Science, for all its greatness, does not pass muster as a substitute for religion. Religion, for all its greatness, does NOT even closely approximate science as a substitute for explanation of nature. Yet, both are needed, and both have important points of convergence that are too often ignored.
Religion produces important social ties of responsibility that are difficult to reproduce elsewhere. I am thinking of the struggling Mormon couple whose car broke down, and they could not get to work without it. Their Bishop paid for the car to be repaired. Government cannot act with such immediacy, and science cannot act at all. There are those, such as Richard Dawkins, who argue that society would be better off without religion. I think not (for multiple reasons).
Science produces important technologies, such as improved medical procedures, and it provides essential theories that promote further research. Scientific advances upgrade education for everyone. Religion may resist evolutionary theory, for example, but the life science that benefits everyone would be greatly diminished without it. Evolutionary ideas affect everything from the production of vaccines to conserving ecologies.
Why all the tensions between science and religion? Largely, I am baffled, and I cannot relate to it.
Lines of communication between the factions of science and religion might be assisted by those clear values held in common.
Both science and religion teach:
1. We are all brothers and sisters.
The Biblical idea that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve reminds us that we are all sons and daughters of God. Humans are one big family.
Studies of genetic diversity and evolutionary science suggest that we all descended from a very small group of humans. Again, all humans are one big family.
2. Honesty is a first principle of forward progress.
Actually, Exodus 20:16 lists it as the "ninth" commandment, but no religious person would diminish the importance of honesty. It is a command of God.
Science falls apart without honesty, as recently illustrated in the autism-vaccination controversy. Dishonesty in science stalls progress, misleads scientific consumers, and it misdirects future research and limited funding.
3. Our place in the universe is small.
The role of humans in religion is to be subservient to God. Religion recognizes that there are forces far greater than us.
Science also reminds us that we are but a speck in the universe. On earth we are not the most abundant group of organisms. Insects far out number us. In fact, our bodies have more bacterial cells than human cells.
4. There is always more to know.
Our current knowledge is a small fraction of what could be known.
The LDS 9th Article of Faith tells us that God will "reveal many great and important things."
Science, almost by design, raises more questions than it answers. The amount of knowledge seems limitless.
5. We can obtain the good life.
Religion concerns itself with teaching others self-control for achieving a higher morality. Science concerns itself with the control of nature for improving human circumstances.
Perhaps readers can supply other points of convergence. Regardless, the key argument is that science and religion are NOT inherently at cross-purposes. Although one cannot substitute for the other, they can (or could) be mutually supportive.
Science is NOT an anti-God endeavor. It is not "anti" anything but the absence of knowledge. Conversely, religion is NOT an anti-science endeavor. Its protest is limited to being anti-sin.
Copyright © 2011 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
22 comments:
You asked- "Why all the tensions between science and religion? Largely, I am baffled, and I cannot relate to it."
Of course you know why there is tension between science and religion as it deals with evolution. Why do you even ask? That's silly. We both know that science and religion clash where it matters most- how we came about and why we are here.
Science has been demanding for quite some time that our existance must be entirely explained by purely naturalistic means. It has been demanding that we cannot allow for an intelligent process to have guided nature into existance. Religion on the other hand has always demanded that we owe our existance to the very purposes of an intelligent process, namely- God.
When it comes to the origins of us- "humans" it becomes even more embattled with both sides digging deeper and deeper in because science wants humans and their existance to be the mere random process of nature and that in reality we have no divine purpose, that we have no lineal history back to deity, but are merely just animals who have developed the many instincts and traits merely through evolutionary means. If we settle upon this standard then we have no ethical or moral ground to stand upon in our laws and actions executing law. If we are just the end result of evolved instincts and are mere animals then what is "sin"? For that matter what is being "accountable"?
The problem here is that science has sought to overstep their bounds and has tried to explain even the spiritual side of religious experience as some type of evolved trait. It was just the other day that I heard about science trying to explain how mans brains have evolved to allow the belief in a deity as a means of survival in that ever evolving world.
