model is literal; the theory is
reality.
- Positivism: Generally reject models, since theories are seen
simply as abstract symbols for observational data.
- Instrumentalism: Models are simply useful mental devices,
but should be discarded after they have served their purpose (development
of a theory); theories are judged by their usefulness, not by their
truth or falsity.
- Critical realism: Models are useful, and valid theories contain
at least some measure of truth, but neither adequately explain reality.
Use of Religious Models:
- Interpretation of Experience: "see as"; "experience
as"
- Expression of attitudes: useful fiction; parable
- Disclosure Model: Models have an empirical fit (observations
of two phenomena have a certain similarity); empirical fit does not
guarantee truth of model
- Construction of metaphysical systems: A system of
statements that proposes the nature of reality; problem is that often
the metaphysical system is subordinate to the model, rather than the
other way around.
Complementary Models
Wave-Particle Duality (Electrons)
Father-King-Judge (God)
Paradigms in Science
"Standard examples of scientific work which embody a
set of conceptual, methodological and metaphysical assumptions."
-Thomas Kuhn
Observational data and the criteria for assessing theories are paradigm
dependent. For example:
The Empiricist maintains the objectivity based on these postulates:
- Science starts from publicly observable data which can be described
in a pure observation language independent of any theoretical assumptions.
- Theories can be verified or falsified by comparison with this fixed
experimental data.
- The choice between rival theories is thus rational, objective, and
in accordance with specifiable criteria.
Alternatively, one may decry the objectivity of science with these
postulates:
- All data are theory-laden; there is no neutral observation language.
- Theories are not verified or falsified; when data conflict with
an accepted theory, they are usually set to one side as anomalies,
or else auxiliary assumptions are modified.
- There are no criteria for choice between rival theories of great
generality, for the criteria themselves are theory dependent.
Commitment to Paradigm
Paradigms in Religion
- Interpretation of Experience: Coincidence or the hand of
God?
- Falsifiability of beliefs: what would have to happen for
a believer to stop believing in God? Is it a fair question? What
would have to happen for the unbeliever to start believing in God?
What would have to happen for a physicist to believe that energy
or matter could spontaneously appear from nothing?
Commitment to Paradigm
Christian Paradigm
The Christian paradigm is based on the assumption of historical accuracy
the accounts of the person of Christ, and the historical accuracy of
the Jewish scriptures.
Conclusion:
In 1776, Kant split reality between the noumenal (the world as it is,
reality) and the phenomenal (the world as it is sensed, perception)
with his book The Critique of Pure Reason. With this book, he
drove a wedge between reality and knowledge. We can never know the world
as it is; we can only know our subjective perception of it.
"And does not the scientist assume that nature is a self-contained
order in which there is no place for God's action?" -Ian Barbour
The key there is assume. The scientist does not know and cannot know.whether
or not the natural world allows for the existence of God. He must believe.
The description of models and paradigms is fairly accurate albeit longwinded.
It seems to me that much of this book has simply been trying to get
around the fact that no matter what you believe about science, you have
believe. You have to believe that first, the world exists outside
of yourself and your own experience. You have to believe that it behaves
in ordered patterns governed by cause and effect. You have to believe
that what you are perceiving is. You have to believe that the
nature of the world is static and not going to change.
The rest of the book addresses the inadequacy of many philosophers
to accept the fact that they believe. They talk about demythologizing
the bible, about modern man's inability to accept the myth of
religion. The simple fact is that science cannot adequately explain
the natural world. Why should we think it can prove or disprove the
existence of a supernatural realm? You must believe one way or the other.
All experiences will be interpreted based on this belief, this paradigm.
