There’s a saying in scientific circles: “Just because your shoe can be used to pound in a nail, doesn’t make it the same as a hammer.” Two Kinds of Knowledge was disappointing for the fundamental reason that not only was the line distinguishing the two modes of inquiry—theological and scientific—ostensibly blurred, it was in fact made invisible. Rev. Dr. Joseph McLelland equates theological categorization with scientific inquiry.
Many people of religious persuasion may want there to be no conflict between these fields, not the least of which for the reason that both have a sense of mystery and ultimacy. But wanting something to be true does not make it so. Further, to simply proclaim that “there can be no conflict between scientific and religious faiths,” does injustice to both.
There may be certain points of compatibility which science and religion share, as with pounding in a nail; but that is a far cry from asserting their commensurability, which essentially says that they are parallel or corresponding enterprises. The scientific method proceeds based on contingent truths acquired through investigation, experimentation, verification, etc., whereas faith is oriented towards a conception of (personal) truth regardless of what is considered rational or objectively true.
Granted, there is the presence of human objectivity and subjectivity in both disciplines; however their respective natures and parametres are vastly different. The religious influence of Einstein has more to do with the particular value context in which his scientific work was couched than conceiving of religion and science to be analogous.
I’m not sure which is more disheartening: a shoe that thinks it’s a hammer, or a hammer that thinks it’s a shoe.