And you question why all the tension between science and religion? Ha! Is it not apparent? Science should stay out of trying to explain religious ideals and stick with the purely observable- like how cells work and finding the cure to cancer. Science has no place discrediting the nature of religious ideals, especially when it is done to discount the very cause of the Creator and the divine nature of his children here on this earth.
Rob Osborn
Rob:
As you know, I recognize that there are tensions, but I think they are easily disposed. Obviously, you do not. End of story, I think.
There are ways that religion and science overlap. Many scientists are religious, so the two are not mutually exclusive. However, I think you have to squint pretty hard sometimes to make the boundaries between religion and science blur. In the examples you site, I see more differences than similarities:
1. "We are all brothers and sisters." Science shows the interrelatedness of all living creatures through evolution. It's a beautiful theory that should lead us towards what E.O. Wilson calls biophilia and away from speciesism. But religion teaches that we are the products of a special creation. Religious people are, almost without exception, the opponents of the science of evolution because they don't like the idea of our interrelatedness (nor to they like that science contradicts their scripture and religious authorities who seem to oppose it as well.) You may disagree, but poll religious believers and they would disagree with you.
2. "Our place in the universe is small." Science really does make one humble when we view the immensity of space and time. We are a speck and a blip on the spectrum of space and time. However, religion teaches us that we are central in the cosmos. It was all specially created for us! Some of the greatest resistance to science has been from religion because it has made us feel - well, not so special in the vast universe (think Galileo and Darwin).
3. "There is always more to know." Scientists love mysteries because it gives them something to do. The level of belief should correlate with the level of evidence. This is the aim of scientific evidence. But religion teaches that we can know truth through non-empirical means such as intuition, spiritual feelings, revelation, and faith. Indeed, isn't faith the antithesis of reason: a statement of belief in something despite their being any empirical evidence for it? It seems that science relishes mysteries as they try to explain them, but religion needs mysteries to remain so that God will have something to do. As soon as the mystery is naturally explained, then God has one less thing to do.
Josh:
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Clearly, we have different perspectives. I am not of the belief that scientific laws give God nothing to do. Ultimately, (how I don't know) I think God is the author of scientific law. Consequently, I don't see how science can contradict God if science is merely elucidating natural principles. I am fairly confident that most LDS scientists would see things much as I do concerning natural principles.
But natural laws happen all by themselves. That's the definition of "natural." No intervention by a God is needed. Primitive religionists use to think God was required for the tides, sunrise, sunset (Bill O'Reilly still does), lightings, wind, floods, planetary motion, the harvest, etc. When you say "I think God is the author of scientific law," it seems you are employing the God of Spinoza to explain what is already explainable. Science doesn't need to use God to elucidate natural law. Does it?
This is the link that explains the Bill O'Reilly comment. Hilarious!:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/370183/january-06-2011/bill-o-reilly-proves-god-s-existence---neil-degrasse-tyson
Josh:
Thanks. Yes, I am familiar with the Colbert commentary and found it funny.
To me, lawfulness is beauty, and yes, lawful God is intimately connected to nature.
But, as a Latter-day Saint, I would also say God is above and beyond nature
We do not need theology to scientifically understand how a car engine runs, nor do we need theology to scientifically understand the machinery of nature. Even so, I believe God is the foundation of all existence.
Theology cannot repair your car, but I hope it can repair our souls.
The scientific method is not against our religion. Latter-day Saints can be full fledged scientists. And, we need more of them.
Well I can agree with you that the Church needs more scientifically minded people like you. Best wishes.
I believe that true religion and true science are never in conflict. They are merely two sides of the same coin—they both formulate a search for truth and knowledge.
Here is the approximate parallel in terms of the scientific method first and of religious or spiritual inquiry second:
question -> hypothesis -> experiment -> observation -> conclusion
question -> belief -> faith -> observation -> conclusion
That's my two cents--Greg.
