Peacocke did not give a presentation of his work this time (he was the guest of honor) but Polkin... more Peacocke did not give a presentation of his work this time (he was the guest of honor) but Polkinghorne talked about Space, Time and Causality from a critical realist point of view. Hence, it was very interesting for me to read Taede Smedes' revised doctoral thesis on the work of Polkinghorne and Peacocke just after the conference. [2] I would like to start my review by introducing the distinction between Philosophical Theology and Philosophy of Religion. Philosophical theologians, as for instance Smedes, study the central doctrines of the Christian faith from a philosophical perspective using resources of philosophy. Philosophers of religion, as I am, study philosophical problems raised by, among others, the religions, theology (including philosophical theology), religious studies and sciences concerned with theology and religion, by way of philosophical methods (in my case, analytical). Hence, the character of my remarks will be philosophical rather than theological. I would also like to emphasize that my remarks should only be seen as a proof of my profound reading of Smedes' interesting book. [3] Taede Smedes' project concerns the debate on science and religion, more specifically, modern physics and religion. Relevant questions are: what impact modern physics could possibly have on religion? Is there something in religion which modern physics can or could clarify? Is there some veil modern physics could lift from the religious? Another question is whether modern physics could serve as an explanatory model for some religious accounts, as a metaphor, or as an 'extension to our linguistic language'? According to Smedes, physical theories have been used in order to achieve such aims and he analyzes some of these approaches. He chose John Polkinghorne and Arthur Peacocke's explanations of how divine action can be understood. [4] The start of Smedes' project is a presentation of Mikael Stenmark's typology of scientism. During the 19th century, the term scientism or the science cult is mentioned for the very first time: 'Science is a religion. Henceworth, it will be science alone that will form our religious doctrines (faith), science can give c October 31, 2006, Ars Disputandi. If you would like to cite this article, please do so as follows:
NTT journal for theology and the study of religion, Apr 1, 2005
TAEDE A. SMEDES 'Intelligent Design': Is het Wetenschap of Theologie? Achtergronden van een groei... more TAEDE A. SMEDES 'Intelligent Design': Is het Wetenschap of Theologie? Achtergronden van een groeiende controverse 1 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN': IS IT SCIENCE OR THEOLOGY? ON THE BACKGROUND OF A GROWING CONTROVERSY This article presents an overview of American and Dutch discussions surrounding in telligent design (ID), a recent movement that criticizes the Darwinian account of evolu tion. It is argued that at least the American adherents of ID have strong theological and ideological agendas. Yet, although ID is historically related to creationist movements, it is false to simply equate ID with creationism, as is often done in antiID literature. In the Netherlands, so far discussions about ID have been rare. Moreover, Dutch expo nents of IDideas tend to focus more on the status and validity of scientific claims than on religious issues.
Draft version of a paper that is accepted for publication in a volume that issues forth from the ... more Draft version of a paper that is accepted for publication in a volume that issues forth from the conference "What is Life? Evolutionary Perspectives, philosophical considerations and theological questions", that was held in Bern, Switzerland: 20-22 January 2015, jointly organized by the Center for Space and Habitability (CSH) and the Theological Faculty of Bern University. See http://www.whatislife.unibe.ch for more information.
Reflecting on the future of the field of science-and-religion, I focus on three aspects. First, I... more Reflecting on the future of the field of science-and-religion, I focus on three aspects. First, I describe the history of the religion-and-science dialogue and argue that the emergence of the field was largely contingent on social-cultural factors in Western theology, especially in the United States. Next, I focus on the enormous influence of science on Western society and on what I call cultural scientism, which influences discussions in science-and-religion, especially how theological notions are taken up. I illustrate by sketching the way divine action has been studied in science-and-religion. The divineaction debates may seem irrelevant to theologians because the way divine action is dealt with in science-and-religion is theologically problematic. Finally, I analyze the quest for integration and unity of science and religion that underlies much of the contemporary field of science-and-religion and was stimulated particularly by the efforts of Ian Barbour. I argue that his quest ...
Tradition and Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical, 2004
This review article deals with four recent books exploring issues of emergence and self-organizat... more This review article deals with four recent books exploring issues of emergence and self-organization. Three of these also deal with issues of materialism and religious worldviews, while one charts the history and philosophical unerpinnings of emergentist thought.
