Main   Terms   People   Interviews   Resources   Events

An Examination of Reductionism

Reductionist views have sometimes been used to write off religious truth (see Richard Dawkins and E.O.Wilson against the possibility of the truth of religion). But not all reductionism is prejudicial to the science-religion debate. Indeed, a form of reductionism is intrinsic to all scientific explanation. Arthur Peacocke writes:

The breaking-down of unintelligible, complex wholes into their component units, the determination of the structures of those pieces and what functions they can perform, and then the fitting of them together as best one can, hypothetically at least, in order to see how they function together in a complex whole, are such common ploys in experimental science that most practising scientists would consider it scarcely worth remarking upon.Peacocke, A, God and the New Biology (London: Dent, 1986) p6

Again, science has made great progress through assuming that for experimental purposes living things can be described in terms of atoms and molecules - science need consider no extra fundamental ingredient that makes them living, contrary to the thinking known as vitalism. However, this very basic physicalist assumption is of strictly limited importance. All human beings are made of the same sorts of atoms, indeed the same sorts of chemicals. We do consist of ‘nothing but’ these constituents in the restricted sense that if those chemicals were taken away there would be nothing left. Yet there is clearly more to be said about different human beings than that.

When Francis Crick proclaimed that ‘The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain all biology in terms of physics and chemistry’Quoted in Peacocke, 1986, p12he was seeking to replace one set of scientific descriptions by a more fundamental set. [This is ‘bottom-up’ thinking, which views ‘higher-level’ descriptions as special cases of more basic science. See the EPR Paradox to note that ‘bottom-up’ thinking runs into limitations at the smallest level of things, in quantum theory, but this does not take away its attractiveness in other sciences.]

Three questions may be asked to discover whether Crick’s project has succeeded:

  1. do the laws of physics and chemistry apply to the atoms and molecules of living things?
  2. are the interactions of atoms and molecules according to physics and chemistry sufficient to account for biological phenomena, or are other kinds of interaction needed?
  3. can biological theories be deduced logically from the theories of physics and chemistry?

The answer to the first two is yes, but to the third no. Although biology involves the same matter, and the same forces, as physics and chemistry, new levels of description are needed to do justice to biological systems. So the reduction has not succeeded.For a (fairly technical) application of this approach to reductionism in the area of evolution see Ayala, F, ‘Reduction in biology: a recent challenge’ in Evolution at a Crossroads ed. DJ Depew...

Click on the concept of emergence to explore what needs to be combined with reductionism in order to understand the relation between different sciences.

Or click on the particular case of genetic reductionism to examine some scientific and ethical concerns which it raises.

Or see cross-explanatory reductionism to understand reductionist claims at their most ambitious in respect of religion.

Email link | Feedback | Contributed by: Dr. Christopher Southgate
Source: God, Humanity and the Cosmos  (T&T Clark, 1999)

Topic Sets Available

AAAS Report on Stem-Cells

AstroTheology: Religious Reflections on Extraterrestrial Life Forms

Agency: Human, Robotic and Divine
Becoming Human: Brain, Mind, Emergence
Big Bang Cosmology and Theology (GHC)
Cosmic Questions Interviews

Cosmos and Creator
Creativity, Spirituality and Computing Technologies
CTNS Content Home
Darwin: A Friend to Religion?
Demystifying Information Technology
Divine Action (GHC)
Dreams and Dreaming: Neuroscientific and Religious Visions'
E. Coli at the No Free Lunchroom
Engaging Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence: An Adventure in Astro-Ethics
Evangelical Atheism: a response to Richard Dawkins
Ecology and Christian Theology
Evolution: What Should We Teach Our Children in Our Schools?
Evolution and Providence
Evolution and Creation Survey
Evolution and Theology (GHC)
Evolution, Creation, and Semiotics

The Expelled Controversy
Faith and Reason: An Introduction
Faith in the Future: Religion, Aging, and Healthcare in the 21st Century

Francisco Ayala on Evolution

From Christian Passions to Scientific Emotions
Genetic Engineering and Food

Genetics and Ethics
Genetic Technologies - the Radical Revision of Human Existence and the Natural World

Genomics, Nanotechnology and Robotics
Getting Mind out of Meat
God and Creation: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives on Big Bang Cosmology
God, Humanity and the Cosmos: A Textbook in Science and Religion
God the Spirit - and Natural Science
Historical Examples of the Science and Religion Debate (GHC)
History of Creationism
Intelligent Design Coming Clean

Issues for the Millennium: Cloning and Genetic Technologies
Jean Vanier of L'Arche
Nano-Technology and Nano-ethics
Natural Science and Christian Theology - A Select Bibliography
Neuroscience and the Soul
Outlines of the Science and Religion Debate (GHC)

Perspectives on Evolution

Physics and Theology
Quantum Mechanics and Theology (GHC)
Questions that Shape Our Future
Reductionism (GHC)
Reintroducing Teleology Into Science
Science and Suffering

Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action (CTNS/Vatican Series)

Space Exploration and Positive Stewardship

Stem-Cell Debate: Ethical Questions
Stem-Cell Ethics: A Theological Brief

Stem-Cell Questions
Theistic Evolution: A Christian Alternative to Atheism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design...
Theology and Science: Current Issues and Future Directions
Unscientific America: How science illiteracy threatens our future
Will ET End Religion?

Current Stats: topics: >2600, links: >300,000, video: 200 hours.