Religion and Theology

This paper has a threefold function. First, it seeks to identify and analyze the four-fold schema that was developed by Ian Barbour regarding Religion and Science in their relationship with each other. The second part considers the truths that were described by Blaise Pascal as coming from the heart. It further seeks to evaluate Pascals position on the basis of personal as well as institutional religion. Finally, it seeks to evaluate the position advanced by Daniel Garber that, certain beliefs come as a result of mind-sets. The issue of predisposition to beliefs will be discussed.

Barbours four-fold Schema
Barbour considers that unlike in the past, religion and science are not in any real conflict. The four-fold schema deals with all the positions that have, so far, been taken regarding the relation of these two bodies, religion and science (Garber, 2002). These four are

Conflict- this view holds that these two are, and always will be in conflict with each other. This view had been taken for several years as the objective one. This position saw many hard lines taken, with several people condemned in the process. Any attempt to marry the two was greatly opposed (Garber, 2002).
Independence- this view held that these two entities co-existed with each other, but not needing each other. It meant that each was equal to the other, and as such, their existence was necessary, as opposed to contingent. The emphasis here is on the differences inherent in the two (Garber, 2002).

Dialogue- according to Barbour, the possibility of dialogue implies that there is some common ground in as far as religion and science is concerned. This common ground is particularly seen in their concepts, methods, as well as presuppositions (Garber, 2002).

Integration- this is the position that seeks to bring about a marriage between these two entities. This is done by turning science into a kind of a theology of nature, that way there is not two, but one entity, namely religion (Garber, 2002).

The most plausible argument for me, however, is that of dialogue. These two entities are really not at war. Science concerns itself with observable realities, and attempts to explain such phenomena (Proctor, 2004). Religion deals with matters of faith as well as morality. If these two dialogue, there is a lot to gain than has been for a long time.

Pascal on Truths of the Heart
Although Pascal does not deny the possibility of knowledge of truth through reason, he considers it to be of a lesser strength. First Principles, according to Pascal, can only come to the human knowledge through the heart. The principle of tri-dimensionality of extended substances, for instance, being one of the First Principles, can only be known through the heart (Garber, 2002). Other truth that can only be known through the heart include, motion, time, space, and infinity of number.

Faith as such is only a gift, which comes through a movement of the heart by God (Hugh, 1983). For this reason then, faith can be said to be a truth of the heart. Based on this understanding, faith cannot be subjected to the test of reason, because it falls without its realm. That is why Pascal contended that the reasons of the heart cannot possibly be known by reason (Hugh, 1983). This Pascalian argument implies that the person is very critical in as far as faith is concerned. It does not give a lot of weight to institutional religion is concerned. This is because the institutional religion demands the observation of certain teachings, which may not necessarily ensue from the heart of the believer. In other words, Pascal takes a person centered approach to faith, rather than an institution centered approach, which had been the choice of many for a long time.

Mind-sets and Beliefs in Garber
According to Garber, there are certain kinds of states in knowing, which somehow determine peoples beliefs (Garber, 2002). In other words, these states become like the eye, through which these persons see reality. This has some serious implications for the claim of the existence of God. This is because, properly understood, Garbers argument means to say that persons are determined by the situations they are in. This view is kind of reasoning reduces the issue of faith to a certain kind of relativism. Thus, for instance, if someone believes in the presence of angels, it is because they have that particular type of a mind-set. Experientially, this argument is deeply flawed, because it would have to account for the universality of the fundamental ideas and principles. For instance, the idea of space does not seem to be directed by any mind-set. At the same time, there are realities that are understood by the mind, but which do not originate from there. This position would have to explain such a possibility. Although it seems convincing, at least superficially it is deeply rooted in a fallacy.

The four-fold schema as discussed in this study showed the various kinds of positions taken, regarding the relation that exists between religion and science. Dialogue was shown to be the more moderate position.
Pascal discussed various realities as having originated from the heart. His was an attempt to show the importance of faith in the life of the individual. The approach he takes is person centered.

Garber argues that there are certain kinds of mind-sets, which determine the way that human persons reason. This has been found to be deeply flawed. It would be erroneous to think in this way, because it eliminates the possibility of objectivity everything is reduced to a kind of subjectivity.