The contemporary dialogue between science and religion is far-reaching, infinitely fascinating, often inspirational, and generally quite fun, but what difference does it make in a troubled world with pressing needs and confounding problems. This is a question that we often ask ourselves here at Metanexus. We know that this call for the constructive engagement of science and religion is more than just esoteric scholasticism, but we often have a hard time articulating just how and why this is so. In that spirit, the Metanexus Directors have begun a strategic planning process. We began that process by reading and discussing a few books, including Randall Collins' "The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change." Below in the second installment of Hava Tirosh-Samuelson's discussion of Collins' monumental survey of intellectual movements, we turn from the past to the future as we consider what history teaches us about the ideas and networks that have transformed civilizations in the past and how to apply these lessons to this nascent movement which we refer to as the constructive engagement of science and religion. We also welcome all of you to join in this strategic conversation by penning your own reflections and thoughts about the "why, whereto, what for, and how" of our own intellectual and spiritual network. We would like to collect, publish, and consider your own strategic thoughts as we try to chart a course for our future. As always, please send your submissions to<editor@metanexus.net>.

Dr. Hava Tirosh-Samuelson is a Professor of History in Arizona State University. She was born in Kibbutz Afikim, Israel in 1950. She holds a Ph.D. in Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (1978), and a BA in Religious Studies from SUNY in Stony Brook, New York (1974). Prior to joining the faculty of Arizona State University, she taught at Indiana University (1991-1999), Emory University in Atlanta (1988-1991), Columbia University in New York (1982-1988), and Hebrew Union College in New York (1980-1982). In these institutions she has taught courses in Jewish history, Jewish philosophy and mysticism, and Western religions for graduate and undergraduate students.

Prof. Tirosh-Samuelson’s research focuses on medieval and early-modern Jewish intellectual history, with an emphasis on the interplay between philosophy and mysticism. She has published articles in academic journals, such as AJS Review and Science in Context, and book chapters in volumes such as History of Jewish Philosophy (Routledge, 1997), The Cambridge Companion of Medieval of Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 2002), and The Jewish Studies Bible (Oxford University Press, 2003). Her book – Between Worlds: The Life and Work of Rabbi David ben Judah Messer Leon (SUNY Press, 1991) – received the Arnold Viznitzer Award of the Hebrew University for the best work in Jewish history for 1991. Her most recent book is Happiness in Premodern Judaism: Virtue, Knowledge and Well-Being in Pre-modern Judaism (Hebrew Union College Press, 2003). She is also the editor of Judaism and Ecology: Created World and Revealed World (Harvard University Press, 2002) and Women and Gender in Jewish Philosophy (Indiana University Press, 2004).

In addition to her academic position, Prof. Tirosh-Samuelson has taught for the Wexner Heritage Foundation and has served as scholar-in residence in Reform and Conservative congregations throughout the US. She sits on the editorial boards of Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy and Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History and the Advisory Boards of Hebrew Union College- Jewish Institute of Religion, the Metanexus Institute on Science and Religion. She is also a member of the Forum on Religion and Ecology.

--William Grassie =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Book Review: Randall Collins' "The Sociology of Philosophies," Part 3, by Hava Tirosh-Samuelson

III. Collins's Work as a Mirror for the Field of Science and Religion

In the third and final part of my comments I want to reflect on the usefulness of Collins's work for us at the board of Metanexus. I venture to say that members of the board were asked to read the book not so much for the rich data it contains but in order to use the principles of the analysis as a means for self-reflection by people engaged in the dialogue of science and religion. Collins's work, I maintain, is extremely helpful if we use it as a mirror in which to assess ourselves and chart our future path. Here are some of the questions that came to my mind as I was reading Collins's book.

Self-definition:

Collins could be most useful to gain greater clarity about the nature of our enterprise. How should we understand "the dialogue of science and religion" in sociological terms. Is it an academic discipline, an intellectual network, a social movement, an intellectual movement, a discourse? We need to understand the differences between these categories and realize that each one implies a difference social institution and probably requires a different material base.

