Science and Religion Bedfellows?

I read Investigating the roots of the natural/supernatural dichotomy (Aeon Essays) expecting one thing, and finding another.

In sum, the contrived histories of naturalism that purport to show its victory over supernaturalism were fabricated in the 19th century and are simply not consistent with the historical evidence. They are also tainted by a cultural condescension that, in the past at least, descended into outright racism. Few, if any, would today endorse the chauvinism that attends these older, triumphalist accounts of the history of naturalism. Yet, it is worth reflecting upon the extent to which elements of cultural condescension necessarily colour scholarly endeavours that are premised on the imagined ‘neutral’ grounds of naturalism. Careful consideration of the contingent historical circumstances that gave rise to present analytic categories that enjoy significant standing and authority would suggest that there is nothing especially neutral or objective about them. Any clear-eyed crosscultural comparison – one that refrains from assessing worldviews in terms of how they measure up to the standard of the modern West – will reinforce this. We might go so far as to adopt a form of ‘reverse anthropology’, where we think how our own conceptions of the world might look if we adopted the frameworks of others. This might entail dispensing with the idea of the supernatural, and attempting to think outside the box of our recently inherited natural/supernatural distinction.

History suggests that our regnant modern naturalism is deeply indebted to monotheism, and that its adherents may need to abandon the comforting idea that their naturalistic commitments are licensed by the success of science. As for the idea of the supernatural, ironically this turns out to be far more important for the identity of those who wish to deny its reality than it had ever been for traditional religious believers.

I sent this essay to KH and DM. Only KH has replied:

As for the essay on naturalism, it would seem to be an apologist argument for the supernatural as opposed to the secular. To claim that other cultures don't distinguish between the two or that the concept didn't exist in the west until the late 1400's is a bit disingenuous. The Enlightenment (and with it, scientific method) didn't take place until around then- prior to that learning was the explicit domain of the Church, which if you recall got very upset with Copernicus and Galileo. That other cultures didn't make a distinction is probably a contributing factor to why Europeans dominated those cultures for 400 years.

It's really about faith, either faith in what can't be seen or proven, or faith in what can. I remain an optimistic agnostic.

 I thought it a good response; albeit not quite the one I expected. In return, I sent the following raggedy, hurried, too early in the morning.

Except that the guy was right about Newton. The Puritans were into science because it explained God's plan. The Roman Catholic Church turned on Galileo because the Earth was supposed to be the center of the Universe - kind of strange for a religion that preaches humility. Copernicus was a priest and was pretty much ignored by everybody. But you may be right about imperialism and removing the spiritual from the scientific. About the time you mentioned for Western domination of the world came with the line drawn between science and religion.

I would go further and mention that Hume did not publish his essays on religion until after he was dead. 

Also, remember there were state religions. Atheism was a form of treason. The author does not delve much into the influence of the secular on science and religion.

Newton was also an alchemist. I would go along with the author. We have taken the magic out of science and the wonder of the world.

What we think of orthodoxy, as the common wisdom, as the way things have always been is not always borne out by history. We have made the mythical into the commonly understood, what we have experienced as the extent of history, and have substituted our own ideas for tradition.

Wonder brought to mind God. Science explored the wonderful. We have reduced the wonder of the world to the instrumental and technology.

sch 2/13