1. Science and Religion – in Viennese Context
Dr. Eszter Kodácsy-Simon
Lutheran Theological University, Budapest
EFTRE Conference, Vienna, 2016.

2. Statements
meaningful?
true?
justifiable? – how?

3. All the apples fall from the tree to the ground. There is a Creator.
Jesus is human and divine at the same time.
Birds have feathers.
Natural scientists are atheist.
God doesn't play dice.
Since the astronauts didn't see any sign of God, we can say that there is no heaven and no God.

4. Vienna Circle (Wiener Kreis)
very influential philosophical movement
relatively short existence
radically different perspectives – philosophies of VC great variety of projects
even some of the most central theses of the VC underwent radical changes during the few years of its life
even some members changed their views essentially during some years' time
called variously: logical positivism, logical empiricism, scientific empiricism, neopositivism, unity of science movement

5. History of the VC „First VC” (1907-12)
main question: philosophy of science, epistemology
Hans Hahn (mathematics), Otto Neurath (mathematics, economy, history), Philipp Frank (physics)
„After 1910 there began in Vienna a movement which regarded Mach's positivist philosophy of science as having great importance for general intellectual life [...] An attempt was made by a group of young men to retain the most essential points of Mach's positivism, especially his stand against the misuse of metaphysics in science.” (Uebel, Thomas, 2003, p. 70.)

6. History of the VC Formative years (1918-24)
Hahn returning to Vienna in 1921, held seminars on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus logico- philosophicus
Moritz Schlick (philosophy, physics): chair of philosophy of the inductive sciences at the University of Vienna from 1922
Hahn-Schlick- discussions, „evening circle” at the Institute of Mathematics in Vienna’s Boltzmanngasse 5

7. History of the VC „Schlick-circle” (1924-28)
non-public phase, personal invitations; recognized scientists, students, doctoral candidates
mainly discussed Rudolf Carnap's and Wittgenstein's ideas on logical positivism

8. History of the VC Public phase (1928-34)
aim: „spreading of a 'scientific world conception' through public lectures”
1929: first public written appearance: „The Scientific Conception of the World. The Vienna Circle”
1929: first international conference on logical empiricism
main persons: Schlick, Hahn, Neurath, Carnap
others eg.: Gustav Bergmann (philosophy), Kurt Gödel (mathematics, philosophy), Arne Naess (philosophy), Karl Popper (philosophy), Willard Van Orman Quine (philosophy), Frank P. Ramsey (mathematics), Alfred Tarski (mathematics)

9. History of the VC Disintegration (1934-38)
from 1930, political and racist reasons
Carnap tp Prague (1930) and Chicago (1935)
1934: Hahn died after a surgery
1936: murder of Moritz Schlick by the former student for political and personal reasons
1938: total end of the VC
emigration => internationalizatio n of logical empiricism
later works of leading members being still active in the 1940s, 50s and 60s

10. Topics of VC verificationism and the critique of metaphysics
„unified science”
„linguistic turn” – all philosophy is really a critique of language, representation is the proper subject matter of philosophy, the ways of representing the world were largely determined by convention,
the analytic/synthetic distinction and the relative a priori
reductionism and foundationalism
scientific theories, theoretical terms and the problem of realism

11. Logical positivism, VC statements+theory must be justified
the basis of justification can only be experience (Hume)
methods and laws of natural sciences are reliable
two sources for knowledge:
experience (perception) → statements
and logics (logical analysis) → theory

12. Logical positivism, VC statements+theory must be justified
demarcating science and non-science
"The content of our thesis is in fact entirely trivial (and that is precisely why it can give so much insight); it tells us that a statement only has a specifiable meaning if it makes some testable difference whether it is true or false." (Schlick)

13. Logical positivism, VC statements+theory must be justified
beliefs must be justified as well
statements that are not linked to reality and experience
metaphysical statements are not valuable, because it breaks away from experience

14. Logical positivism, VC Verification
Only those statements
are meaningful that are grounded in experience and observation,
and are true that can be verified
the statements of ethics, metaphysics, religion, and aesthetics are assertorically meaningless
"The empiricist does not say to the metaphysician: 'Your words assert something false," but 'Your words assert nothing at all!' He does not contradict the metaphysician, but says: 'I do not understand you.'" (Schlick)

15. Logical positivism, VC Challenges
mathematics: How can „2+2=4” be experienced?
observations are too complicated, many observations are theory-dependent, which means in lay language. „I wouldn’t have seen it, if I hadn’t believed it.”
"Yesterday a dove was sitting on the roof."
physical entities that are impossible to experience directly (eg. subatomic particles)

16. Logical positivism, VC About metaphysical statements
are not verifiable – meaningless?
„eschatological verification”

17. Logical positivism, VC Karl Popper
verification principle is
too rigid
allows several "pseudo-sciences" (Freud, Marx) to live
influence of Einstein
in his theory of relativity he forecasts the necessary observations that can falsify his theory
"Not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as the criterion of demarcation [between science and metaphysics]”

18. Theodicy Can experience falsify a doctrine?
H and O
O: The world contains instances of suffering and evil
H1: God is omnipotent and omniscient;
H2: God is completely good;
H3: A good an omnipotent God would eliminate suffering and evil.

19. Theodicy Can experience falsify a doctrine?
H and O
O: The world contains instances of suffering and evil
H1: God is omnipotent and omniscient;
H2: God is completely good;
H3: A good an omnipotent God would eliminate suffering and evil.
Is H3 correct? "Greater good"-argument would say no.
Fundamental question: relation between H and O
How should statement be interpreted:
There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.

20. Theodicy Can experience falsify a doctrine?
Rowe's answers:
There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil which is equally bad, if not worse. (Problem: mixing O with H)
Alston's three problems (limitations):
lack of data (such as the nature of the universe; nature of afterlife, etc)
complexity beyond human capacity (too complex and nuanced factors for analysis)
difficulty in determining what is metaphysically possible or necessary (we are in no position to determine what can and cannot be the case)

21. Our statements meaningful? true? justifiable? – how?
What O and H do they contain?

22. Friedrich Stadler, Thomas E
Friedrich Stadler, Thomas E. Uebel (eds): Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis
Rudolf Haller (ed): Neopositivismus. Eine historische Enführung in die Philosophie des Wiener Kreises, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993.
W. Mark Richardson, Wesley J. Wildman (eds): Religion and Science. History, Method, Dialogue. Routledge, 1996.
Alister E. McGrath: The Foundations of Dialogue in Science and Religion. Blackwell, 1998.
Tillich, Paul. The Spiritual Situation in Our Technical Society. Mercer, 1988.