By
Russ Wung
February 14, 2008
Religion and science have never gotten along properly. There is a certain inherent tension between them, a tendency for both to encroach on the territory of the other. Neither is blameless in the bitter, millennia-long battle that has been waged between the more zealous proponents of both disciplines.
Despite the efforts of religious scholars to reconcile reason and faith, unnecessary religious dogmatism on scientific issues has persisted to the present day. The persecution of Galileo for advocating the ideas of Copernicus is a good example. Of particular note, in the trial of Galileo, is the church’s use of various passages discussing the rising of the sun and the foundations of the earth, despite St. Augustine’s warning that we should not take every passage of the scripture word for word since much of it was written with literary, rather than scientific, intent. To its credit, the church ceased its opposition to heliocentrism by 1835.
Scientific atheism is no better, with its proponents often stereotyping religious people and attempting to substitute a belief in science for a belief in the divine, not understanding that one cannot take the place of the other. Such extremists do not understand that modern religion — organized or otherwise — has purposefully migrated into a far more appropriate place in society than it occupied 500 years ago: it now focuses on guiding moral principles, not asserting objective facts. The refusal of some nonreligious people to stop attacking religion as a whole — for faults it has long overcome — makes them as closed-minded and irrational as the inquisitors of the 15th century.
It is strange that religious fanatics and scientific atheists feel they must pit science and religion against each other. After all, religion and science are completely different fields. Religion explores the “why” of things, while science explores the “how.” Holy texts are not literal tracts on history or science: they are about philosophy, morality and theology.
Belief in God is a matter of faith, and there is no way for the scientific method or the formal rules of logic to prove or disprove the existence of the divine. Religion is ultimately far more teleological than science can ever be, and as such, offers us insight on our purpose and place in the world that science cannot.
Religion has its limits, however, and failure to recognize those limits produces conflict with scientific reality. The description of creation in Genesis was once taken literally by many people of faith, with bizarre results. Many people once believed that the world was only a few thousand years old, or that it was really created in seven “days.” Even today, a small minority of religious people reject evolution on religious grounds. Evolution is indeed a theory, but it’s pretty much the best theory we have right now. It is entirely normal and sensible to assert a belief in evolution as a process directed by God, as many Christians do. It is no coincidence that the order of creation in Genesis is the same order asserted by the scientific narrative: first the universe, then the Earth, then plants, animals and finally, the most important creation, humans.
“Intelligent design” is a recent attempt by some Christians to carve out an “alternative” to evolution and creationism. This is unnecessary; many prominent Christian theologians/scholars from the medieval Thomas Aquinas to the current pope have understood that reason and faith are complements, not substitutes. Most Christians have no difficulty placing evolution into a religious context because of this intellectual tradition.
Belief in science is not a replacement or an alternative to a belief in God, and vice versa. We should be skeptical of attempts to use religion or literalistic interpretations of holy texts to define natural phenomena whose explanation is the province of the natural sciences.
Likewise, we should be unconvinced by those who claim that we would be better off without religion, or that science has made religion “obsolete.” False preachers come in both forms, and we would be wise to ignore both.
[Reach columnist Russ Wung at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]
16 Comments
#1 Chris
on February 14, 2008 at 1:12 a.m.(London, United Kingdom | Unverified Name)
"The refusal of some nonreligious people to stop attacking religion as a whole — for faults it has long overcome — makes them as closed-minded and irrational as the inquisitors of the 15th century."
I don't see any evidence that religion across the world has overcome its many faults and its attacks on science continue unabated.
Is the author saying we can't criticise people's lies, prejudice, racism, homophobia or misogyny because they claim it is part of their religion?
#2 C. David Parsons
on February 14, 2008 at 7:54 a.m.(Atlanta, GA | Unverified Name)
"...religious fanatics and scientific atheists feel they must pit science and religion against each other."
There is much more to the comment than many realize: atheists seek to obstruct Jesus, the Christ, in all fronts; they hate God. Those people under covenant with God, in that they love Him and keep His commandments, see the line drawn in the sand: they refuse to allow the innocents within the classroom to be taught the religion of Darwinism which preaches that there is no Creator.
Darwin suffered a fatal heart attack and perished over 100 years ago. If he was correct, he passed into nothingness from whence he supposedly came. However, if he was wrong, he fell into the hands of an angry God and into everlasting punishment.
Darwin was an upstart who sought to out positioned God. He literally and utterly failed, as proven by a new series of texbooks created for the public schools. The Quest for Right has accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who preach Darwinism.
The 7 volumes are based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, and will have a long-term sustainability, replacing the unprofitable Darwian view.
For more information, please visit http://questforright.com.
The combined wisdom of man is foolishness with God.
