Religion is often pitted against science (sometimes against Science), as though it’s synonymous with atheism. Scientific arguments against the Divine were never compelling to me, since it seemed like they were combining unrelated concepts: if something on a metaphysical does or does not exist, appealing to the physical means nothing.
But the lines are drawn: science & religion are not compatible. So say atheists and religionists alike. But, for example, many of my family are scientists, after various fashions (my father is a computer engineer, my brother-in-law a doctor, my other-in-law a number theorist); and, as the famous joke goes, brain surgeons can’t see thoughts. So when I ran across the text of a talk given by a (Jesuit) priest entitled “Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution “, I read it. (Even tho it’s on three pages.)
I’ve said before that the Divine can neither be proven nor disproven: it can only be believed, one way or the other. This, I said, (I’m took lazy too look for the link just now) was the fundamental breakdown in relationships between atheists and theists; we need to agree to disagree and move on. The science thing is the second: religion has no place in science except from an ethics standpoint. Perhaps this will usher in a new age of peaceful discussion. But it’s unlikely.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Jonathan Blake // Mar 31, 2008 at 7:46 pm
If only religious speculations were confined to the metaphysical, this agreeing to disagree might be possible. Regrettably we have Intelligent Design, the prosperity gospel, and children dying because they their parents refuse medical treatment. All of these beliefs rooted in metaphysical speculation have consequences in the physical world.
2 John // Apr 1, 2008 at 3:45 pm
This is definitely waaaay more complex than media typically makes it out to be. There are science-friendly approaches to religion and god; many adherents and clergy have healthy respect for scientific research. welcome doubt, questioning and seeking. On the other hand, there are religious attitudes and beliefs that are down right hostile to scientific progress.
3 Elaine // Apr 1, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I never could understand why some religious folks have such a problem with science. Even in my most religious days, I didn’t see any conflict between beliving in God and accepting that science the best way to understand how the world and the universe work (and that includes accepting an ancient earth and in evolution).
The push and pull between the two have fascinated me ever since I realized that there is not a harmonious coexistence in many people’s minds. And I’ve read some interesting things on both sides of the debate. Stephen Jay Gould’s “Rocks of Ages” is a good introduction to his idea that science and religion are what he called “non-overlapping magesteria” and don’t really have much of value to say to each other.
On the other hand, Sir John Polkinghorne has some interesting things to say about the side of the argument which holds that science and religion do have things to say to each other. Polkinghorne comes at it from an interesting perspective: he was a physicist in his first career, then after he retired he became an Anglican priest. While I don’t accept some of his premises, I found his work to be thought-provoking, which I think is always a good thing.
I think, John, that among those on both sides of the divide between science and religion, you are right that those who take a hard line against the opposite side need to just agree to disagree and move on rather than each side trying to demonize the other (and that does go on on both sides from time to time). But, as you say in your comment, it is a hugely complex topic that doesn’t get the play it deserves in the media and so most people are left with the (mistaken) impression that all religious people hate science and all scientists hate religion. I know that isn’t true, and it kind of bothers me that so many people believe that it is.
4 John // Apr 2, 2008 at 5:40 am
I’m familiar with Gould, but I need to track down this Polkinghorn. Oh, and I thought of one more way that people make peace between religion and science: they accept outright contradictions. Humans are good at this.
Oh, I should point out that I can’t take credit for xJane’s post.
But I think that we don’t cover this complexity often enough. I tend to feed into the binary opposition with my anti-creationist rants.
5 Elaine // Apr 2, 2008 at 7:33 am
Oops! I don’t know why I thought you wrote that post, John. Reading too late at night, I guess. Apologies to you and to xJane.
6 John // Apr 2, 2008 at 7:58 am
No apologies necessary!
7 Ben // Apr 3, 2008 at 11:29 am
Whether the divine can be proven or disproven depends entirely upon what one is willing to accept as truth.
Science considers all evidence that can be analyzed.
Atheists consider all evidence that can be analyzed.
Religion considers only the evidence that promotes faith.
Leave a Comment