Reconciling Science and Religion

 

Ian MacFarlane

 

 

 

The human mind is truly remarkable.  Its complete breadth of capabilities might never be fully explored, but the functions we are familiar with are amazing enough.  Human beings seem to be the only animals on this planet with not only the capacity, but also the desire to question aspects of being, search for meaning, understand the mechanical aspects of nature, and try to understand the metaphysical ones as well.  Our quest for an understanding of the deeper questions in life (such as Why are we here? and What happens after we die?) has inspired the creations of countless varying collective myths on which people have based their lives, which we call religion.  Our desire to understand how things in the empirical world around us work has given us the ever expanding field of evidence-based “knowledge” which we call science.  It would seem that the two of these, science and religion, ought not be incompatible; one attempts to explain the tangible world, and the other to explain the metaphysical world.  However, there has been, throughout history, an often violent conflict between science and particular religions.  The conflict occurs when one tries to use religion to explain everything in the world, both empirical and metaphysical.

            The scientific method is extremely different from the religious method.  The quest for scientific knowledge begins with the recognition of certain observed phenomena in the world.  The scientist sees a particular phenomenon, and wonders what causes it.  She then sets out to find an explanation through testing and observation.  First, a theory is formulated to explain the phenomenon.  The theory is often based on already “known” scientific laws or principles; that is, new scientific theories are built on the foundations of theories which have already been verified and are supported by evidence.  The scientist then sets up an experiment to test the theory, in an attempt to actually prove the theory wrong.  Corroborating evidence is found when attempts to prove the theory wrong fail, and confirming or verifying evidence is evidence which shows the theory to be true.  When a theory is shown to be solid, it is then offered up to the rest of the scientific community to be further tested.  The scientist specifically seeks challenges to their theories, for when challenges fail, the theory becomes stronger.  However, even the strongest scientific theory, or law, is taken as one hundred percent certain; in the realm of science, there is always room left open for the possibility of change. 

            While the scientific method demands an a posteriori (or after the fact, meaning “knowledge” after evidence) path to knowledge, the religious approach is very different.  A religious method claims an a priori path to knowledge; a “before the fact” approach where knowledge is “known” before or even in the face of a lack of evidence.  In religion, we see acceptance of ideas without proof of their correctness, based highly on assumption.  Take, for example, two of Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of the Christian god.  Aquinas’ “First Cause” argument claims that there is a causal relationship which governs everything in the world.  If we have event A, it was caused by some event B, which was in turn caused by event C, and so forth, back to what will eventually be a final cause or “first cause”, which Aquinas calls god.  It seems ridiculous to call this a “proof”, for it is in fact based on three very faulty assumptions.  First, it assumes that the world operates in a causal way; that the world is made up of continuous cause and effect relationships.  Secondly, it assumes that there could not be an infinity of causes; that eventually there must be an original cause.  Finally, it presupposes that this final cause is not only god, but actually the Christian god.  Another argument for the existence of god is the Teleological, or Design argument.  It bases it’s claim on a faulty analogy and again on assumption.  The design argument claims that the world, in all of its intricate functions and workings, is like a watch.  If we were walking along the beach, and found a watch lying on the ground, we would know that it had to have a watch-maker.  Similarly, the argument follows, the world, being like a watch, must also have a maker.  The world-maker is the Christian god.  The problems with this argument begin with the false analogy between the world and a watch; two items which are not at all alike.  It ends with the same assumption which ended the First Cause argument; that even if there were a creator, it would necessarily be the Christian god.

            It is clear, then, that a religious theory is not based on supporting evidence, or even careful examination of observed phenomena.  Instead, religious beliefs are based on assumptions of truth, and while science leaves open the possibility it may be wrong, religion claims with false certainty that its ideas are right. 

            Even with a difference of methodology, it would still seem that science and religion ought not be incompatible.  If we use science to explain physical-world phenomena, what is the harm in using false religious assumptions to postulate what occurs on metaphysical planes, such as after death scenarios?  In all fairness, religion and science are only incompatible depending on which religion one examines.  Traditionally, the discussion of conflict between science and religion has always assumed that the religion was a Judeo-Christian one.  Indeed, if one accepts Christianity completely, there is much conflict with science.  The problem occurs because the Christian doctrine teaches that it’s principles are applicable not only in a metaphysical sense, but also in the sense of governing the empirical world.  Take, for example, the debate between Creationism and Evolution.  The Christian bible teaches that a god created the world in seven days some six thousand years ago.  When he did, he created all plant and animal forms which exist on the planet today.  He specifically created human beings in his image.  However, modern scientific theories of evolution teach that modern species have adapted and evolved from previous life-forms over the course of millions of years.  It is based on fossil records of “common ancestors”, or now extinct animals which have traits similar to those of modern-day species.  It is not possible for both theories to be correct; for if humans evolved from previous species, we were not created in the form in which we exist now.  Thus, Christian theories which attempt to explain physical-world phenomena must contend with scientific theories which, because of their supporting physical evidence, have much more weight.  The problem for Christians is that they are taught that they must accept the biblical writings as true, even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, or they will go to hell when they die.  Moreover, they are taught that it is their responsibility to go out and evangelize or convert others to their way of thinking, thus saving the souls of others as well.