#3 MikeF
on February 14, 2008 at 9:52 a.m.(Tampa, FL | Unverified Name)
Brilliant article, Russ. What a shame that many who read it - as evidenced by the previous comments -- will fail to understand it.
#4 Pascal
on February 14, 2008 at 10:20 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
"Belief in God is a matter of faith, and there is no way for the scientific method or the formal rules of logic to prove or disprove the existence of the divine."
That depends on whether your definition for "God" is a logical contradiction. For example, an omnipotent and omniscient god clashes with the cherished concept of human free will. Also, one might question God's all-loving and forgiving persona when considering its policy of condemning slight offenders (ie, non-believers who are otherwise decent people) to an eternity of torment in hell.
Some will say that since god is infinite, we cannot possibly understand its true nature. That counter-argument amounts to a grand cosmic shrug, and gives license for anyone to claim anything they want about the divine. That's fine, as long as you don't press your arbitrary, non-demonstrable hypotheses on the rest of society. Science on the other hand shows us how to deal with uncertainty in a rational manner, without resorting to superstition to fill in the holes.
#5 Ray Ingles
on February 14, 2008 at 10:47 a.m.(Farmington, MI | Unverified Name)
The problem is that religion deals with the 'unknowable' and science addresses the 'unknown'. What is the 'supernatural' but something defined as 'forever beyond human understanding'? Lots of things - lightning, the motion of the planets, cellular reproduction - have been confidently asserted to be 'supernatural', but have proven not to be in time.
That's the key reason religion and science are in conflict - science keeps grabbing more and more of religion's turf, as more and more things turn out to be explainable in scientific terms. Evolution's just the latest major one. Science recognizes the unknown, it just doesn't accept the unknowable.
Now, it may be true that 'unknowable' things exist - but how could we ever know that? The only way to tell is to try to understand things. People who assume that something's unknowable don't even try to understand things - look up Niel Tyson's essay "The Perimeter of Ignorance". I see no utility in assuming that things are unknowable...
#6 Jackson
on February 14, 2008 at 12:33 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
Russ, thanks for writing a relatively fair piece. Obviously some people were offended solely by the mention of "God" in your article, which shows their inability to understand your heart on the issue. You're taking a conversational stance, that considers multiple sides of an issue. If anything should be drawn from your article, it's that interplay and consideration of others' ideas is paramount. People who feel strongly about these issues look like morons when they just declare "that's the way it is," no matter what side they come from.
Pascal (interesting choice of name), you claim that an omniscient god that sends non-believers who are otherwise "decent" people to hell is questionable. You're imposing your own moral framework on the idea of "god." Who decides what "decent" is? Is it someone who's not as "bad" as Hitler? Is it someone "good" like Gandhi? Don't dismiss "god" with such an aloof response unless you're willing to list out what's "decent" for us. How about you decide who's decent and who's not, and then you can send the people you think are bad to "hell."
Russ, I appreciate that you brought a few issues into the light here and discussed them without making blind absolute statements.
I was a little confused as to the sources of your arguments (i.e. how small the minority of dogmatic religious people is), but overall you had a patient and inquisitive tone, which is really the right way to be talking about these things in the public sector.
from your fellow columnist, good job.
#7 John M
on February 14, 2008 at 1:28 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
This was definitely a fairer piece than it appeared at first glance. While Russ did a decent job of playing the peacemaker, the article makes some pretty broad and unfair characterizations of both sides. The negative characterizations tend to be stacked a little heavily against the nonreligious, as well; there is, for example, no mention at all of the majority of the scientifically-minded nonreligious who are arguably described by "scientific atheist" but simply want religion out of their own lives, not blotted out of existence. I count myself among this demographic. I have no "holy war," so to speak, against people's religious rights, but I have no particular use for faith in my own life.
Unfortunately for Russ' point, there is a deeper conflict which is unlikely to be resolved by a simple reassertion of the "nonoverlapping magisteria" philosophy (the notion that science and religion address entirely different and nonoverlapping subjects). Religion tends to claim as its domain anything we don't know and perceive as unknowable, but, as sciences like neurology and evolutionary biology illustrate, science has a way of making the unknowable not only knowable but known, given time. Even when religion tries, as it in responsibility should, to restrict itself to metaphysical, nonfactual claims - which is not, contrary to the article's assertions, the majority of the time - it will inevitably come into conflict with a fact-based worldview when new methods of observation become available.
The greater conflict is between the idea of faith - belief without evidence or in spite of evidence - and whatever you choose to call the other side, be it materialism, naturalism, or science. It is entirely possible to have a spiritual life with a strong sense of meaning and wonder without faith, but the two nevertheless wind up persistently tied together in the form of religion. Philosophers of science like Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould have written at length about the beauty and wonder of the natural world, all without touching on religion in the least.
