“Science and religion need each other as guides in their search for truth”.
I’ve been reading a discussion which followed Conor’s blog:‘Richard Dawkin’s and the Church’ and thought I might make available a paper I wrote on the issue not too long ago. It might be worth continuing this debate so hopefully this can add something to it.
“Science and religion need each other as guides in their search for truth”.An investigation of the evidence for this statement in the approach taken by science and religion to the debate about origins.
I chose this title after realising, from my reading of Richard Dawkins’ ‘The God Delusion’, that the idea of ‘religion’ and ’science’ as being in conflict is still very prevalent in academia. Until this point I had believed that such tension was exiled to history and backwater regions of the American ‘Bible Belt’. I chose to focus on the debate about origins as it is a debate which is currently capturing the imagination of the western world through the creationism vs. evolution saga in the U.S.
The written sources I used for this project were as follows:
‘Dawkins’ God’ by Alister McGrath
‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins
‘Darwin’s Angel’ by John Cornwell
‘The History of God’ by Karen Armstrong
‘The Story of god’ by Robert Winston
‘Humani Generis’ by Pius XII
‘What’s so great about Christianity?’ by Dinesh D’souza
‘In God we doubt’ by John Humphrys
I also attended a lecture, “Where Does ‘The God Delusion’ Come From”, by Professor Nicholas Lash of Cambridge University’s school of divinity and interviewed a resident physicist, Mr. Stephen O’Hara.
Before I begin I would like to establish the key difficulty with any examination of a ’science’-'religion’ relationship. As Professor Nicholas Lash writes in his paper on ‘The God Delusion’: “”Scientia” means knowledge and, in modern culture, “science” and its cognates mean the disciplined and critical investigation of reality.” He goes on to trace the development of this word and shows that only in english does the word ’science’ refer to a particular field of inquiry. He even comes to refer to this extreme linguistic mutation as the English speaking world’s “heresy of ’science’” ‘Religion’ is also a word used far too often without any awareness of it’s true meaning. Lash traces the emergence of the word’s diverse meanings which include everything from “a kind of justice” or “religious order” to ” a set of propositions or beliefs”. The fundamental role of ‘religion’ is “the attempted expression, in word and deed, in language, ritual and behaviour, of appropriate response to invitations not of our invention.” In other words an attempt to express a reaction to influences beyond humanity. Thus, just as what we often refer to as ‘religion’ falls under the domain of ’science’ so too does what we often refer to as ’science’ fall under the domain of ‘religion’. While the very idea of a paper devoted to highlighting how these two non-practices need each other seems dispensable I will address this topic while regarding the word ‘religion’ as ‘organised religion’ and ’science’ as ‘the natural sciences’.
At this stage I would also like to highlight the relationships between today’s five great world religions and science, as to refer to a science-’religion’ relationship is far too vague for such an examination. While Islam has always been open to scientific discovery which does not contradict a literal interpretation of the Qur’an orthodox Judaism has tended to be hostile to anything which might question the literal translation of the Torah. Buddhism focuses on the meaning and causes of suffering and the attainment of peace while leaving questions of creation aside. This means that it rarely clashes with science. Hinduism is pantheistic and doesn’t believe in a ‘creator’ like those of other faiths. This means that there is no option but to regard the spiritual realm as beyond the reach of natural science and so the relationship remains amicable. From this point on when I speak of ‘religion’ or ‘faith’ I will be referring to Christianity, as it is the major religion in the western world and so has a long standing relationship with the natural sciences. It is this mutual relationship which I will use this paper to investigate.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Since time immemorial man has searched, through various fields of inquiry, for the meaning for his existence. The question of ‘Why are we here?’ is intrinsically linked to the question of how humanity came to be in the first place. As methods of investigation were formed and progressed man came to recognise the world as complex and so designed by a conscious force. Thus, creation myths developed to explain the world and man’s place in it. These creation myths varied from the Zulu’s Unkulunkulu or Udan of the Mongols to the Greek’s Zeus, Mesopotamia’s Baal or even the Cherokee’s Great Beetle. When monotheism arrived in the Israel of the 13th century BC a massive shift began within the realms of theology which means that today over three quarters of humanity professes a belief in one God. This emergence of monotheism led to what we now recognise as ‘organised’ / ‘established’ religion. The problem which followed from established religion was what I will refer to as ‘theologism’ (the belief that theology is the ultimate field of inquiry which can be applied to all areas) as opposed to ’scientism’ (the scientific equivalent).
This all means that when Charles Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’ was released in 1859 the popular debate on origins seemed to encourage tensions between religion and science, which had existed since both fields clashed over Galileo’s heliocentristic theory two hundred years before. Since Darwin published his earth-shattering theory this debate has raged, in some form, with science and religion’s supposed ‘representatives’ insisting that Darwinism proves the incompatibility of both creeds.
The truth though is that Darwin never sought to call theism into question and most Darwinists would suggest that his agnosticism had its roots not in his evolutionary theory but in the tragic loss of his ten year old daughter, Annie. He seems to have been swayed not by any arguments about creation but what is commonly referred to as ‘l’origine du mal’(the origin [existence] of evil). Such modern proponents of scientism as Richard Dawkins would suggest that Darwin saw, through scientific enquiry, the ‘truth’ that is God’s non-existence. Evolution seemed to some to rule out the likelihood of a creator but to most it remained beyond the realms of theology.
Science has proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that it can bring to humanity a greater understanding of how our world works. To any modern layperson it seems that science can explain everything about our world. Yet one of science’s finest minds, Albert Einstein, claimed that “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” I will return to the extraordinary significance of these words later but the question which follows is how such a man of science could come to such a seemingly definitive conclusion.
