Reconciling Science and Religion
Is science in conflict ?ith religion? When ?eligion e?pects unq?estioning faith, there i? a natural conflict. If religious ideas are open to t?sting, th?re is no conflict. Also, relig?on de?ls with realms of d?sire and inner exp?rience that are outside of t?e sc?pe of science.
Science and religion eac? ha?e th?ir ba?es in different experiential territorie?. Science ?s based ?n publicly accessible expe?ience. Religion is ba?ed on inner experience. If science says that its meth?ds do not apply beyond p?blicly acces?ible experience and relig?on says an? revelations it h?s about ?ublicly acce?sible ?xperience should ?e open to th? same kind ?f testing that scientific claims are, where i? the conflict?
There ?re differences, of c?urse. Science is ?ore rigorously tested. R?ligion is more open to ?nterpretation ?nd there is ? l?t more variability ?n ap?roach. Science can usually achieve wide consen?us w?thin the community of research once a th?ory h?s been sufficiently tested. Religion has m?ny diffe?ent “communities of research” using different ?ethods. Therefore, individual choice and mutual tolerance ?s much more of an issue.
This will ?e made easier a? religions g?ve up unsupportable cla?ms to unique authority and legitimac?. At the same time science needs to recogniz? that ?t ha? deliberately limited ?ts scop? to t?ose experiences that can best be subjected to it? methods. B?yond this, there are still whole ?ealms of knowledge t?at are a part of human experience. It ?s tru? that they ar? less testa?le and definite than science, but they are still part of life. Religion explores some ?f these regions.
Religion ?lso gives ? whol? ?attern to life of which science ?an ?e ? part. Religions include ethics, stories, songs, art, community life, ?nd man? ot?er ar?as wit?in th?ir p?actice. They s?pply more of a complete picture ?f life. Religion c?n embrace scienc? as one of ?ur great ?uman treasures once it ?s ?roperly understood not to b? a real threat to religion.
Science h?s already recognized that there are many ?reas beyond its s?ope, history, journalism, everyday ?roblem ?olving, art, art criticism, craftsmanship, ethics, personal experience, parties, games, fun, lo?e. Scienc? can study some of these, but it cannot subsume them. Su?ely so?e of these are part ?f ho? we know the world. Religion is one of these differ?nt ?ays of knowing the world.
Part of the problem is ? universalizing attitude ?n the part of advocates ?f both science and religion, but this attitude is not necessary to t?e functioning of either scienc? or religion. It ?s like sa?ing that t?e only real people are thos? in ?y group. Anyon? on the outside must be l?ss than human. We have long ago f?und that a live and let live attitude will get us muc? farther.
A counter argument to this pla? friendly approach to scienc? and religion is that God knows best what He has created and therefore if He say? som?thing ?n Hi? holy b?ok, then science will just h?ve to accept its authority. Science ?s only t?ntative. It h?s had to chang? its theories in the past. Eventually even the scientists will have to se? that God is ?ight and th?y a?e wrong.
But scient?sts are more than willing t? admit that t?eir theorie? may need revision based on future experience. Th?ir theories a?e presented as the best v?ew the? have at this time. But defenders of religion who insi?t on the correctness of their theorie? will not admit th?t they ?ay be taking creation stories f?om pre-scientific cultures as fact ju?t on authority. Religion does not need to ?e in conflict wit? science, but a?guments from authority invite such a conflict.
Suppose that the s?cred scriptures are n?t books that ?ome from ? particular cultural setting and that they ?re not human inter?retations ?f inne? experi?nces. Su?pose that the? ?re direct words fr?m God. Could it n?t b? that ?e ?re misunde?standing them? Could it be that th? text could have a different meaning? How do we kn?w w? ha?e the right one? And didn’t God also ?reate the hu?an mind a? a way to ?earch o?t the sec?ets of nature?
There i? ? conf?sion about authority. Authority ?s ? social concept. It has to do ?ith w?o can make certa?n dec?sions. But muc? ?f our expe?ience just happens. We can’t d?cide for it t? not ?e that way. None of u? has a?thority over whether the force of gravity pulls objects tow?rd ?ach other. It ?s j?st part of th? patte?n of our experience. Th?re ?an b? authority about whet?er texts can b? changed and ?bout wh?t it means to b? ? part of ? religious com?unity ?ut not ?bout the basic structure of t?e universe. It ?s what it is.
So so?e of this i? an argument about what people should ?e allowed t? say. Religious people who insist on the authority of their text are in effect saying t?at we are not ?llowed to questi?n the text. Furthermore, we cannot claim truth fo? texts that contradict this t?xt. T? question this text undermines the social structure ?f their religion, and they cannot tolerate that. It ?lso calls into doubt th? hopes that they have based on that text. It com?s ba?k to the problem of universalizing. If they could accept that their hopes could ?till ?e there even if t?ey we?e to admit that their holy book conta?ns some ideas that no longer ?pply ?r that apply in a different way t?an they originally understood, they could avoid thi? problem. For exam?le, creation stories from all cultures c?n be ?ery interesting and can have very deep inne? significance. T?ey do not have t? be tre?ted as s?ientific t?xts. There are many diffe?ent kinds ?f te?ts with many different purposes.
Science and religion do not ha?e to be ?n c?nflict if extremists ?n both sides will just b?ck off. Each s?de needs t? recognize th?ir o?n human l?mits ?nd to respe?t th? territory ?f t?e other. Science has legitimate claims t? ?eing the best so?rce of the well tested, c?herent theories that cover the re?lm of publ?cly ?ccessible experience. Religi?n has l?gitimate claims to o?ening ?p realms beyond science, t?e inner realms, th? ethical, h?listic patterns of life that ?an include scien?e as one of their many treasures.
About the author:
Ronald T?wer is the author of The Pyrrho of Martinsburg, an online book ?f practi?al philosophy, poetry, and meaning of life speculations. (http://w?w.pyrrhom.com)
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|