Maybe this is just me, but I’ve found that when I try to come up with a neat definition for science-as-cultural-activity (from a Christian perspective) I frequently end up with something that can just as well be applied to art. It goes something like this: science has to be based around our relationship with creation and to a large extent (but not totally, I know) art has a focus on the same relationship. So, when looking at the activities at the top level, things start to overlap.
I know this sounds an odd conclusion, perhaps because of the way our culture values and divides things, but bear with me. I don’t think this is just me having a brainstorm. Consider these two examples:
Jeremy Begbie has a book on the theology of the arts entitled “Voicing Creation’s Praise”; I can easily imagine a book on ‘theology of science’ called precisely the same. (Our theories and descriptions bring out God’s glory expressed by creation, etc.)
A quote from Flannery O’Conner:
The artist uses his reason to discover an answering reason in everything he sees. For him, to be reasonable is to find, in the object, in the situation, in the sequence, the spirit which makes it itself. This is not an easy or simple thing to do. It is to intrude upon the timeless, and that is only done by the violence of a single-minded respect for the truth.
It seems to me that, with just a few changes of words, this could describe a scientist as easily.
So, how do we deal with this? Two activities that our cultures sets in opposition begin to look similar from our point of view? (Obviously with significant differences in the details.) Perhaps we can edge towards a solution by looking at it this way: Both science and art are, at least in part, a conversation with creation. The difference between the two is the character of the conversation.
Maybe by comparing the two conversations, by coming from a different angle, we can learn something about them both.
Paul, how old is the Flannery O’Conner quote? It looks to me like a very modernist perspective on art – the appeal to reason and the notion of something timeless. It seems to me that in the last 150 years art has gradually moved away from a relationship to creation (a role in some ways now taken by photography) to consider more abstract ideas. However, I think that you’re probably right that art and science are looking at different aspects of the same questions.
I’ve been discussing some of these ideas with a few of my colleagues at http://believeitornot.org.uk/ – mainly in relation to the scope of science – maybe art is another angle we need to explore?
Thanks for the comments Simon. Good points! I guess the Flannery O’Conner quote is from the sixties, so I guess the timing is right for the tail end of modernism. I still like it, though
I did think about abstract side of art when I was writing this and it’s part of the ‘not totally’ comment. However, I wonder if there is still some engagement with creation in abstraction — colour, form, etc. are part of creation too.