Religion and Science from a Postsecular Perspective
to de Vries: 2) through which to comprehend the complex relationship between the sacred and secular rather than a foundation according to which to relate the sacred and the secular. As such, the postsecular needs the raw material of discourse and practice to manifest itself through its hermeneutic agency. Ironically, perhaps, the “texts” that it interprets are operating as if the postsecular has yet to arrive. In other words, those who continue to put the sacred and the secular together if at all betray a “pre-postsecular” or modernist worldview wherein hierarchies hold. Yet as an interpretive lens that is reluctant to interfere with what it observes, the postsecular is critical of those discourses that continue to put the sacred and the secular in some kind of hierarchy. As suggested by the different ways that the postsecular has been construed so that the sacred can be resurgent, the secular can persist in a modified form; or for our purposes, the secular and sacred can be appropriately located on a cultural plane in order to be appreciated in their respective and mutually interrelated ways.
In this essay, we look at the relationship between religion and science as a prominent
example of the secular and sacred coming together in contemporary American culture. In
order to foreground the benefits of a postsecular interpretation of the relationship, we first
articulate and dispense with the view that religion and science have nothing to do with each
other because their respective objects of study and methods of inquiry are so radically
different. Unlike previous attempts to historicize the relationship between the sacred and the
secular (Taylor; Bellah), postsecular thought claims that they coexist; neither is
overshadowing nor absorbing the other. This view follows our argument about the
postsecular relationship between sports and religion where it becomes clear that their mutual
reinforcement should be thought of as a form of displacement (as opposed to replacement):
their independent existence is partially influenced by other cultural institutions instead of the
one taking away or undermining the other (Scholes and Sassower 2014). This way of viewing
the relationship highlights the postmodern “both/and” approach instead of the modernist
“either/or” mindset that eschews one view or set of discourses in favor of another. The
cultural prism through which we view this argument is colored by the pervasive capitalist
ideology and reality in which both scientific and religious institutions and individuals must
participate.
The lack of fruitful discussion in regards to the relationship between religion and science seems often enough to stem from oppositions over assumptions or assumed frameworks in need of preliminary clarification, as has been the case when Creationism confronts evolutionary theory (in classrooms, PTA meetings, or courtrooms). The best survey to date of the relationship between religion and science was undertaken by Ian Barbour. He identifies four kinds of relationships: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration, and we value and draw on his in-depth analysis and references. Since Barbour maintains a deferential attitude towards religion we, on the other hand, suggest that when religion and science are understood discursively (Foucault), deference to one or the other is neither possible nor fruitful from a postsecular perspective. That is, our postsecular interpretation attempts to expose the futility of constructing (ideological) silos, whether deferential or not. Different thinkers advocating any one of these silos seem to talk past each other insofar as their presuppositions are not made explicit. For example, perhaps one already assumes science has replaced religion, while another might consider religion and science equal partners. What underlies most of these attempts at constructing the