Conferentie georganiseerd door de European Society for the Study of Science and Theology (ESSSAT)... more Conferentie georganiseerd door de European Society for the Study of Science and Theology (ESSSAT), 10 april 2010
In Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology 1 , the ID-theorist William Dembsk... more In Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology 1 , the ID-theorist William Dembski argues that ID basically has three characteristics: first it is a scientific research program, next it is an intellectual and cultural movement, and third it is a way of understanding divine action. In this paper, I respond to Dembski's third characteristic: that ID is a way of understanding divine action. I will doubt the validity of that claim. How does Dembski know the designer is God? What is the basis of his inferences from the so-called irreducible complexity in biological systems (if such complexity exists at all) to the God that is worshipped in Christianity? Such an inference requires two steps: first, one has to identify a biological system as a design, and second, one has to identify the design with its designer. How do we recognize design? Dembski has argued that one can construct an intricate procedure or algorithm, an 'explanatory filter' as he calls it, in order to identify something as a design. This explanatory filter is backed up by a complex statistical analysis of the likelihood of some systems to emerge spontaneously, that is by chance. I leave it to the community of statisticians and natural scientists to establish whether or not Dembski's filter works; that is not a theological matter. One thing, however, is clear and that is that Dembski's filter works with background knowledge. To identify something as design (i.e. not the result of random processes) depends (a) on knowledge of what random processes can establish, and (b) on knowledge of designs. The inference to design depends on well-established scientific knowledge. It is on the basis of that knowledge that a biological system is excluded as being the result of chance and being the purposely created result of a designer. In other words, we recognize design when we see it. The cosmologist Fred Hoyle argued years ago also that life on earth was the result of design. But he was no Christian. He argued that 'God' was an entity in the universe, and not the transcendent God of Christian faith. Dembski cannot exclude that possibility. Yet, in his books he speaks about God using concepts from Christian theology, thus suggesting that the designer of life on earth is the Christian, transcendent Creator-God. This is strange. On the one hand Dembski argues that ID is 'theologically minimalist,' but he also argues that it is the task "for the theologian-to connect the intelligence inferred by the design theorist with the God of Scripture." 2 Yet, in all his books, Dembski constantly speaks about God as if it is already clear that God is the designer. Can we know the designer is God? This raises a question: Can we know the designer is God? Is it possible for human beings to make inferences from the world to God? Inferences from the world to God were popular amongst natural theologians during the socalled 'Baconian era', from 1830 to roughly 1870. Historians call it the 'Baconian' era, because natural philosophers and theologians during that time adopted in their work the inductive method of
Peacocke did not give a presentation of his work this time (he was the guest of honor) but Polkin... more Peacocke did not give a presentation of his work this time (he was the guest of honor) but Polkinghorne talked about Space, Time and Causality from a critical realist point of view. Hence, it was very interesting for me to read Taede Smedes' revised doctoral thesis on the work of Polkinghorne and Peacocke just after the conference. [2] I would like to start my review by introducing the distinction between Philosophical Theology and Philosophy of Religion. Philosophical theologians, as for instance Smedes, study the central doctrines of the Christian faith from a philosophical perspective using resources of philosophy. Philosophers of religion, as I am, study philosophical problems raised by, among others, the religions, theology (including philosophical theology), religious studies and sciences concerned with theology and religion, by way of philosophical methods (in my case, analytical). Hence, the character of my remarks will be philosophical rather than theological. I would also like to emphasize that my remarks should only be seen as a proof of my profound reading of Smedes' interesting book. [3] Taede Smedes' project concerns the debate on science and religion, more specifically, modern physics and religion. Relevant questions are: what impact modern physics could possibly have on religion? Is there something in religion which modern physics can or could clarify? Is there some veil modern physics could lift from the religious? Another question is whether modern physics could serve as an explanatory model for some religious accounts, as a metaphor, or as an 'extension to our linguistic language'? According to Smedes, physical theories have been used in order to achieve such aims and he analyzes some of these approaches. He chose John Polkinghorne and Arthur Peacocke's explanations of how divine action can be understood. [4] The start of Smedes' project is a presentation of Mikael Stenmark's typology of scientism. During the 19th century, the term scientism or the science cult is mentioned for the very first time: 'Science is a religion. Henceworth, it will be science alone that will form our religious doctrines (faith), science can give c October 31, 2006, Ars Disputandi. If you would like to cite this article, please do so as follows:
NTT journal for theology and the study of religion, Apr 1, 2005
TAEDE A. SMEDES 'Intelligent Design': Is het Wetenschap of Theologie? Achtergronden van een groei... more TAEDE A. SMEDES 'Intelligent Design': Is het Wetenschap of Theologie? Achtergronden van een groeiende controverse 1 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN': IS IT SCIENCE OR THEOLOGY? ON THE BACKGROUND OF A GROWING CONTROVERSY This article presents an overview of American and Dutch discussions surrounding in telligent design (ID), a recent movement that criticizes the Darwinian account of evolu tion. It is argued that at least the American adherents of ID have strong theological and ideological agendas. Yet, although ID is historically related to creationist movements, it is false to simply equate ID with creationism, as is often done in antiID literature. In the Netherlands, so far discussions about ID have been rare. Moreover, Dutch expo nents of IDideas tend to focus more on the status and validity of scientific claims than on religious issues.
