The public flashpoint between religion and science is found in the issue of creationism and evolution. Other issues, such as the sun revolving around a stationary earth, are now found in the dustbin of history. As visible as this issue is in public life, I have come to believe that other, more subtle, factors fuel the discomfort and conflict between the two fields. What brought me to this awareness was reflecting on my discontent with sermons.
Even the occasional superb sermon—important topic, clear formulation, and engaging presentation—left me with a low-level vexation. It took years to focus on this ongoing annoying feeling and, then, even longer to identify its cause: not what was said, as I kept thinking, but the process shaping what was said. That, then, led to focusing on the different ways that scientists and ministers work, think, and articulate their views.
Minister’s sermons are, almost without exception, deductively shaped. Deductive reasoning works from the general to the specific, often called the ‘top-down’ approach. As a deductive endeavor, sermons follow the pattern of a Bible verse read, followed by an exposition, which often takes the form of three points. That deductive thinking process becomes ingrained both by listening to sermons and in seminary training.
In contrast, there is inductive thinking. I learned the difference in college philosophy; a difference, though, that never worked its way into my everyday consciousness. Inductive thinking moves from observations to generalizations, a ‘bottom-up approach.’ Inductive thinking is more the mode of scientists, and starting out to be a scientist, it is natural to me
Actually, I don’t think anyone is fully encased in either deductive or inductive thinking. Both types of thinking are used in the crucible of daily life. A child constantly lying will lead a parent to generalize about the cause (inductive). At the same time, a firm parental curfew is often imposed, with consequences, for disobedience (deductive). Parents engage in both kinds of behavior. Opinions and decisions in our daily lives are based both on gut feelings, intuitions, emotions, impulses and learned skills (inductive) and on the logic of reasoned conclusions, principles, and convictions (deductive).
Yet, I believe that for religious and scientific professionals, working in their respective fields, either deductive or inductive thinking dominates the habit of mind. It may be that the tendency to one or the other mode of thinking is a given in infancy, but each is honed in professional education and in professional work. Thus, inductive and deductive reasoning—having a marked impact on beliefs and values, decisions and actions—are so ingrained that someone speaking in the other mode can seem strange, foreign, or even wrong.
Acknowledging this difference in our mode of thinking is a way for religionists (predominantly deductive thinkers) and scientists (predominantly inductive thinkers) to begin a more fruitful dialogue. Attending to the truths that we derive from ancient texts expands our own wisdom. Attending to the truths that come from generalizing on our experiences and experiments leads us into important knowledge that adds to the ongoing wisdom of human life.
Reading a text of a new scientific discovery continues to be more satisfying for me than listening to a sermon. However, with my new understanding of why that is, I find I am more relaxed at sermon time. Now I wonder if the minister with whom I shake hands notices a difference.
Bob Tucker
September 2010
Are you sure about induction, Bob?
I agree with you about sermons, often too patterned and too pat.
Bottom up is needed. Induction isn’t.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/associates/miller/dresden.pdf
Best wishes
Rev. Tucker,
All true, but I’d like to hone it a little. Here’s my attempt to get closer. We all have experiences, understanding, and beliefs. Experience is direct, but open to interpretation. Understanding and belief are interpretative frameworks–narratives–that give meaning to experience.
Scientists focus on understanding. How does the experience (data) confirm or test the general view? How does it expand our understanding? Crucial and/or surprising facts are sources of joy–an experiential reward–to scientists. Scientists reserve their highest respect for those who provide crucial data and/or understanding, and feel threatened by those who reject empiricism. So yes, this is basically inductive, but without deduction there can be no surprise. Science is inherently liberating since it requires openness to new experience and interpretation–or will be unless we eventually figure everything out, which seems unlikely.
Religionists–or maybe just Christians–focus on belief, and make it primary. As you say, deductive. Experience is welcomed if it reinforces belief, shunned or regarded as a challenge otherwise. Religious experience can be intense, but is religious only insofar as it is interpreted in light of belief. For example, awe at sunset; humility by starlight; rapture in a crowd; may be aesthetic, scientific, or cultural (at a concert, town hall or game) rather than religious, and can even be both at once.
Unfortunately, religion is inherently conservative and exclusive. Religionists honor those who share beliefs; i.e. fellow tribesmen. Some feel threatened, and reciprocate, on what might objectively seem like minor differences. Recent ecumenical movements offer evidence that some religionists can honor shared experience, but we have a way to go.
Ron Masters
scientist, born & raised
President, Thoreau UU Congregation, at the moment.
Dear Dr. Tucker:
As a former Lecturer at University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN (1967-68), and retired Aerospace Physicist (from SAIC/NASA/JSC), I would like to first thank you for such a discussion, and secondly need the contact number for your Guest Professor from Univ, of St. Thomas, Houston to communicate further on this topic. With best regards,
Bashir A. Syed