Great Ideas; 11; How Philosophy Differs from Science and Religion

This is National Educational Television. Good afternoon.

Mr. Luckman and I welcome you to another discussion of the great ideas. We go on this afternoon with the discussion of philosophy. When we decided to discuss this great idea, I had some concern that it might not be of as much general interest as the more concrete ideas we have discussed before, such as those about government, or labor, or happiness. But I was just looking at the, over once more, at the letters we received last week, and the volume of the questions that we received indicates, I'm glad to say that I was wrong. Moreover, the content of these questions indicates, I think, a great interest in the particular problem we considered last week and are going to push a little further in our discussion this week, the relation of philosophy to religion and to science. One or two, who perhaps more than that quite a few of these questions, are about the work of the Institute for Philosophical Research.

Perhaps before this series of programs on philosophy is completed, I may be able to answer some of those questions. Reflecting about the problem, we discussed last week, I recalled a debate that I had in Chicago, I think it was in the middle forties, with Bertrand Russell, the eminent British philosopher, and a noble Lord, an Earl of the realm. This debate had, as its question, the following problem. I have here a stenographic report of the debate as it took place, the question that Lord Russell and I argued was this, is science enough for the good life and the good society? The noble Lord said it was. I, on the negative side of that debate, said it was not. And I took the negative side because I felt, as I felt when I talked to you last week,

that science clearly is not enough to enable men to leave the good life or to construct and maintain the good society. If what I said last week was true, then my answer to Lord Russell was true. For science gives us at best the means and the power he used, but does not tell us how to use those means of that power well. It does not give us direction to the end of life. This, remembering this debate and looking at some of the things that, I said that I can recall to you also what we learned last time. Do you recall that we discussed the way in which engineering, medicine and law do different things for men? And just as those three professions do different things for men, practically, so the three great departments of human culture, science, religion and philosophy do different things for men. And I think perhaps the easiest way in which I can summarize this negatively

is to tell you the practical questions, the practical problems that science cannot solve. Similarly, the questions, the practical problems that philosophy cannot solve. Let me do it negatively. What kind of questions cannot the scientist answer? Practical, concrete questions. The scientist I say to you cannot tell us what happiness is and how happiness is to be attained. What men must do in order to be happy. The scientist cannot tell us how to constitute a society justly, how to make it a just political organization or a just economy. The scientist cannot tell us what man's duties are, what is right and what is wrong. The scientist cannot tell us why all forms of labor should have dignity or why there should be no slavery, why all men should be free. In short, in short, science cannot solve a single, basic, moral or political problem. And these basic, moral or political problems are precisely the problems

with both the philosopher and the theologian, both philosophy and religion, claim to be able to solve. Now, one of the limitations of philosophy in this respect, what questions can it not answer? Here I think the questions it must give up and leave to religion are questions about what precepts God gives men, what providence has in store for man, and above all, how men can get help from God in achieving their ends and leading a good life and conducting a good society. Now, one other thing that we saw last week I should like to repeat, we saw that engineering and medicine, for example, can do quite different things for men, build bridges, cure diseases, because the engineer and the physician know different things. And so that raises a question for us. If it is true, as I think it is true, if it is true, at the philosopher and the scientist and the theologian, the man of religion,

can do different things practically for men, is this because, is this because each of them know something different that each of these three great branches of culture is a different kind of knowledge. Now, that is the question I hope we can address ourselves today, address ourselves today. And, Lloyd, as we proceed with this discussion, I hope you will, and I will try to do it also, bring into the discussion the questions we have received where they are appropriate. Now, I propose to begin today's discussion by giving you an example that I want to use later on. I would like to give you an example of three distinct bodies of knowledge. I am going to choose for this purpose, history, chemistry, and astronomy. For everyone, I think, knows that these are three quite distinct, separate bodies of knowledge, and everyone understands in some sense

the difference between a being and a historian. The kind of research and historian does, as opposed to the kind of research a chemist does, or the kind of research an astronomer does. But let's look at that a little more closely. How precisely do these three bodies of knowledge, history, chemistry, and astronomy differ? I think, for our purposes at least today, I want to call your attention to two ways in which they differ. They differ in their objects, what they study, and in their methods, the way they inquire, the way they learn the truth about the objects of their inquiry. Let me show you this in a chart that I think explains quickly these two comparisons of chemistry, history, and astronomy, concerning their difference in method and object. Let's look at this chart together. These words here indicate the things that are characteristic of the method of history,

