Living words for the Lab and the Church - seeking metaphors that connect
IT IS AXIOMATIC that there are inherent misunderstandings in the dialogue between science and faith. For beneficial dialogue to be pursued between the two, the way dialogue is carried out must be re- addressed. My question is: could it be the theologian who needs to deal generously with the scientific researcher, and not vice versa? The basic problem between the disciplines is a linguistic one. Linguistic study is not the concern of scientific disciplines, so any dialogue with the language of science by the theologian must use a generous hermeneutic, initiated by the theologian, and followed through by the scientist to engage disciplines fully. The language of religion and faith allows for creativity, imagination and beauty, or ‘art’ to be expressed. Conversely, the scientific language in current interdisciplinary dialogue is that of the technician only. while research science is an art in the lab, the language through which it is reported does not allow this art to be expressed. The ‘art’ necessary for all research in science is often hidden behind the formulaic structure of the published academic document. The misrepresentation of science as having an inferior language most often occurs because dialogue is premised on a false equivalency: theology engages in dialogue with the scientific technician, not the scientific researcher. To formulate beneficial solutions to this linguistic impasse, a new understanding of shared tools such as metaphor and symbol in the arsenals of both disciplines is essential. The living language of science Science in the lab is lived as a creative and imaginative art, yet it is predominantly reported in technical language which does not demonstrate this. Chemistry publications, for example, communicate information in diagrams, charts, or some form of visual representation of interpreted numerical results alongside verbal language suitable for results discussion. Methodology is discussed in technical language only, and although not included in the body of the text, it forms the core of the paper. The introduction and conclusion of a paper use some other linguistic tools, but in an efficient manner.3 This issue is becoming better understood, but there is still a lack of literature around the language of empirical science.
* Full article available in printed copies.
Mark Gallagher
is rector of Trory, Clogher diocese, and a member of the Society of Ordained Scientists.