So we agree, Russ, that fulfillment, wonder, and spirituality are good things, and that they need not conflict with science, as well as that religious and nonreligious individuals can coexist in harmony; but I simply do not agree that these things need to come from religion, or that religion itself will ever have an easy coexistence with a rational worldview.
#8 Kaasa
on February 14, 2008 at 2:30 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
Russ, I appreciate the generally conciliatory tone of this article, but I have to take issue with this:
"Such extremists do not understand that modern religion — organized or otherwise — has purposefully migrated into a far more appropriate place in society than it occupied 500 years ago: it now focuses on guiding moral principles, not asserting objective facts. The refusal of some nonreligious people to stop attacking religion as a whole — for faults it has long overcome — makes them as closed-minded and irrational as the inquisitors of the 15th century."
First, in order to guide moral principles, religion MUST assert objective facts. Any given religion acquires its moral authority from three claims: (1) that there is a god or divine force, (2) that this god is the source of all good in the universe and its pronouncements are absolute moral rules, and (3) that this religion has access to god's mind and knows these rules. None of these assertions, of course, can be proven, so religion's claim to final say on all matters moral is plain silly.
This is a big point. What happens when religion inevitably requires a believer to do something that, without divine warrant, is utterly wrong? Take the classic example, circumcision in Judaism - believers insist that the ritual's necessary to induct the newborn child into the tribe of Israel. Such a statement is obviously and inherently unprovable; how can it be used to justify an act that in any other context would be regarded as the sexual assault of a helpless infant? Why should I, as a nonbeliever, sit back and let it happen?
Second, I see no reason to believe religion has been contained to its rightful place. The geopolitics of the planet have been turned upside down by the fanaticism that several very powerful, very wealthy states have unleashed on both their own populations and on the rest of the world. How much of the world's population lives under laws that could only have been derived from sharia, or Christian or Hindu law? Laws intended to maintain the dominant status of one sect or another?
I see no reason either to think that this "migration" is here to stay even in this society. We have institutions to protect us from would-be Khomeinis here, but we have fanatics who would like to see those institutions dissolved too. I see the same glimmer in the eye as someone like Pat Robertson.
#9 Pascal
on February 14, 2008 at 9:20 p.m.(Bellevue, WA | Unverified Name)
To Jackson,
I get the feeling that you think I'm arrogant for assuming god's place. So I'd like to clear something up: I'm not interested in sending people to hell. I'd rather not list out what makes a decent person, either. An itemized checklist for decency would necessarily be vague, biased, and in the end not very useful. What is useful, though, is a list for what makes a person dangerous to others. Here I'd like to point to our justice system, which is open to review, is held accountable by society, and routinely decides who to lock up and and who to release. It isn't perfect, but part of the beauty of it is that it's amendable.
And yes, I am imposing a moral structure when I say that a god who uses hell for eternal torment might be unjust. That's because I believe in human self determination. All we really have is ourselves and each other, since you still haven't proven to me that god exists. What good are god's decrees if the best argument for god's existence is, "Well, you can't disprove it..."
By the way, I don't hate god. What I am saying is that many people's definition of god is inconsistent with logic.
I tried my best to answer your questions space available. I was a little confused by your references to Hitler and Ghandi, as if we have to draw the line for human decency at either extreme. Why not a big fuzzy region in the middle? Seriously, you want a detailed list for what "decency" requires? Come on. What do you think?
(By the way, my real name is Pascal. Nice job on seeing the connection, though.)
#10 pete
on February 14, 2008 at 10:39 p.m.(Woodinville, WA | Unverified Name)
Pascal,
God and logic don't mix. Those who don't believe in God say that they have to see the miracle to believe. But those who believe in God will tell you that only those who believe in God can see the miracle. I believe you don't hate God. You just don't know God.
#11 Grant
on February 15, 2008 at 5:31 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
I have a couple of questions of definition. First, can we speak of "religion" rather than particular religions? If so, what counts as a religion, and what distinguishes religious activities from secular ones? It seems that most of the discussion of "religion" and "god" so far has proceeded on a vaguely Deist conception of those terms. This is not necessarily a problem, as long as we remember that there are many religions to which this discussion may not apply.
Second, science, while it uses reason, is not equivalent to reason. Many activities other than science make use of reason, theology among them.
Pascal's question of a detailed list of what decency requires is interesting. It is certainly instructive to compare different peoples' lists. A good Christian is not a good Muslim is not a good devotee of Dionysius is not a good Victorian gentleman.
#12 Bill
on February 17, 2008 at 7:55 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Pascal wrote: "That depends on whether your definition for "God" is a logical contradiction. For example, an omnipotent and omniscient god clashes with the cherished concept of human free will. Also, one might question God's all-loving and forgiving persona when considering its policy of condemning slight offenders (ie, non-believers who are otherwise decent people) to an eternity of torment in hell."