the use of testimony, the use of documents, the use of remains, archaeological remains, or monuments from the past, and the kind of research the historian does using these materials enables him to know the object which is the object of history, the past, the events which have taken place in the past. The chemist uses experiments in his method, experiments that may involve very complicated apparatus, test tubes and retorts, and very elaborate instrumentation. And by experiment using apparatus of this sort, he is able to investigate the structure of matter, its elements, and the compounds and fusions of these elements. Then let's turn to the astronomer. The astronomer doesn't perform experiments. He is an observer mainly, though an observer, an observer with very elaborate apparatus too, typically the great telescopes in our observatories, and observing by means of telescopes,

he inquires into another kind of object, the great celestial bodies, and their motions. Now we see here, in this example, we see here how these three bodies of knowledge are distinct, both in the methods they pursue or use, and the objects they investigate. And there is a consequence of this. As a result of it being separate in this way, they also are, to a certain extent, independent of one another. Lord, it seems to me that I recall a question about the independence of one science from another. Is there a question on that subject? Well, there is, if you mean the one from Mr. Richard E. Hecht. Yes, that's the one I mean. Lives here in San Francisco on 39th Avenue. Mr. Hecht says, I would like to know if one science can ever lawfully encroach upon the domain of another. Can one science encroach upon the domain of another? Well, there are really two answers to that question,

Lord. To whatever extent, two science is a rightly independent of one another. Mr. Hecht, they should not properly encroach upon each other's domains. But of course, Mr. Hecht, there are interdependent sciences. For example, biology and physics are at certain points interdependent to form the mixed science of biophysics. So are astronomy and physics to form the mixed science of astrophysics. But where two sciences are really independent, or where two bodies of knowledge are really independent, as I think history and chemistry are, or chemistry and astronomy, then they are, they should not encroach upon one another. Maybe I can state, Mr. Hecht, for you and for others, the general principle, which I think indicates the sense in which and how one science is independent of another. Let me show you a chart that explains that. And then apply it to some of the sciences we've been talking about. Well, looking at this chart,

just notice that all I've done is to put down two sciences, science one and science two, any two sciences, which may be independent of one another. Now, let's science one be a science which can answer questions about x, but has no answers about y. Science one which can answer questions about x can also refute answers given about x, but cannot refute answers given about y. Whereas science two, which cannot give answers to questions about x, but can answer questions about y can also refute answers to questions about y, but not to questions about x. This shows that if these two sciences do their own work properly, mind their own business answering the questions about the subjects they can ask about and criticizing answers about those subjects, then they will not come into any conflict. This is, I think, true. This is, I think, true of the chemist and the astronomer, or of the historian and the chemist. Those are independent bodies of knowledge, and as a result they need not come into conflict.

Now, let me apply what we have just learned about chemistry, astronomy, and history to the three great branches of our culture, science, philosophy, and religion. And here I'd like to proceed in the following way. I'd like first to consider their difference in method. I would like next to consider their difference in object. And third, I would like to consider whether or not they're independent. But again, no, it seems to me I recall a question I think from Miss Ryan this time, a question that gave us was about at least the methods of philosophy and religion and science. Would you read us that question? Yes, I have it here now. That is from Mrs. Peggy Ryan, San Francisco, that's not the question I mean. We accept many of our religious beliefs, she says, as divine mysteries. But in the field of science, we accept nothing without experimentation or investigation.

In the field of philosophy, then, what processes or devices are employed to establish the philosophical truths which we accept? Well, I, Miss Ryan, gives us at least some of the answers as well as asks the question. She points out something about the objects of religion to divide mysteries. And she says something about the method of science when she says experimentation. Let me, before I answer Miss Ryan's question, which is about the method of philosophy, let me see if I can illustrate the answers Miss Ryan gives us by showing you some pictures that I think will just call your mind what you already know about the method of science and the method of religion. First, let me show you two pictures that illustrate the method of science. The first one is a picture of the chemist in his laboratory, performing an experiment with test tubes and retorts. That illustrates the kind of method of the chemist that he's investigating by an experimental means.