Draft version of a paper that is accepted for publication in a volume that issues forth from the ... more Draft version of a paper that is accepted for publication in a volume that issues forth from the conference "What is Life? Evolutionary Perspectives, philosophical considerations and theological questions", that was held in Bern, Switzerland: 20-22 January 2015, jointly organized by the Center for Space and Habitability (CSH) and the Theological Faculty of Bern University. See http://www.whatislife.unibe.ch for more information.
Reflecting on the future of the field of science-and-religion, I focus on three aspects. First, I... more Reflecting on the future of the field of science-and-religion, I focus on three aspects. First, I describe the history of the religion-and-science dialogue and argue that the emergence of the field was largely contingent on social-cultural factors in Western theology, especially in the United States. Next, I focus on the enormous influence of science on Western society and on what I call cultural scientism, which influences discussions in science-and-religion, especially how theological notions are taken up. I illustrate by sketching the way divine action has been studied in science-and-religion. The divineaction debates may seem irrelevant to theologians because the way divine action is dealt with in science-and-religion is theologically problematic. Finally, I analyze the quest for integration and unity of science and religion that underlies much of the contemporary field of science-and-religion and was stimulated particularly by the efforts of Ian Barbour. I argue that his quest ...
Tradition and Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical, 2004
This review article deals with four recent books exploring issues of emergence and self-organizat... more This review article deals with four recent books exploring issues of emergence and self-organization. Three of these also deal with issues of materialism and religious worldviews, while one charts the history and philosophical unerpinnings of emergentist thought.
Conferentie georganiseerd door de European Society for the Study of Science and Theology (ESSSAT)... more Conferentie georganiseerd door de European Society for the Study of Science and Theology (ESSSAT), 10 april 2010
In Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology 1 , the ID-theorist William Dembsk... more In Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology 1 , the ID-theorist William Dembski argues that ID basically has three characteristics: first it is a scientific research program, next it is an intellectual and cultural movement, and third it is a way of understanding divine action. In this paper, I respond to Dembski's third characteristic: that ID is a way of understanding divine action. I will doubt the validity of that claim. How does Dembski know the designer is God? What is the basis of his inferences from the so-called irreducible complexity in biological systems (if such complexity exists at all) to the God that is worshipped in Christianity? Such an inference requires two steps: first, one has to identify a biological system as a design, and second, one has to identify the design with its designer. How do we recognize design? Dembski has argued that one can construct an intricate procedure or algorithm, an 'explanatory filter' as he calls it, in order to identify something as a design. This explanatory filter is backed up by a complex statistical analysis of the likelihood of some systems to emerge spontaneously, that is by chance. I leave it to the community of statisticians and natural scientists to establish whether or not Dembski's filter works; that is not a theological matter. One thing, however, is clear and that is that Dembski's filter works with background knowledge. To identify something as design (i.e. not the result of random processes) depends (a) on knowledge of what random processes can establish, and (b) on knowledge of designs. The inference to design depends on well-established scientific knowledge. It is on the basis of that knowledge that a biological system is excluded as being the result of chance and being the purposely created result of a designer. In other words, we recognize design when we see it. The cosmologist Fred Hoyle argued years ago also that life on earth was the result of design. But he was no Christian. He argued that 'God' was an entity in the universe, and not the transcendent God of Christian faith. Dembski cannot exclude that possibility. Yet, in his books he speaks about God using concepts from Christian theology, thus suggesting that the designer of life on earth is the Christian, transcendent Creator-God. This is strange. On the one hand Dembski argues that ID is 'theologically minimalist,' but he also argues that it is the task "for the theologian-to connect the intelligence inferred by the design theorist with the God of Scripture." 2 Yet, in all his books, Dembski constantly speaks about God as if it is already clear that God is the designer. Can we know the designer is God? This raises a question: Can we know the designer is God? Is it possible for human beings to make inferences from the world to God? Inferences from the world to God were popular amongst natural theologians during the socalled 'Baconian era', from 1830 to roughly 1870. Historians call it the 'Baconian' era, because natural philosophers and theologians during that time adopted in their work the inductive method of
Uploads
Papers by Taede Smedes