Science and Religion 101
By Paul Fayter
There
is not, has never been, nor will there ever be one simple “relationship”
between science and religion. Actually, there is no such thing as
“Science-and-Religion” because there is no such thing as “Religion” or
“Science.”
“Science”
is an abstraction, like “Religion.” Neither exists in the real world. Religions and sciences exist, in the plural. And even in the plural, they are not
simple things, nor are the ways in which they relate simple. There are many religions,
but even within what counts as one religion - like Christianity or Judaism -
there are different branches, varieties and traditions. The sciences also
embrace many traditions and disciplines, from psychology, sociology and
anthropology, to biology, chemistry and physics; not to mention mathematics or
cosmology or a thousand other specialties, each of which can be further
subdivided. Each discipline has its distinctive aims, technologies, cultures
and methodologies. There is no such thing as “the scientific method”, just as it is not true that all religious
believers worship “the same God.”
The
most commonly held view of how “Science” relates to “Religion” can be called
the “conflict thesis” or the “warfare model.” In this view - an ideological
invention of the late nineteenth century anticlerical scientists - religion and
science represent two independent, autonomous and inevitably opposing domains.
Sciences stands for the progressive light of reason; religion for the dark
ignorance of superstition. According to this view, the “Church” (another
abstraction) has done little more than oppress and persecute scientists
throughout history. The martyrs of free thought include Copernicus, Galileo and
Darwin.
Most
of what you have probably heard about those famous “science versus religion”
episodes in western history is simply false. There have been, and continue to
be, real tensions at metaphysical and moral levels between religious and
scientific perspectives, but these tensions are not greater than those
occurring within science or theology.
You may have heard of the famous “Huxley-Wilberforce Debate” over Darwinism at
Oxford in 1860; or the Scopes “Monkey Trial” (also about Darwinism) in the
1920s in Tennessee. Accounts of the “triumph” of science over religion in
sources like William Irvine’s Apes,
Angels and Victorians or Hollywood’s Inherit
the Wind make fine entertainment, but only if you like science fiction.
(The same is true of the large literature produced by anti-evolutionary
fundamentalists who corrupted the biblical idea of “creation” and are convinced
that their interpretation of Genesis must duel to the death with the “atheistic
materialism” of Darwinian science.)
What
the warfare interpretation ignores is that modern science emerged in western
Europe in a rich cultural matrix decisively shaped by Christianity. Practicing
Catholics and Protestants of all kinds created new experimental sciences and
organized scientific societies with the blessing of theologians and church
officials. Foundational for the new views of nature and science in the
seventeenth century were theistic assumptions - unprovable but necessary
beliefs for doing science - rooted in the freedom and sovereignty of a rational
Creator, the trustworthy, lawgiving God of the Bible. These assumptions include
the intelligibility of the physical world; the reliability of human reason; the
orderliness of nature; and the universal uniformity of natural law. Even before
the Scientific Revolution, the intrinsic goodness, value and interest of nature
(as God’s contingent creation) was affirmed by medieval theologians. The study
of God’s handiwork was a form of devotion; the practice of science, a kind of
worship.
The
pervasiveness of the “warfare” model has meant that many pious people have
feared science. Contrary to some polemical claims, science has not - indeed it
cannot - “disprove God.” I do not even think it undermines belief. Well-founded
natural knowledge can indeed cast doubt on certain claims about, say, the age
of the earth. It can erode the credibility of some literalistic interpretations
of biblical passages. Given a little time, scientific ideas can help transform
theological ideas about God, nature and humanity. Despite areas of tension and
misunderstanding, Christians should not fear scientific thought. (After thirty
years of studying science, I still believe in God the Creator Spirit, in Jesus
the Word made flesh, in miracles - including the resurrection - and in prayer.)
Some
of the results of scientific research, though, and their technological
incarnations, can pose profound social problems and threaten cherished values
and beliefs. The bottom line is this: many models are required to account for
the many ways both domains have interacted at many times and many places. So let’s
go with a “complexity thesis” concerning the science/religion relationship.
Science
and religion are different and distinctive, but they have many similarities. Both scientific and religious thinking and believing
hinge on morally serious imagination and interpreted
experience. Both science and theology (religious faith in its intellectual
mode) seek humbly to understand reality. Both draw on certain kinds of
“revelation.” Both offer provisional, revisable, yet authoritative and
well-founded explanations that count as truth for right belief and action.
Another
common dimension is that religious faith and scientific enquiry are social enterprises. Both are complex bodies of interacting theory, knowledge, practice and
belief that embody and expression the interests, hopes, needs, assumptions
values and worldviews of individuals in culturally embedded communities. It
would sound awkward, even misleading, to describe theology or ethics as
“neutral” or “objective.” They are, rather, way s of knowing and doing that are
committed to some purpose. The same
is true for the theories, techniques and artefacts of technology and science.
Just
as faith can become a species of terrorism, science (because it is also done by
humans) can turn demonic (witness eugenics or nuclear weapons.) But I certainly
do not want to demonize those engaged in, for example, genetic engineering or
biotechnology. Tossing around slogans like “beware of Frankenfood” and “it’s
the Brave New World” does not substitute for careful and critical thought. To
be sure, many legitimate theological, ethical and technical questions can be
raised, concerning social and environmental justice, safety, stewardship, human
dignity and the integrity of creation, for instance. And we should always be
suspicious about stated motives (“we’ll be able to prevent or treat most
diseases and end human suffering!”) when there are billions of dollars in
profits at stake.
It
is an exciting time to be alive, if you find both science and religion
fascinating. There are rich multidisciplinary dialogues going on around the
world. Many participants have earned academic credentials in both theology and
the sciences. The questions are many, the literature very large, and the
resources growing.