For example, if science and religion is no more than a "discourse," then it must have ways of disseminating its message, but it does not require a clear institutional structure. A discourse can be propagated through books, academic papers delivered in conferences, and chat-rooms on the internet. Even though the term "discourse" is commonly associated with Foucault and his analysis of the nexus of knowledge and power, "discourse" actually does not require an institutional setting. Many discourses are no more than intellectual fashions or a set of issues that engage people at a particular time.

If, however, "science and religion" is not just a discourse but an "intellectual network," then the board needs to identify the components of the network. In the language of Collins, we will need to identify its "stars," the "inner core", the "outer core," the "transients" and larger audience of potential recruits. To understand how the network actually works we will need to know exactly the relationship between "masters" and "disciples" as well as spell out the internal clusters within the network, each with its own distinctive approach to the science and religion dialogue.

But perhaps, science and religion is not just a discourse, and not just an intellectual network but an "academic field," or "academic sub-discipline." In that case, it must play by the rules of the current academic game of the research university. That is to say, science and religion must have a clear canon of texts, a set of shared questions or puzzles, endowed chairs in top research universities, publications in respectable publishing houses, and degrees-granting programs whose graduates are employable in academic institutions. As an academic field, science and religion will have to position itself in relationship to existing academic fields and area studies, especially religious studies and history of science.

Identifying the components is even more pertinent if science and religion is to become a "intellectual movement" let alone a "social movement." Once, we are thinking in terms of a "movement" we are committing ourselves to a lot more in terms of the impact on society. To view science and religion as a "movement" will necessitate going beyond the academy to affect all levels of education as well as the way people think and behave in all aspects of life. Obviously a movement requires many more resources than a discourse, a network, or an academic field. While science and religion may be all of the above, we need to be quite clear about what each category involves.

Conflict and Creativity:

As I noted above, Collins highlights the nexus of conflict and creativity. How do Collins's insights apply it to the case of "science and religion" internally and externally? To answer these questions we will need not only to identify the various organizations, such as Zygon, CTNS, and IRAS, and assess their particular contributions to the field, but also assess their creativity over time in light of the notion that conflict is necessary for creativity. Collins's conflictual and competitive model may be much less comfortable when applied to our own endeavor. It is a lot easier to talk about competition and polemics when the data belongs to the past; it is quite a different story when the data is contemporary. More problematically, the conflictual model of creativity may fit well our Capitalistic economy and our commitment to entrepreneurship as the basis for intellectual life. However, I for one find these values somewhat at odds with the value of humility promoted by Metanexus in its mission statement. Competition and conflict necessarily yields "winners" and "losers" and when these labels are used to assess creativity, we may get some very odd results. Instead of promoting the spirit of humility we will in fact promote pride and selfishness. In other words, I am less sanguine about conflict than Collins is and I am more aware of the ethical pitfalls presented by linking creativity to conflict and competition.

The institutional setting:

Finally, Collins's analysis should help us think about the ideal institutional setting for science and religion dialogue. Is it to be the denominational seminary, the secular university, or the think tank? What are the benefits and shortcomings of each of these institutional settings? The denominational seminary may provide more freedom to think about religious issues which the secular university has so far resisted, but depending on the religious identity of the seminary, it may also impose certain limits on the scientific pursuits. The secular university may seem to be more open to examine the interplay of science and religion, but it too has its own dogmas and many blind spots that make intelligent conversations about religion fraught with tension. And if we are to prefer the think-tank model, we may be dooming the discourse on science and religion to a small conversation of like-minded people that falls short of shaping social attitudes and cultural orientation. Again, we may not need to privilege one institutional setting, and we may be able to promote the work in various settings, each in accord to its own unique parameters. Whatever the institution, there will be some strings attached, some obligations, some political and economic concerns that will shape how the dialogue on science and religion is to develop.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Collins has given us a truly inter-disciplinary and multi-faceted analysis of intellectual life across space and time. His rich analysis should inspire us to turn to intellectual history and sociology of knowledge as the way to make sense of two simple questions: Where have we come from and where do we wish to go. At this moment in the history of Metanexus and the dialogue of science and religion we should find Collins's analysis extremely useful and enlightening. I thank Dr. Grassie for allowing me to learn from and reflect about Collins's rich work.

Published   2004.04.16