Then let's turn to another kind of scientist who also investigates. The second picture here is the picture of a great observatory with a giant telescope. Look at this picture a moment and consider the difference with me between the chemist and the astronomer. The astronomer is an investigator by means of observation, sheer observation in an observatory, whereas the chemist is an investigator by means of experiment in a laboratory. So we ought to say with Miss Rich, or Miss Ryan, or I guess it is, but Miss Ryan, that the method of science is experimental. We ought to say the method of science is investigative either by experiment or observation. Now let's look at two more pictures, showing the method of religion. The method of religion involves the receiving a revelation from God. This is a picture of Moses receiving the law, receiving the Ten Commandments with fire on the top of Mount Sinai, one of the great episodes in the religion of Judaism, the revelation of the law by God to Moses.

Then let me show you one other picture in the history of a Western religion. Here is a picture of Jesus delivering to his disciples and followers the sermon on the Mount. Again, revealing the word of God to man. So that you see in these two pictures what is common to religion, the element of revelation, and the reception by man of divine revelation. Now, I have no pictures to show you the method of philosophy, but instead of pictures, I have some exhibits. I would like to exhibit the apparatus and the method of the philosophy. This armchair is the principle piece of apparatus of a philosophy. The philosophy is strictly an armchair thinker. Any philosophy worth this saw knows better than ever to get out of the armchair. We need one of the piece of apparatus perhaps. He needs a paired and a pencil. And that is about all the apparatus he needs.

Of course, this does not quite distinguish the philosophy from the mathematician. The mathematician can work also in an armchair with a pad and pencil. But there is this difference. The mathematician is a solitary armchair thinker. The philosopher needs conversation. He needs to carry on disputes with his fellow philosophers. He needs to discuss with them. The further apparatus the philosophy may need is a collection of armchairs around the table. He is a social armchair thinker. Dr. Adler, I have a question just on that very point from Mr. Lieberman, who is homeless in Oakland, Mr. J. Lieberman. He wrote, you said last week that philosophy was rational talk and stressed the fact that his best exemplified by men thinking together. And with the accent on together. Now, can a man be a philosopher alone? This is what Mr. Lieberman wants to know.

Can a man be a philosopher alone? Yes, Mr. Lieberman, of course he can be. The great geniuses in philosophy, the great genius in philosophy, were the great deal of part of that work in solitary reflection. But it is still true that the philosopher profits much more by conversation with philosophers, by carrying on the great philosophical controversies with his colleagues, than the mathematician does. In fact, I would almost say that it is indispensable to add the advance in philosophic knowledge to the advancement of philosophical truth that philosophers do not think alone, but think with one another. Now, let me then go to my second main point, which is the objects of philosophy as well as the objects of philosophy in contrast to the objects of science and religion, as well as the methods of philosophy, science and religion. And perhaps the easiest way to state this for you is again to go to a chart that summarizes the whole picture and which in some sense we are now prepared to understand.

This chart is constructed exactly in the same way as the chart that talked about chemistry, history and astronomy. Here are the three great branches of our culture. How are they differ in method? Science we understand is investigative. It must investigate, it must observe by experiment or otherwise new phenomena, get new data. And here, reasons serve the senses by making rational constructions or formulations based upon the data of observation. Philosophy is reflective. It is a kind of thing a man does in sitting down and contemplating or thinking hard analytically, reflectively about the common experiences of mankind. Here are the senses in ordinary experience, so reason. And religion, as compared to both of those, is receptive. It is the attitude of receiving the revelation of God and here reason is in the surface of revelation. As these three differ in method, so necessarily they differ in object because

the method, a body of knowledge, uses to acquire what it knows will largely limit it to the kind of thing it is able to know. The objects of science, because science is investigative, are all the phenomena, the world of appearances. The object of philosophy, because philosophy is reflective, is what lies behind the phenomena, what lies behind the appearances, the reality of things and their ultimate causes. And the object of religion, because religion is receptive of divine revelation, the object of religion is what Miss Ryan called the ultimate mysteries, the divine mystery. Now, the third point then, which we ought to consider, is are these three bodies of knowledge independent of one another? But first, before I go to that third point, let me see if I can

summarize in one other way the distinctions that that chart I just showed you contain, contain. Science we said was investigative. This means it is able to describe the facts. It gives us knowledge of the facts. Philosophy is reflective and does more than describe. It goes to the underlying reality of the causes. It tries to do more than describe. It tries to explain the facts. And therefore, beyond giving us a basic knowledge of the facts of nature and of life, it gives us some understanding of them. Religion accepts and believes. And in accepting and believing, it often goes beyond what is simply normal and understandable by men. Perhaps the best illustration of this is to give you three questions.