Greg:
Thanks. I pretty much agree, except I might stick "experiment" between "faith" and "observation" on your last pathway.
S.Faux: Thanks for your feedback. If I may clarify what my thinking is behind the parallel I presented--I see faith as a direct corollary to the experiment of the scientific method because for me, faith is action based upon belief. I see the act of experimenting as an exercise of faith.
I draw in part upon Alma's invitation to '..experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith..' and upon James' assertion that '..faith without works is dead..' Thus, for me, when a scientist executes an experiment based upon a hypothesis, it is nothing more or less than an exercise of faith based upon a belief.
Thanks for letting me comment.
--Greg.
I need a "like" button for this. Because to me nothing else needs to be said except the Facebook version of an "Amen."
This blog post is in the tradition of reconciliation advanced by Francis Collins and Stephen Jay Gould, as such I admire the sentiments you've shared. We need more spirit of reconciliation in religion and science scholarship. Francis Collins founded the biologos foundation, an organization of scholars whose purpose is to promote unity between Christianity and science, especially evolution (biologos.org).
However, as Josh and Rob point out, there are several points of contention in the current relationship, which is why this and other blog posts promote unity. If we hope to achieve complete unity, science is going to have to acknowledge (or at least allow) a few main theological tenets. These are as follow:
(1) acknowledging that God is the source of natural laws and supernatural miracles
(2) recognizing that the spirit is the life force and source of human consciousness, and that consciousness is not simply reducible to physical matter
(3) acknowledging that humanity is endowed with moral agency which gives us the power to choose between good and evil
(4) recognizing that our world and the universe are the handiwork of Him who created and sustains everything.
Now I don’t think that science will ever acknowledge or allow these tenets. So we are at an impasse when it comes to reconciliation. A true reconciliation between science and religion will have to wait until the Savior comes and ushers in the millennium.
Until then science and religion should try to get along, notwithstanding the differences. Staying out of each other’s domains, as Stephen Jay Gould suggests, would certainly help.
@ Dave C:
With regard to science having to acknowledge certain theologies:
1.God as the source of natural law: How did God do it? What forces did he use? What forms of matter and energy were used in creating natural laws? The end result of this inquiry (if it is to be a scientific one) is to be natural explanations for natural law. What place then for God?
2. The spirit as the life force: How do we know when we've found the spirit? How does the spirit create consciousness? By what energy does it create consciousness? How does consciousness work? Until you can answer these questions within a naturalistic framework, you won't find many scientists to acknowledge this theology. And when a natural explanation is found, then what place for a supernatural spirit?
3. Humans are endowed with moral agency: The best natural explanation of morality comes from evolutionary psychology. Again, scientists are not going to acquiesce to supernatural explanations when a natural explanation is more parsimonious.
4. The universe is the handiwork of God: If God created the universe, then who created God? If God doesn't need an explanation because God is the "First Cause", then why assume the univers needs an explanation?
And not to keep beating a dead horse, but scientists use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena. Theologies are merely opinions, and are not convincing to scientists because they lack evidence.
I think your final paragraphs hint at a solution: Gould's NOMA. The only problem is that you don't seem to follow NOMA. The boundaries between science and religion need to go both ways.
I particularly enjoyed Ken Wilbur's book "The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion." However, even Ken's deep work requires that religion shift dramatically from what we see today. A religion that is informed by science rather than one that denies it. Many religionists are grossly undereducated in the sciences and frankly don't believe in much that science has given us. Look at the numbers. I am currently reading "Thank God for Evolution" which is another great work that is trying to inform the religious minds about the wonder and awe of science.
I think religion would have to adapt and change dramatically for it to allow itself to work within the confines of evidence based science....
I loved this video as well: http://fora.tv/2007/07/04/Clash_Between_Faith_and_Reason
which discusses the clash between faith and reason...by Sam Harris. I am listening to Sam because I was never taught his perspective and am opening myself to the scientific worldview. It makes sense.
