Beyond Naturalism: What’s Real? Dr. Alex Carter vs Dr. Zachary Ardern - Hosted by Sam McKee

In this informal episode of Unbelievable, host Sam McKee is joined by Dr. Zachary Ardern and Dr. Alex Carter for a wide-ranging discussion on the relationship between science, religion, and reality. The conversation is framed by significant historical events: the Scopes Monkey Trial in the USA and the Cambridge University symposium on Science, Religion, and Reality, both occurring a century ago. The guests introduce their backgrounds in evolutionary biology and the philosophy of religion, setting the context for deeper discussions on how these fields interact.

The conversation delves into various models of how science and religion relate to each other. Dr. Alex Carter discusses Ian Barber's four models: conflict, separation, integration, and dialogue. He expresses a preference for the dialogue model, suggesting it allows for a productive conversation between the two realms. Dr. Ardern supports the idea of a shared history where theology and science have previously overlapped, highlighting a need for a return to dialogue rather than conflict.

Dr. Carter and Dr. Ardern explore the nature of religious knowledge compared to scientific knowledge, debating whether one can influence the other. They discuss the epistemological challenges both fields face and emphasize that science, while rigorous and systematic, cannot fully explain human experience, meaning, and morality. The guests share insights on consciousness, causation, and the limitations of a strictly naturalistic worldview.

The discussion shifts to the idea of finding meaning and understanding through nature and creation. Dr. Ardern emphasizes the underlying order and goodness of creation, suggesting that while difficulties exist, they do not undermine the fundamental goodness of the universe. Conversely, Dr. Carter brings attention to the inherent suffering and evil present in nature, arguing that these veer discussions towards existential quandaries instead of straightforward assertions about God's role.

As they conclude, McKee encourages both guests to reflect on what nature can reveal about God. Their contrasting perspectives present a holistic view of the relationship between faith and science, suggesting both fields can ask critical questions about existence without necessarily having a conflict. They underscore the importance of recognizing the limits of one’s worldview as a means for further inquiry and understanding.