Science and theology

[emperor]

[usual disclaimers about theological posts apply]

It is, I think, fairly self-evident that science and (Christian) theology are uncomfortable bed-follows. Many scientists regard Christians with suspicion, and vice versa. The two disciplines are, to my mind, asking essentially different questions, but nevertheless do interact, more or less fruitfully.

One subject that I've discussed with friends from a theological perspective recently on a couple of occasions is the problem of nature being "red in tooth and claw". Why, in a world created by a loving God, do some animals make a living out of eating other animals? There are many approaches to answering this question, but I was intruiged to spot an article in Nature referring to a paper in the Journal of Ecology this week that suggested another approach: predators may actually be necessary for the balance of an ecosystem with plants and herbivores in. The work published this week is the result of monitoring the biodiversity on the islands created when what is now Lake Guri was flooded. On the smaller islands there are no predators, and so the extant herbivores are slowly destroying the plant biodiversity on those islands; on the bigger islands where there are predators, the natural order is preserved.

It would be foolish to claim that this solves the issue I mentioned, but it's certainly an interesting piece of scientific work that could (and I venture to suggest should) inform theological reflection.

References:
News and views piece Nature 440, 613-614
Original article Terborgh, J. , Feeley, K. , Silman, M. , Nuñez, P. & Balukjian, B. J. Ecol. 94, 253–263 (2006)

[you may need a site licence or athens account to view these]

Comments

[mtbc100.livejournal.com]

Generally I find science and Christian theology comfortably compatible so long as you aren't one of those literal inerrant Bible people. I figure that God's rather cleverer and better-informed than me so things that seem a bit odd probably just have a good explanation that I've not figured out. Except that might be a bit of explanation figured out that you mention.

[wryelle.livejournal.com]

If you don't have predators what else is going to kill the herbivores? Sooner or later, with no other checks, the answer is disease, fighting among themselves or starvation. I'm not sure that's any less nasty than predators.

[curig.livejournal.com]

Why, in a world created by a loving God, do some animals make a living out of eating other animals?

Why is it less loving to kills animals to eat than to kill plants to eat?

[emperor]

Presumably because animals suffer in a way that plants don't.

[yrieithydd.livejournal.com]

How does this query square with being a meat-eater oneself?

[emperor]

That one's easy :) Being torn apart by Hyenas after a prolonged chase is, I think it's clear, going to involve a lot of suffering. Farm animals, at least if kept properly, enjoy a well-fed life devoid of predation, and are then dispatched quickly and humanely.

[wryelle.livejournal.com]

I remember hearing that an animal about to be torn apart and eaten gets a massive endorphin high that deadens the pain. Do you know if that's true, or a zoological urban myth?

[emperor]

Well, it's true to an extent. People also produce endorphins in response to painful stimuli; that doesn't stop it hurting completely, though, as I'm sure you'll have noticed yourself.

[ptc24.livejournal.com]

I keep hearing arguaments of this sort (see also wryelle's comment above), and they all leave me deeply unconvinced. Assuming for a moment that all of these arguaments are valid and supported by the facts (and there's a comprehensive selection of them), all that they show is that the world is some sort of local optimum, and don't do anything to disprove the possibility of some greatly different order of things, where lions may lie down with lambs and all that.

There's a fairly extended post on that subject that I'm brewing, but I think I'll save it for an LJ post of my own.

[wryelle.livejournal.com]

I agree. I wasn't making a theological point - just pointing out that from a biological point of view there are benefits to the prey population from having predators around.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Yay. I like your local optimum explanation. I was going to say something like it, but just had examples, not an argument :)

[arnhem.livejournal.com]

From a scientific perspective, it is flawed to cherry-pick observations to justify a theory that you'd like to be true just because they happen to support it.

That observation's not a criticism of christian theology, but it tends to underpin problems with trying to do this kind of merge (in that I think it can only be done from the perspective of the theological approach; I don't see a way of doing it from the perspective of the scientific approach).

[emperor]

I agree, to an extent; scientific method is a very different beastie to theology, whether one likes it or not. I'm not really in the business of trying to "merge" the two disciplines, either; it's more that sometimes one can shed light on the other, IYSWIM.

[vectorious.livejournal.com]

scientific method is a very different beastie to theology

Suddenly I have a vision of a BBC wildlife documentary:[David Attenborough whisper]

"And here we have the reclusive scientific methodology beastie, quietly disproving its prey. This disproof is often difficult to find - Nature tends to hide it in deep patches of mathematics.

Contrast the the rumbustious theological beastie, with its favoured hunting technique of denouncement and distinctive hunting cry of 'Heretichereticheretic'. This species has been largely superceded by a sub species which hunts using debate, but this sub species is harder to observe in the wild.


The species are cross fertile but these merges are rarely sucessful."

[atreic.livejournal.com]

*collapses into giggles*

[yrieithydd.livejournal.com]

It is, I think, fairly self-evident that science and (Christian) theology are uncomfortable bed-follows.

Mmm, whether I agree with that depends on what exactly you mean. I do not think that in themselves there is any great conflict between science and theology. As you go on to say, they are asking different questions and I would say that as science tells us about the world God created then it won't contradict who God is. However, I will admit that there is a perception of conflict, both in the popular mind and also in the minds of some scientists (not thinking of anyone called Dawkins at all) and some Christians (not thinking of YECcies either). May I remind you of John Polkinghorne and the Society of Ordained Scientists

[claroscuro.livejournal.com]

It is, I think, fairly self-evident that science and (Christian) theology are uncomfortable bed-follows.

My first thought was - "No they aren't..."

I think I may post about this at much more length in my journal if I've time.

[emperor]

I don't see that science and theology need conflict - after all, I'm a Christian and a scientist. I say they are uncomfortable bedfellows because the practioners of the two disciplines are often in conflict, and would often claim that the two disciplines do conflict; this leads to a general perception that the two are in conflict, and means that discussion between the two disciplines is often uncomfortable because of these conflicts and perceptions of conflict.

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

Are you saying that God *couldn't* have created a world without predators? That sounds a bit heretical to me.

Had he decided to, he could surely have invented a world where there is no death, and an infinite amount of space to hold the expanding population, or a world where every animal dies after a set length of time without experiencing pain/fear/disease etc. I expect he could even find a way of making a world where animals die of causes other than being eaten work...