In
what follows, I mention some of the topics receiving current attention and say
a word or two about why, as a lover of both religion and science, I find these
topics bursting with insights that might enrich both domains. Remember, this is
only the tip of the iceberg.
·
The
broad area of spirituality, health and healing is of growing interest. Research
shows that faith has a definite and positive effect on well-being, avoidance of
disease and recovery from illness and injury. That the “placebo effect” is real
sows that minds and bodies interact in ways that we do not fully understand.
Serious studies at a number of medical schools (including Duke, Dartmouth,
Pennsylvania and Harvard) and many carefully designed clinical trials are
providing evidence that “prayer works.” That is, intercessory prayers for
patients seem to have physical effects, whether or not the patient believes in
God, is aware of prayers, is conscious, or even human (physically measurable
and statistically significant effects have been observed with animal and plant
subjects, even with test tubes full of enzymes.) Something real is going, even
is science does not understand it. By the way, “non-Christian” prayers seem to
work as well as Christian ones.
·
Artificial
intelligence, robots and cyborgs raise all sorts of questions about the nature
of cognition, self-awareness and human uniqueness. Can machines have minds? Can
souls emerge from silicon? Amazing technologies are being applied to - and
embedded in - human bodies, blurring the boundaries between flesh and metal.
Will computers evolve past human understanding and control? Stay tuned.
·
Quantum
physics proves that the world is weirder than anything dreamed up by science
fiction writers, with its pictures of energies and particles flickering in and
out of existence, wormholes foaming out of subatomic particles, and the
prospect of time travel and parallel universes (to name some of the sexier
aspects.) Some theologian-physicists have speculated that the “new physics”
opens a door to understanding details about divine activity in nature. Some
philosophers have tried moving from the microworld to the level of human
experience, arguing that quantum uncertainty leaves room for freedom of the
will. Some astronomers have reintroduced God-talk with the application of quantum
mechanics to understanding to origin of the universe. They jury is still out on
the relevance of quantum physics and cosmology to theology, but the research -
much of it associated with the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences at
Berkeley and the Pontifical Academy of Science and the Vatican Observatory -
continues.
·
Cosmology
- the study of the origin, history, evolution, structure and destiny of the
universe - has become one of the hottest areas of research in the past few
decades, and has been engaged in a sophisticated dialogue with theology too.
Some versions of the Big Bang Theory
posit the creation (out of a fluctuating quantum vacuum) of space, time
and matter at time = 0, approximately 14 billion years ago. This looks to be
consonant with some notions of divine genesis “in the beginning,” although one
should always be wary of hitching theological belief or the reading of any
biblical passage to the latest scientific wagon. Other theories hold that our
whole unimaginably vast universe is but one of countless trillions of naturally
occurring universes , and the role of any biblical Creator is reduced to
irrelevance. But our universe seems to be exceedingly fine-tuned. It is
anything but “accidental.” The universe is exquisitely structured in ways we
are just now coming to appreciate. Many physical characteristics - from the
initial outward expansion of the “big bang” in relation to the strength of
gravitation, and the respective sizes and masses of protons and electrons to
the configuration of our solar system, the physics of light and the chemistry
of water - are so breath-takingly unlikely, so fantastically improbable, that
it looks like the cosmos was intelligently, purposefully designed to support
life. Some intelligent design theorists suggest that the Designer might be the
God if Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. Or maybe not. The atheist astronomer
Fred Hoyle has wondered whether some super-advanced alien intellects have
“monkeyed” with the laws of physics and biology. Either way, creation is even
more awesome and ordered than the Psalmist ever imagined.
·
Evolutionary
theories have been intertwined with theologies of nature since before Darwin
and they continue to raise deep questions about God’s relation to processes
which involve so much pain, suffering and death. We still do not know how life
arose on Earth and much of life’s subsequent evolution remains murky, to say
the least ( including details of our specie’s ancestry.) Evolutionary
theologies tend to emphasize the immanence of God, but questions about
transcendent purpose and providential guidance persist.
·
Complexity
theory asks, in part, how physics turns into biology. That is, how do
complicated living organisms and processes, such as mammalian consciousness and
human thinking, emerge from a long evolutionary history originating with simple
physical constituents and biochemical processes? Again, the question is raised:
How does God make and act in the natural world?
·
Genetics
and biotechnology are advancing rapidly and will reshape our world in the 21st
century. New knowledge and techniques promise unprecedented control over
nature, our bodies and future evolution. The power are acquiring seems almost
godlike and so far is outstripping our moral wisdom. What will become of such
old ideas as the sanctity and sacredness of life? Will we learn that just
because we can do something does not
mean we ought to?
·
Evolutionary
psychology is the new folk-religion for scientific “fundies” who seek to reduce
ethics to biology and explain away God as an adaptively useful fiction. Is our
behaviour determined by “selfish genes” whose only aim is to reproduce? Is
religious faith a kind of delusion? Reconcilers of science and religion still
have to come to terms with the legacy of Darwin and Freud.
·
Neurophysiology
- a fancy word for brain science - is also at the cutting edge of the science
and religion debate. When arise human memory, consciousness, intelligence? Do
such things as “soul,” spirit,” mind”, “will” event exist - or is the only
reality material (i.e., brains in bodies?) Is “God” (apart from the question
whether or not God is real) something our brains are hardwired to believe in?
And
here is where I arbitrarily stop. If you want to read more, you can find
materials attached to this article on the Canadian Council of Churches website
(www.ccc-cce.ca).
This should be enough to keep you going for a few years.
This article appeared
originally in Life:
Patent Pending: A discussion guide on Biotechnology and The Oncomouse, published by The Canadian Council of
Churches, 159 Roxborough Drive, Toronto, ON, M4W 1X7. It has been slightly
adapted and is reprinted by permission.
|