In reality we shouldn’t be surprised. Late 17th century England saw the emergence of modern science from arguably one of the greatest minds of all time, Sir Isaac Newton. Yet while his theories heralded a new dawn for science he wrote: “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.” A fact rarely acknowledged about Newton is that he was a true ’scientist’ in the true sense of the word (as mentioned above). A physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and (surprisingly) theologian, Newton wrote more on theology than on natural science. The emerging Newtonian world view propagated in early 18th century England saw a golden era of religion and science working side by side in their shared search for truth. The fact that ‘theologism’ reared its ugly head meant that by 1750 this approach was in ruins and Persy Bysshe Shelley remarked: “the consistent Newtonian is necessarily an atheist.” Quite a change in half a century!
This arrogant commandeering of a joint venture by one side was not always the prevailing tendency. The early church father, St. Augustine, stressed the importance of scientific advance in biblical exegesis. Modern scientism claims that religion is afraid of science but the views of St. Augustine were never confined to his own study. Two hundred years before him Tertullian insisted: “there is nothing God does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason.” Over 1500 years later (1950) Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis: “It is well known how highly the Church regards human reason, for it falls to reason to demonstrate with certainty the existence of God”.
The central question, as mentioned above, is how humanity came to be. When one tries to grapple with such a question it is necessary to first establish who we are and then to work back from the present. Religion has traditionally dominated such a response with an account of creation by an omnipotent Creator. We were born. How did this happen? Science came to explain how our physical bodies are formed but we are more than simply the sum of our parts…or so says an overwhelming majority of human endeavour and experience. Thus, religion retains the authority over how our unique persons came to be, our true selves which religious individuals call the ’soul’. The next question is how humanity came to be in the beginning. Science has responded to this question with Darwin’s theory of evolution and this has caused many literal interpreters of the book of Genesis to shift in their seats. The great majority of Christians though are happy to accept this, as Christianity has never insisted on a literal translation of the Old Testament (as seen in quotes above from early church fathers).
Next comes creation in general. How did something come from nothing? The Christian view of creation flows from two theories: ‘creatio ex nihilo’ (creation from nothing) and ‘creatio continua’ (continuous creation) while the traditional view of God’s place in the creation story is that proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas of God as the ‘First Cause’ in a universe of ‘First’ and ‘Secondary’ Causations. For Aquinas God was the overseer of science’s ‘laws’ and ’systems’ (gravity, theory of relativity, Newtonian laws, evolution, etc.). From this view of Christian creation there doesn’t seem to be any obvious contradictions between the two views. Furthermore they seem to complement each other.
Science can explain how everything came to be as it is and how it now operates. Religion helps us understand how anything came to be and why? In the middle ages Christian thought focused on the world as a means to better know God. Modern science was born. Science has no reason to pursue truth in itself. Without any spiritual dimension we should surely adopt the philosophy “carpe diem” but humanity has been guided by religion to believe that there is something more…we are something more….and so we press on. Psalm 19:1 reads: “The heavens declare the glory of God” and so what would religion be without science….humanity could not see God. Alister McGrath has pointed out that to believe in a randomly evolved universe or multiverse takes more a leap of faith then to believe in a Creator. Everything is a matter of faith. Science stresses complexity while religion stresses humanity. In conclusion I return to that rich quote of Einstein’s: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Friday, August 8th, 2008 and is filed under Science.
You can leave a comment.
Carolynne Says:
If you don’t believe find and read Paschual’s Challenge. My spelling might be off but as you are all so very very smart I’m sure a little looking would find you the proper spelling. As for me I’d rather die to awake to find I was right and God exists than to thumb my nose at him and awake to find I was stupid or stubborn. And get a do not pass go card but go directly to hell. You’d probably have a better life here too, no gonorhea and other STD’s. You might even be less pompus, not so grouchy and you could count all your friends using only your 4 fingers. Thumbs are opossible didgets. Debos only apply in Mexico.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Carolynne Says:
All you doubters read mt next comment.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Ronan Says:
Thank you very much Carolynne. I looked it up…it’s Pascal’s Wager/ Pascal’s Gambit…..great stuff!
August 9th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Sixela Says:
Science and religion – Friends or Foes?
There may be a way to build a bridge between them.
Many religions have something in common: They see nothing between god and the human species. Some people tried to fill this gap and told us about Cherubims and Seraphims.
What would happen if we try to use human thinking to fill this gap?
This is what I started to explore: http://www.BetterThanThinking.com
I welcome any comment.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Ronan Says:
Sixela,
Our understanding of man’s place in the world around us is gleaned from the book of Genesis. This understanding is developing and the accepted reading now emphasises our place as the planet’s stewards.
Your point about the gap between God and mankind confuses me. Perhaps this was a ‘problem’ until around 3AD when Chinese astronomers spotted a star rising in the east.
Was this gap not closed when God became man?
September 16th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Gary Connolly Says:
Religion and science are about as different as two ideas can be.
Science is about the rational, falsifiable investigation of testable things. It produces results which can be examined and retested. Scientific claims are only accepted on the basis of sufficient evidence.
Religion is invented myth that is supposed to be accepted on faith. Tell any group of scientists that they should accept what you are saying for no reason other than your insistence it is true and you will be laughed at. As well you should be. Science has absolutely no need of religion what so ever.
Science = reasonable and useful.
Religion = fantasy and worse than no use.
Who would want to build a bridge between these? Science has already proven much of the bible wrong. The responce by theists. Take something that was originally intended to be taken literally and just insist it is only metaphor. Pathetic.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:02 pm