            Traditionally, the power of the Christian church was such that those in power in almost every modern country where science was developing were Christian, and the scientists tried hard to contort their findings to match the Christian teachings.  Occasionally, scientific findings, such as the new theory of a heliocentric universe instead of a geocentric one, brought about harsh punishments for their supporters, and thus the suppression of scientific discovery.  However, the nature of scientific discovery is such that it is the findings of how things actually work in the physical world, and therefore the discoveries were bound to persist.  Over time, the scientific theories have come to be broadly accepted, and now it is Christianity which is in a scramble to make its teachings compatible with science. 

            Originally, Christians believed that god created the world, and that the world operated on principles and in ways described in the bible.  With scientific advances, and subsequent scientific explanations for earthly phenomena which were previously explained by “the hand of god”, Christians had to adapt their thinking; most modern Christians still believe in god as the creator and caretaker of the world, but they see the world as working based on scientific theories.  They claim that the world works in scientific ways, but that god created those ways.  However, as science continues to unlock the mysteries of more and more aspects of humanity (including gene research), one has to wonder what part god will have to play in the religious weltanschauung.  If scientific theories and evidence could explain the creation of the world itself, god would become completely unnecessary in explanations of the physical world, and thus, dead.  Yet, god it seems serves more purpose than simply as an explanation of physical phenomena.  The realm of god is most easily accepted when it focuses on metaphysical explanations, such as life after death.

            The Christian religion, in it’s purest form, is indeed in conflict with scientific “knowledge”, since the two have often distinctly different views of what theories are correct.  Yet, despite the desires of most Christians, Christianity is not the only religious belief system.  In the past few decades, there has been a growing number of people embracing a new form of religion; religion which is open, non-dogmatic, flexible, and not in conflict with the advancing scientific theories.  The Neo-Pagan movement is a diverse and general category which includes many different practitioners of various earth-based and often polytheistic religions.  Wicca in particular is a stellar example of a typical Neo-Pagan religion.

            Wicca is the practice of modern witch-craft.  According to some practitioners, it is based on centuries-old traditions and rituals which date back to medieval and sometimes pre-Christian Britain and Europe (although it is generally admitted that the ancient practices are widely unknown, and that modern rituals are invariably new).  Wicca does not have a set or written code of rules or traditions, although there are a few principles which are generally accepted by all Wiccans.  Above all else is the principle “An ye harm none, do what ye will”.  It is, in effect, an open invitation to accept or reject any and all religious and philosophical views, lifestyles, practices, rituals, ceremonies, actions and beliefs, while at the same time reminding the Wiccan that such free thoughts and behavior are only acceptable when they do not harm or interfere with the lives of other people.  It is the embodiment of “live and let live”, and is based primarily on the “three-fold rule”, which is a vague assertion of a karmic force in the world.  The rule says that whatever “energy”, be it actions, emotions, or behaviors, which a person puts out into the world will come back to them multiplied by three (the concept does not entail some ridged mathematical formula or equation used to calculate a precise return by exactly thrice the amount; rather, it is a general principle of thought).  Thus, in a Wiccan’s practice of witchcraft, they are free to take part in rituals, worship, and spell-casting, so long as the spells are not of an “evil” nature (anything which would deprive someone else of happiness or free will, or otherwise hurt them in any way). 

            Wicca also includes a worship of the Goddess, or a feminine mother-earth deity figure, and for some practitioners also includes a belief in and worship of a pantheon of other gods and goddesses.  The most defining characteristic of Wicca (and most other Neo-Pagan religions, for that matter) is the inability to clearly define them within the confines of specific rules or boundaries.  Each individual practitioner or group of practitioners (called a coven) decide for themselves which aspects of ritual and worship are most appropriate or beneficial for their life, and accept only what is useful to them.  They allow for flexibility of though; in fact, it is rare to find a Wiccan who holds the exact same beliefs they held even a few months before, much less for years.  Thus, the structure of Wicca, while sometimes operating on a metaphysical plane, is more along the lines of a scientific method, where changes are accepted and even sought after.  A Wiccan, therefore, has little conflict with scientific theories, because their beliefs are not based on unbendable rules as Christianity is.

