Episode 76. In further explaining the confirmation relationship of science and religion, John Haught gets more specific and identifies the metaphysical or religious foundations in science. These appear in quote 18. And as you'll see, they include the first two features of critical realism, which we described in our notes on page 64. The first foundational belief in science is realism. As we've noted previously, realism is a belief, that there is a real world out there. Most of us believe that we're not trapped in a computer program or dream, but this is a belief, in quote 18, Haught refers to the real world two times. Second, Haught points out that intelligibility of nature is foundational to science. This is the belief that the universe is a rationally ordered totality of things. In quote 18, Haught refers to the worlds intelligibility three times and to its orderliness another three times. This clearly points to world a belief in intelligent design. Third, Haught recognizes human intelligence as another foundation of science. This is the belief that the human mind has the capacity to comprehend and truly know nature. With this belief, there is no four F's mind problem here. >> We can use the metaphysic, physics principle to depict. Haught's notion that metaphysics and religion are foundations in the scientific process, as represented by the downward movement of religious and metaphysical ideas into science. Such as realism, the intelligibility of nature, and the proficiency of human intelligence. Finally John Haught proposes a metaphysical, or ultimate religious root for science. In quote 20 he states, science has nothing to lose and everything to gain by rooting itself in religions fundamental vision of reality as an intelligible hole grounded in the ultimately trustworthy being that the followers of Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed called by the name God. And this leads us back to a critical question we asked earlier on page 14 of the notes, In who or what do we root? The tacit faith of scientists, reality, intelligibility of nature and human intelligence. Are we to believe this is rooted in? A dysteleological universe and a 4Fs brain, which is the result of fighting, fleeing, feeding and fertilizing. That is a brain that was never intended to discover science. Or do we root all these features and the foundation of the theological universe that is God. And a brain that was intended to know the world through science. What do you think? It's time to draw some conclusions regarding Haught's confirmation relationship. First, a word of caution to religious people like Christians. Don't overstate the impact of religion on science. For example, some Christian historians say that science in the 16th century arose because of Christianity, but this is an overstatement, because science was being practiced well before Christianity appeared. For example, as we've seen the ancient Greeks practiced the form of science with many features similar to ours. But more importantly, the confirmation relationship reveals that religion can be in a peaceful relationship with modern science. Confirmation appreciates the fiduciary aspects of the human epistemological condition. Do not be embarrassed to say that we are creatures of faith. And confirmation asserts, that science has a priori, metaphysical or if you wish, religious foundations. For John Haught, Christianity offers science and metaphysic that can be rooted in God. We are now ready to offer a couple of general conclusions regarding the science and religion model of John Haught. As we noted in quote 1, John Haught's personal position on science and religion rejects conflict, begins with contrast as a necessary first step away from conflation and conflict, and then accepts contact supplemented by confirmation. Therefore the lesson for us is that it is perfectly acceptable to select and to combine various categories and relationships as we construct our personal position of the relationship between science and religion. In my opinion, John Haught has been the leading individual in helping us recognize the problem of conflation in discussion about science and religion. His absolutely correct that conflation fuels the common perception that science and religion are in an never ending conflict. It is always lurking in the background, and I will confess I fight it all the time. So I am definitely indebted to Dr. Haught for helping me recognize this tendency that we all have in our thinking. End of episode.