“Epistemology.” It’s one of those words I learned in
Seminary and had to look up in the dictionary again and again because I always
forgot its meaning. Basically, it’s the philosophical discipline devoted to
answering a simple question: How do you know what you know?

For instance, how do you know what a flower is? Scientifically
speaking, a flower is a type of plant that has a stamen and petals and pollen. But
I might answer the question a very different way, with reference to a poem by
e.e. cummings in which a flower describes love. Is a flower a way to talk about
love or a way to talk about natural selection, or both? Where do I turn for an
authoritative reckoning of flowers? To my biology textbook or my Norton
Anthology of Poetry?

Similar questions arise when we talk about science and
religion. Both disciplines answer, or try to answer, questions about the
origins of the universe. Science explains the universe in self-contained terms.
By definition, for modern scientific method is predicated upon the assumption
that we can test a hypothesis and get the same result on multiple occasions.
Religion explains the universe in metaphysical terms. It assumes an other, a
Being beyond the self-contained world of scientific inquiry. For Christians,
religion assumes an other who is a relational God, a God who has decided to
break into human time and history in the person of Jesus Christ.

The so-called debate between science and religion has been
raging for years. Religious people have embarrassed themselves by not
understanding the science they write against, and some scientists (and
particularly some of the “new atheists”) ought to feel embarrassed for their
similar misunderstandings when they wade into the waters of religion.
Yesterday’s blog post for the New York Times by Tim Crane, a self-described
atheist and scientist, comes as a refreshing reminder that dialogue between
science and religion is possible. In “Mystery and Evidence,”
Crane attempts to describe the differences between these two epistemological
systems. He writes, “Those who criticize religion should
have an accurate understanding of what it is they are criticizing… Religions
do make factual and historical claims, and if these claims are false, then the
religions fail. But this dependence on fact does not make religious claims
anything like hypotheses in the scientific sense. Hypotheses are not central.
Rather, what is central is the commitment to the meaningfulness (and therefore
the mystery) of the world.”

In a blog for the Chicago Tribune,
the Reverend Robert Baron makes a similar point: “There
is a qualitative difference between the sciences, which speak of objects,
forces, and phenomena within the observable universe, and philosophy or
religion which speak of ultimate origins and final purposes. Science, as such,
simply cannot adjudicate questions that lie outside of its proper purview–and
this is precisely why scientists tend to make lots of silly statements when
they attempt to philosophize.”

I recommend both of these articles. And as both
men recognize, there are certain points in which science and religion will
necessarily reach an impasse. We can hope for both scientists and religious
people to recognize the possibilities and limitations of their ways of knowing,
and to learn from one another with mutual respect and humility.