            One might think that because Wicca is an earth-based religion, and includes a deep connection with and respect for nature, that it might come into conflict with the advancing technological developments which science makes possible.  Instead, Wiccans are more likely to point out that it is not the technology or the science which is causing the problems, but rather the way in which humans use it.  Most Wiccans, despite holding seemingly ancient beliefs and practices, actually welcome technology, which does a marvelous job of opening up communication between people and spreading information amongst all who seek it.  One Pagan, Lady Cybele of Madison, summed up the typical Neo-Pagan view of technology: “I’m all for technology, as long as it doesn’t destroy the earth.  I’m very happy to climb in my car and drive two hundred miles to see Pagan friends...It’s a bummer flying my broom in the winter.  Besides, modern conveniences have eliminated a lot of drudgery.  Modern technology has freed up time so people can develop philosophical pursuits.” (Adler, p. 392). 

            It seems clear, then, that a flexibility in a religion makes that religion and it’s practitioners more likely to accept science, or at least less likely to conflict with it.  It is worthwhile to consider, at least on a very basic level, an eastern religion such as Buddhism, and its interaction with science.

            A Buddhist philosophy takes a completely different approach to religion than traditional (and non-traditional) western religions.  Most western religions include some sort of belief in a higher power, or “god” figure of some sort, which not only created but also governs the world.  A Buddhist view looks at the world with a “life is one” perspective.  There is a belief that everything in the physical world, and everything in the metaphysical world is all part of one central power, force, or entity.  Through meditation and altered states of consciousness, a Buddhist tries to bring the mind and the being in line with this one-ness, embracing and accepting a part in this overall force.  There seems to be little to no conflict with science, therefore, because the Buddhist recognizes that scientific “knowledge” is really only applicable to the physical world, but is actually unimportant on a much larger scale.  The importance, for example, of whether the earth revolves around the sun or the universe revolves around the earth is really irrelevant; whether humans know it or not, one of the two is true, and human knowledge of the fact does not alter its truth.  More than that, however, there is a truth that transcends even such physical truths as the revolutions of planets in relation to each other, and in the Buddhist’s search for a unity of mind with ultimate truth, physical “truths” become non-issues.  Thus, if a Buddhist woke up tomorrow to find that humans had evolved from snakes instead of apes, it would not be a particularly earth-shattering discovery, because the transcended one-ness and unity which they seek is the same regardless of physical world scientific theories.

            The question as to whether science and religion can be reconciled seems answered; reconciliation (in manner and possibility) seems to rest squarely on which religion one examines.  For those who wish to accept modern scientific evidence, there are several alternatives for approaching religion.  One can completely abandon religion all together, basing their life on physical and empirical principles, while also rejecting some possible benefit religion might offer.  Though morality can exist independent of religion (the truly brave person will act in accordance with what is best for others even when it is difficult or painful to that person themself), it is certainly easier to maintain a moral life when one adopts a set code of moral rules and guidelines, which the Judeo-Christian religions offer.  Religion also offers a comfort in times of trouble, and an explanation for that which scientific knowledge cannot yet explain, for those who must have assigned meaning in their lives.  Considering the possible benefits, if one chooses to accept religion, they can alter their beliefs to fit new and changing scientific evidence, although this becomes detrimental to the integrity of religions based on hard and fast rules and laws such as Christianity (it is a slippery slope; when one discounts certain parts of the bible, what is left to lend credibility to the rest of the book?).  Even better, one could choose to adopt a religion which itself allows for flexibility of thought and diversity of change over time, or one to which the question of changing and adapting knowledge is unimportant.  Of course, there will always be those who reject outright all scientific theories and knowledge, and instead cling to the teachings and principles of their long-held religions.  In our modern society, this is surely the most difficult choice of all, for it requires the suppression of logic and common sense, two traits which are integral parts of the human mind.  In the end, each person much choose from the options which method of reconciliation works best for them, bringing them the most overall benefits in their life.  I cannot believe, however, that suppression of reason in favor of blind faith could ever bring a happier life than a continued quest for knowledge, bringing us ever closer to what is ultimate truth of our physical existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Adler, Margot.  Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other             Pagans in America Today.  Revised and Expanded Edition.  Beacon Press, Boston.  1986.