E XPANDING S CIENCE AND R ELIGION IN THE P LURALISTIC L ANDSCAPE OF T - PDF document

D RAFT P RESENTATION – IRAS C ONFERENCE 2014, S TAR I SLAND E XPANDING S CIENCE AND R ELIGION IN THE P LURALISTIC L ANDSCAPE OF T ODAY ’ S W ORLD Zainal Abidin Bagir Center for Religious and Cross-cultural Studies, Graduate School, Universitas Gadjah M ada, Indonesia I understand that one of the motivations for speaking about the pluralistic landscape of our world today is to make the discourse of science and religion more inclusive. While the discourse originated in the western Christian context, a first approximation to the more inclusive discourse would probably be, to borrow Robert Russel’s characterization, more international, intercultural, interreligious and interdisciplinary. (Russell 2004, xiii) The fact that journals on science and religion frequently published works of self-critique and self- questioning of the field indicates that, for the better, the field’s boundaries are not stable yet. Taking cue from discussions about religious pluralism, we understand that awareness of the pluralistic landscape also means acceptance of diversity which would make it more challenging to find some common ground to sustain such a discourse. What distinguishes pluralism from relativism, as standpoints toward diversity, is that the former still, at some point, has to draw boundaries. And when boundaries are drawn, what would be the criteria? The danger has always been that the more powerful side of the diversity may, albeit inadvertently, hegemonize the other parties it wants to embrace. Boundaries are always contested. The question is how pluralistic, how inclusive are we prepared to be? Being a pluralist may mean more than simply inviting more parties to the table. It is surely necessary but not sufficient. At some point, we may need to be prepared not only to find some common ground, but question the ground itself. In this case, the categories of ‘science’ and ‘religion’ needs to be problematized, as a number of prominent scholars of religion and science have shown how the categories were invented in a western Christian context. While we may provide justifications for the wider use of both these terms as understood today, the pluralist awareness may require further rethinking. This is not a mere theoretical attempt with no consequence, as it could imply the rethinking of the object of study and determining the agenda of research in science and religion discourse. Reflecting Peter Harrison’s suspicion that science and religion is a western problem (which I shall discuss later), I will look at the discourse in the Indonesian context to see to what extent the suspicion is justified. I will start by trying to understand today’s science and 1

religion discourse and attempts to problematize it. In the end I will draw some more general and theoretical conclusions. 1 1. What is science and religion about? : Zygon@49 What is science and religion about? A survey of very recent discussions by important figures in science and religion in Zygon@49, a series of recent editions of the oldest journal in the field, could give us some ideas. Taking science and religion as a disciplinary field, Niels H. Gregersen suggests that its object of research is the relations between science and religion in historical and contemporary contexts . (Gregersen 2014, 420) While this sounds like a common sense and not difficult to accept as a starting point, his next assertion circumvents the complexities of the relations and as such radically shrinks the possibilities of exploring them. ‘It seems to me that the programs within science and religion need to be committed to some form of metaphysical realism, that is that the world exists regardless of the observer, and consists of a variety of mind-independent entities or objective relations (including also the observer’s interpretations.)’ ( ibid ., 423) The issue is not about the validity of that metaphysical realism, or other alternative philosophical positions, but the assumption that science and religion is about (conceptual) views of the world. This seems to be too quickly reducing both enterprises to their cognitive contents or beliefs: science to scientific theories and religion to theological views. While Gregersen may acknowledge other, non-cognitive dimensions of science, such as practices (of the practitioners or communities of practitioners in both fields), but that seems to lie in the very margin, and its study is simply one of the arms of the science-and-religion octopus (he is actually not sure what such studies would contribute to the discourse). ( ibid ., 427-428) I will later provide an illustration about the importance of looking at practices in the relation between (practitioners of) science and religion; in certain contexts, it may be even more important and consequential to focus on the practices. The other article in the earlier issue of Zygon , still part of Zygon@49, by the late Ian G. Barbour (his last piece?) also sees that ‘science and religion’ is about relation . Barbour acknowledges that science and religion are not only about religious beliefs, and that there is a social context in which the interplay takes place. However when it comes to relation between them, both are understood mostly in terms of beliefs. (Barbour 2014, 82-84) Toward the end of the article, Barbour says that the challenge for a journal like Zygon (or, he may as well be referring to the science and religion discourse in general) is ‘the inclusion of greater religious diversity ’. He sees that other religious traditions (he mentions the examples of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism) have been involved in the enterprise and would like to see this develops further, but still it seems what he sees in them are beliefs. Yet, for one, beliefs may have different significance in those traditions or play different roles. (While 1 This is a draft presentation. I plan to elaborate and give more references to each of the subheadings. 2

I will come back to this discussion later, I of course have to immediately add here that even within each of the religions there are different traditions, and as such I cannot also generalize here.) A further useful reminder is given by Willem Drees (2004). Even if we regard beliefs as the most important part or dimension of science and of religion, there is another problem lurking here. The ‘and’ in ‘science and religion’ deceptively gives the impression that the two are about ideas and, further, similar in their cognitive kind and status. The typology that presents the two as being in conflict, independence, dialogue or integration assumes a symmetrical understanding of science and theology, while the reality may be different. (Drees 2004, 372) 2. Three directions in expanding science and religion As mentioned earlier, inclusion of greater diversity, as proposed by Barbour, may be a necessary first step, but further steps are required to really make the discourse more inclusive, reflecting our awareness of the pluralistic landscape of today’s world. There are at least three directions of expansion. First , the diversity to be included may have much wider scope than listed there, since each religion has within it different traditions with different emphases on beliefs and practices and interplay between them. Second , all the examples mentioned above by Barbour are well-known world religions. Of course these are examples, but just so that we do not miss out important stuffs here, we also need to explicitly acknowledge the variety that is usually called indigenous religions, which are still a living reality in many parts of the world. Though in many places they tend to be smaller or even on the edge of extinction, in most cases pressured and repressed by the ever larger and dominating world religions, they (or fractions of them) are still there, surviving. (Examples from Indonesia which I will discuss later will be especially pertinent in this regard). Third , when we try to include more religions, we will then need to also open to the possibility that these religions may display quite different characteristics; the significance of theology in these religions may be different; the scope of their worldviews may be different, the interaction between faith and knowledge may be different, to the extent that the very distinction between faith and reason or science and religion do not even make sense. The starting point of this conversation is the discourse as developed in the context of (western) Christianity—and a particular modern version of it; the attempt to be more aware of the pluralistic landscape of our world will necessarily demand us to do some serious rethinking of the very foundation of that discourse. The rest of this paper will focus on the last two directions. 3