1. Science and Religion co-exist
The whole movement of pragmatism aims to recognize the inseparable connection between rational cognition and rational purpose. As some kind of a mediating philosophy, pragmatism aims to explain and prove that science and belief, (I would like to claim it to be religion since pragmatism was originally rooted on European philosophy which if you can recall, this would be the time of the saints or the medieval philosophers whose philosophy generally revolved on the theme of God). The contributors namely Dewey, James, Peirce, and others would not take an extremist position: either science is the fad and theology is archaic. They instead seek ways to prove that knowledge (which is the scientific experimentation) and belief (which would be religion) are actually partners and supporters in real life. They move in the same framework/system.
2. Why is there a gap between science and religion? How did it come about?
It was during the reformation in the 16th century when the people began to lose confidence in the Church. Truly, the church had been imposing unnecessary fines and implementing absurd orders, it opposed capitalism and any discovery that would imperil the dogmas of the church. This came to the point where the church itself began to twist its aim and to stray away from its nature and vision. At this point also, the people began to doubt the credibility and power of the chuch. They began to explore new possibilities, develop new systems, and they also began to experiment, thereby leading to the development of modern science, or what they referred to as scientific experimentation. At this point, knowledge which used to always be defined in the context of the divine God during the Medieval period, now becomes anthropocentric, putting "nature on the rack." Those that could be considered as true are only those that can be verified through scientific experimentation.
Even Kant claimed that faith and knowledge are separate entities. Kant's revolutionary discovery was that the mind does not passively reflect experience, rather it actively creates the order of scientific and ethical experience. "I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith."
This separation of faith and knowledge is what pragmatism is trying to reconcile. It seeks to formulate an adequate explanation of scientific knowledge and provide an account of man's moral experience. The genius of such would be in some way reconcilable and compatible with natural science - neither discrediting the nor discredited by the latter.
Modern science/knowledge is not only all about experimentation, mathematics, or what is rational or logical. It is the formulation of conduct. Religious belief is not only about God or divinities, it is also about rules for action, moral judgment, and more about religion as a way of living. Together, knowledge and belief constitutes the person and aids him in formulating a sketch of his future.
Thinking and scientific knowledge is needed in order for one to choose among other conceptualized notions and to obtain the direction one will want to attain or perform in the future.
"…action should be intelligent and reflective, and that should occupy a central position in life. {That is the reason for our insistence on the teleological phrase of thought and knowledge.}"
|