One that the scientists can answer, one that the philosopher can answer, one that the theologian of religion is can answer. Here's a typical scientific question. How is matter transformed into energy in atomic explosions? This is the question that Einstein answered in his extraordinary formula for the quantitative relation between matter and energy in atomic fission or explosions. A typical religious or theological question is the question whether God created the universe in the beginning of time. This is the question which the divine revelation in the first sentence of Genesis answers God created heaven and earth it says in the beginning. And what is the question the philosopher answers? A question like why does all the world of change involve some permanent things? Why must change the based upon permanence? Or this very question we've been discussing? The very question, how does philosophy differ from science and religion is itself a question for the philosopher? Not for the scientists or for the religionists to feel out. Now we've got these three questions clear.

Perhaps then I can talk about the independence, quickly of science, philosophy and religion. I recall why there were many questions we received about the conflict of science and religion. Did we receive any about the conflict of science and philosophy or a philosophy and religion? Well, not any question that asked about all three possible conflicts Dr. Adler. But I have one here that somewhat tends in that direction. It's from Mrs. John Ward Babcock in Berkeley, California. And she asks, would you agree with the definition? Between theology and science there is a no man's land exposed to attack from both sides. This no man's land is philosophy. I think I would in great measure agree. Mrs. Babcock? Certainly it is historically the case that philosophy has come between science and religion. But I would like to make two points in clarification of what

you just said. The first is that when conflicts occur among the three great branches of art culture, science, philosophy or religion, it is usually due to the fact that one of them has become imperialistic, has exceeded its own domains and become an aggressor invaded the territory of another. And philosophy you are quite right, Mrs. Babcock. Philosophy is like a buffer state. A buffer state needed to keep science and religion apart, in fact, to keep them in good order. Now let me see if I can carry that one step further and explain what I mean by good order as between the three great departments of art culture, science, philosophy and religion. What is a good order of these three? There are two answers to this. Either they should be equal and coordinate with one another or there should be a hierarchy from lower to higher. On this question of what the right order is of science, philosophy and religion, there are a number of opinions.

Quite a great diversity of opinions, as a matter of fact. One answer, for example, is that all three science, philosophy and religion are equal and coordinate. Another answer is that science is primary, and religion and philosophy is subordinate. The French philosopher, August Cump, who called himself a positivist, Helvet Science was the primary form of human knowledge and that religion was superstition and philosophy and mere speculation. Both of these answers, I think, lead to conflicts among science, philosophy and religion. Now I would like to give an alternative answer that there is a hierarchy, an ascending hierarchy from science to philosophy to religion. And I'd like to explain that hierarchy in practical terms by saying that the kind of help that philosophy gives men is a more important help than what science gives and the kind of help that religion gives is more important than philosophy. And in the theoretical order, as you ascend from science to philosophy to religion, you get the answers to more and more ultimate questions. Well, Dr. Anthony, I wonder if what you've just said isn't the answer then to a question we received from

Miss Patricia Dale, who lives in San Francisco. She asked you, if you were forced to choose between religion and philosophy, would you choose philosophy? Why? That Chris Dale is a very hard question. Are you put me on the spot? Is the kind of choice no one would like to make? Yet I must answer it honestly. If it's a hard and unhappy choice, but if I were forced, you say forced to choose between religion and philosophy. What I have just said, moment ago, indicates how I would have to make that choice. If I am right, the religion answers more ultimate questions and gives man a more important kind of help, then religion is more important than philosophy. And if one had to make the choice, one would choose religion rather than philosophy. Now, on the other hand, I hope one doesn't have to make this choice. I hope you see from what I've said that there need be no conflict between religion, science, and philosophy. This does not mean there is no conflict within philosophy

itself. This does not mean there is not conflict about philosophy. On the contrary, philosophy is a hotbed of controversy. It's full of dispute, full of schools of thought. And on this very point, we received a great many questions last week asking which philosophy is true. How does one tell which philosophy is true? What does one make of the fact that there are no conclusions on which philosophers agree? Why are there so many schools of philosophy? This is our problem for next time. Why are there perennial unsolved problems of philosophy? Can these perennial problems be resolved? Is there a way of achieving progress in philosophy? I hope that in the coming week you will send us your questions, your views and questions on the conflicts in philosophy and on the great question whether or not there is a chance of achieving progress in philosophy and what the conditions of such progress are. Oh, thank you very much. Thank you very much.

This is National Educational Television. Thank you very much.