I would recommend this series of podcasts for those of you with a desire to reconcile your faith with science...
http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/audio-downloads/
Dave C.:
Thanks for your detailed comment.
My vision for an "exalted science" is slightly different than yours.
1. I don't expect science to ever have a need for supernatural concepts. Science seeks the explainable, and supernature is not explainable.
2. I strongly resist equating consciousness with spirit. Human consciousness is extremely fragile, and spirit, I presume, is not. If changes in brain function account for 100% of the variance in human consciousness, then why are "spiritual" concepts needed in association with the construct of consciousness? To me, consciousness is more like a mortal organ (like the stomach) than a immutable link to the heavens.
3. Moral agency is not an explanation, but is something to be explained and reduced. To me, moral agency is a higher order concept that can be broken down into smaller components, such as discrimination learning, etc.
4. I tend to agree with your #4 in the following sense: evolutionary theory objectively cannot place humans on any exalted sphere. Yet, our LDS religion bestows deep purpose, indicating that each human life is invaluable. Someday, however, we LDS may come to realize that all life (of all species) plays an essential role in the process of exaltation.
These are just my initial reactions to your numbered comments. I am sure more thought is required. Thanks, again.
Hi Josh,
Here are some replies to your comments. Please do not think I am ridiculing your views – I am simply engaging them.
"The end result of this inquiry (if it is to be a scientific one) is to be natural explanations for natural law."
- I respectfully disagree. This sort of thing is reminiscent of the old "God follows natural laws" line of thinking. God's ways are not our ways, and His celestial laws are not our telestial laws. Natural laws as we understand them are not adequate to describe the processes that He follows. Also I think it more appropriate to say that He is the law, rather than He follows laws.
“How do we know when we've found the spirit? How does the spirit create consciousness? By what energy does it create consciousness? How does consciousness work? Until you can answer these questions within a naturalistic framework, you won't find many scientists to acknowledge this theology”
- You are right that these questions cannot be answered within a naturalistic framework, and I am not suggesting that they should be, yet many scientists accept the reality of a spirit. Science should not denigrate such views simply because it cannot discover the spirit empirically.
Re: God endowed moral agency. “Again, scientists are not going to acquiesce to supernatural explanations when a natural explanation is more parsimonious”
- I am not asking them to replace natural explanations for moral agency with supernatural ones. I am only asking them to not put down supernatural explanations simply because they do not understand spiritual epistemology (acquiring truth through the spirit).
“universe is the handiwork of God: If God created the universe, then who created God? If God doesn't need an explanation because God is the "First Cause", then why assume the universe needs an explanation?”
- I am not sure that I said that the universe needs an explanation, however, since He is the ultimate source of creation in the universe, science should not be hostile to such notions. I am not saying that science should attempt to prove that there is a divine creator a’la natural theology – I just want it to accept that people like myself want science to respect this view.
“And not to keep beating a dead horse, but scientists use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena.”
- I agree
“Theologies are merely opinions, and are not convincing to scientists because they lack evidence.”
- The theologies in the Restored gospel are not mere opinions; they are truths, whether the larger scientific community recognizes them as such or not. And of course, gospel truths do not lack evidence. They are backed up with abundant prophetic and personal revelation. However, as you point out, people stuck in naturalistic framework do not recognize revealed truth, which is why the simple truths of the gospel confound the learned and wise.
@ Dave C: Saying something is so, does not make it so. Scientists can't just say something is so without any data or evidence. Convince them of your assertions with data and they will believe. But make bold claims without any supporting evidence, and they should remain as skeptical as ever.
You wouldn't want scientists to just believe what so-and-so says is true without evidence, would you? Of course not! This is why we do randomized controlled trials. If a certain researcher says that antibiotic A is better than antibiotic B, but provides no evidence other than the fact that he feels strongly that A is better, or some authority said A is better, would you expect the scientific community to believe this researcher? Of course not. And yet this is what you expect will be convincing to others? For example, you say God's "celestial laws are not our telestial laws." And this is demonstrated how?