Allow me, Pascal, to comment on you passage above... First, there is a difference between God knowing everything and God interfering with our free will. I believe its quite logical to accept that God knows what choices I will make but still allows me to make them. God's plan is to guide me to making good choices but never using force.
The second comment I would like to make is that you do not fully understand scriptures on life after death but have accepted unscriptural teachings on eternal torment. There is NO logic in eternal torment but fortunately that concept has no basis in the Bible. If you are really interested in this, do a search on the internet and find the position that is supported by all the texts.
Take care, Bill.
#13 Pascal
on February 18, 2008 at 10:20 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Bill,
I'd like to respond to your argument on free will. I think the word "interfering" implies that God watches events flow by, albeit with infinite knowledge about what is up and down stream, and steps in occasionally to tweak the natural progression of things. That strikes me as a human-centric point of view, since we are used to experiencing time as a causal flow. In my mind, saying that God is boundless implies an existence beyond space and time. Perhaps then God beholds all of creation as a multidimensional static image, in which time is just one of many dimensions. If that's the case, then God has unlimited control over every point in space and in time, which then seems inconsistent with the notion of free will.
As far as eternal torment goes, I grew up hearing that there are "no stairs in hell," but I admittedly lack experience in the detailed views of the many sects of Christianity. What I find interesting about your comment is that you use a scriptural basis for judging the validity of theological concepts. That actually helps make my original point that religious ideas can be studied with some rigor, making it possible to reject them as unlikely or as absurd. It's not like I want to destroy anyone's faith. I just want there to be a framework for criticizing the strange religious ideas that some people (not you) use to impose arbitrary morals on others.
Also, your comment, about the lack of Biblical basis for eternal torment, is intriguing. I will try to look into this.
#14 Bill
on February 18, 2008 at 8:07 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Hi Pascal,
I really liked your response, it seemed well thought out and was courteous.
Interesting comments on free will... I do think God is in control and I am sure there are dimentions that He can operate in that we are not aware of, else we would see good or evil angles. How would your free will senario fit into someone who smokes all their life and dies of cancer. Was it God's will that they smoked or did He allow that person to make a bad choice and deal with the consequences?
On eternal torment there are so many texts that describe the utter destruction of the wicked. Consider the following texts...(NKJV) "the soul that sinneth, it shall die" Eze 18:4. Also, Ps 145:20, 2 Thes 1:9, Ps 37:20, Nahum 1:10, Isa 41:11,12. "and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch" Mal 4:1. Doesn't sound like eternal torment to me...
Does it make any logical sense that in a new heaven and a NEW earth, there are unsaved relatives or loved ones screeming and burning in some lake of fire and I'm supposed to be happy there? Is God going to allow sin to perpetuate forever. Would it be justice to torture someone forever because of a few short years? Am I supposed to believe that God created me with a sense of justice and yet He is devoid of any? Fortunately, it is not true and easily dismissed for anyone that is truely seeking what the Bible teaches on this subject.
:) You may notice that it upsets me to see someone using the eternal torment argument to demonstrate an unreasonable or unjust God. Especially when it is not true... of course, its not your fault, as it is taught by so many protestant churches that inherited it from the catholic church. Ultimately I believe this lie originated from the devil himself when he said to Eve, "you shall not surely die", Gen 3:4.
Thanks for putting up with a long note!
#15 Bill
on February 19, 2008 at 12:44 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Hey Pascal,
I had another thought on free will at 5am this morning (surprisingly). It seems that if we don't have free will then all can be blamed on God. I could just say that God's in control and I don't have any say in what I do or what happens to me. So why would God create me in a sinful world and then come die for me... That would make no sense in a Biblical context.
Take care,
Bill.
#16 Cameron N.
on October 29, 2008 at 5:55 p.m.(Bellevue, WA)
"Scientific atheism is no better, with its proponents often stereotyping religious people and attempting to substitute a belief in science for a belief in the divine, not understanding that one cannot take the place of the other."
I believe your last statement to be false. Science CAN take the place of religion, it IS taking the place of religion, and WILL BE the only religion in a matter of centuries (or within a millenium). Science and reason were sent to us by God as tools to better understand ourselves and our environment. Science cannot "stereotyp[e] religious people," science only seeks to catalog various peoples and their beliefs and make statements (supported by objective facts) that best identify the religion/people in question. In proper science, no knowledge is 100% certain -- even a theory that has proven itself in multiple disciplines. Science's best guess is the best that humanity has to go on, but theories are far from perfect and will probably be heavily revised as our objective dataset of reality gets bigger, more complex, and more accurate.
Whatever scientists you're referring to, those who "stereotyp[e] religious people," I challenge that they are not scientists at all, but rather ideologues.
Post a comment