|
Prof.
Ionel HAIDUC, President of the Romanian Academy
Ladies and gentlemen
I have the honour to welcome you on behalf of the Romanian Academy at this International Congress about “The Dialogue between Science and Religion in the Orthodox World”. The Romanian Academy is a national learned society promoting sciences, literature and arts, but it is not indifferent to religion. One of our Sections covers THEOLOGY along with PHILOSOPHY, PSICHOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY, and has four members from the clergy. Therefore, it is not surprising that a congress dealing with the dialogue between science and religion takes place here. This is not the first one. The subject was initiated in Romania in 2001 with the international colloquium “SCIENCE AND RELIGION. ANTAGONISM OR COMPLEMENTARITY ?”, followed by another one in 2005 “SCIENCE AND ORTHODOXY. A NECESSARY DIALOGUE”, both with participation of the Academy and with the support of the Templeton Foundation. A program “SCIENCE AND ORTHODOXY. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION 2007-2009” is ongoing now in Romania and the present congress is part of it.
The subject is challenging because during a half century almost all orthodox countries (an exception is Greece) were under Communist regimes and open discussion about the relation between science and religion was not possible. In the name of science, the atheism was promoted at all levels of the society and religion was strongly discouraged. Now, after the political changes, the religion became part of society life and the relation between science and religion is an important subject of study. The attitude of Orthodox Church towards science may be not the same as that of other European churches (catholic, protestant) and it is interesting to see the similarities and differences, if any.
According to Ian Barbour, the interaction between science and religion is seen by different authors in at least four different terms: conflict, independence, dialogue and integration.
1. The idea of conflict is supported mainly by atheists. A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 at the University at Buffalo, New York, and funded by the Templeton Foundation found that over 60% of natural and social science professors are atheists or agnostics. When asked whether they believed in God, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answering "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out” (Wikipedia). 2. The idea of independence suggests total separation and lack of anything in common, based upon the assumption that science and religion deal with completely different aspects of human experience and they can co-exist peacefully, if they don’t try to interfere with each other. 3. The dialogue suggests that communication is possible between the two fields. This view is supported by scientists who consider themselves as Christians. 4. The idea of integration, i.e . the attempt to unify the two fields in a single domain is sometimes also experienced.
There are authors strongly supporting each of these views. Obviously, totally opposite views were expressed about the subject. Thus, Peter Atkins (1997), a scientist, says: "Science is almost totally incompatible with religion. The only point of between science compatibility is that there are well-meaning, honest people on both sides who are genuinely and deeply concerned with discovering the truth about this wonderful world. That having been said, there is no actual compatibility between science and religion",
while Richard Dawkins (1966) can be cited as saying: ”People 'need' something more in their lives than just the material world. There is a gap that must be filled. People need to feel a sense of purpose...You don't have to be a scientist in order to understand enough science to overtake your imagined need and fill that gap. Science needs to be released from the lab into the culture."
Talking about science and religion I would like to cite a few sentences from a paper on the subject, published by John Pratt (Meridian Magazine 2005): “The principal difference between science and religion is in the source of the knowledge. Scientific knowledge at its best comes from the scientific methods. Systematic observations [and experiments] are made and theories are proposed to explain the observations. No claim is ever made by a real scientist that he has found absolute truth. Scientists have theories which have been very successful at predicting results of experiments, but which could be modified when new experiments disprove current views. Religion, on the other hand, claims a different source of knowledge. It arrives at “truth” through other means, such as dreams, vision and visitation from beings from invisible realms.”
In discussing the science and religion we should not forget that if ”there was a conflict between religion and science, both religion and science have been in a state of continuous development, but science is more changeable than theology … Science is concerned with the general conditions which regulate the physical phenomena, whereas religion is wrapped up in the contemplation of moral and aesthetical values. What one sees the other misses, and vice-versa” (Alfred North Whitehead).
It can be concluded that “The religion and sciences have been often portrayed as enemies, but both religion and science should be understood as necessary components of a broader ethical worldview which reflects both dimensions – the material and the spiritual – of the human thought and life” (Alan G. Padgett, 1994).
I hope that this congress will contribute to a better understanding of the relation between science and religion, especially in the Eastern part of Europe, that is in the Orthodox world, which experienced a historical development different from that of the rest of the continent. Please accept the best my best wishes for a very successful work at this congress and the promise that the Romanian Academy will support all initiatives aiming at building bridges between scientists and theologians, in order to stimulate a better understanding of their endeavours.
25 September 2008
|