Scientist don't denigrate supernatural views such as a spirit that causes consciousness, or a god that created the universe, or some other LDS truth claims. They just go about their business explaining natural phenomena. Sometimes what they show by evidence will contradict what was written in scripture thousands of years ago (or even 150 years ago) by mere men. Astronomy and biology are going to contradict with creation myths. But scientists are not out to disprove religious claims. They are just trying to unlock the mysteries of nature without resorting to supernaturalism. It's just that religion, as man's first attempt to explain nature, sometimes got it wrong.
This is where NOMA comes into play. Religion should stick to questions of religious meaning, purpose, and values. Let science do the explaining of nature. As long as both camps stick to what they do best, then science doesn't have to be seen as the bad guy by religion, and religion won't be seen as trespassing into the boundaries of science.
Josh,
Scientists who are disbelievers will never understand truths found in the restored gospel through their science. I am not asking them to use their scientific methods to uncover spiritual truths. Unless they humble themselves and exercise a particle of faith they will forever be learning without coming to a knowledge of the truth, plain and simple. I didn't say it - Paul and Alma said it. Their learning and arrogance become a stumbling block to spiritual progression.
Several scientists and scholars are hostile to religious truths, which is why there has been a backlash from evangelical groups, especially. If you want to find hostility, just look at the American council on secular humanism. Many scientists are not just going about their business. They are advancing atheistic assumptions that are openly hostile toward believers.
I agree that both sides should more closely follow Gould's NOMA.
Dave C.:
Here is a sincere question. How are your views consistent with NOMA? I could well misunderstand you, but you seem to want science to recognize the supernatural, that consciousness is the product of spirit, and that moral agency is an explanatory source of behavior.
These are claims that significantly overlap with science and require preconceived naturalistic conclusions without data.
To me, NOMA suggests that science and religion should NOT influence one another in territories where each has staked a unique claim.
I like NOMA, but I am really POMA, partially overlapping. I would like science to influence religion more than the other way around. Are you not also POMA? But, you would have religion influence science, more than the other way around.
Have I gone wrong in my interpretations?
I am teaching NOMA/POMA stuff this semester, and so feel free to clarify my thinking.
SFaux,
My exchange with Josh is reminiscent of the response I got when I presented on the relationship between science and the restored gospel at the mormon scholars in the humanities conference in Provo a couple years ago. I am surprised when a bunch of academicians from BYU are hostile to the views I present. Perhaps they don’t understand my viewpoints or I am not explaining my position well enough, or both. I think the more likely explanation is that they don’t like what I am proposing.
I like your concept of POMA. When I read Gould’s Rock of Ages I realized that I could not get on board with NOMA 100% because there is too much overlap to treat the two as though they were mutually exclusive. With POMA we recognize that there is some overlap, that occasionally religion has something to say about what science tells us, and vice versa.
Under POMA there must be mutual respect. Religion must respect science’s right (if I can call it a right) to explore any and all facts and to make inferences about what those facts tell us, even though some conclusions appear to contradict certain religious beliefs. Most importantly, reactionary religionists need to stop impugning science for teaching evolution (I personally know a few who do this). Evolution should be taught in schools, even macroevolution because that is where much of the evidence points. While religionists may have something to say about evolution due to partially overlapping interests on the creation, their views should not inhibit the evolutionists in the least.
As for my wishes, I want science to be friendly to religion. I am not asking for science to hypothesize God and spirit. I am asking for it to acknowledge God, or at least allow believers to do so in scientific discourse. Our government acknowledges God (“God Bless America”, Day of Prayer, Prayer to open congress, etc). Our public education system acknowledges God (pledge of allegiance). Our legal field acknowledges God (swearing oaths).
Science does not acknowledge God at all. In fact, it goes out of its way to exclude God by tacitly (and sometimes explicitly) saying that such notions have no place in science. While they are correct in saying that supernatural explanations have no place in science, they are incorrect in thinking that science progresses without the blessings of the most high God.
Post a Comment