Science and religion
09/06/14 05:25
The dialogue between religion and science has not always been an easy conversation. There have been religious authorities who have resisted the discoveries of science. Several high-profile arguments have caused some scientists, both amateur and professional, to question the judgment of religious authorities. In the early part of the 17th century Galileo came into conflict with the Roman Catholic Church for his support of Copernican astronomy. The discovery that the earth is not at the center of the universe, not even at the center of our solar system, was initially rebuffed by religious authorities whose interpretations of the stories of Creation in Genesis gave a dramatically different worldview. It was a little more complex than that. Galileo’s small book, “Sidereus Nucius” challenged the philosophy of the time. It points to errors in the understandings of Aristotle and Ptolemy. Galileo’s observations of the phases of Venus, which show that it circles the sun challenged Ptolemy’s geocentric model.
Some contemporary thinkers will point to that controversy as the beginnings of conflict between science and religion.
Another famous incident that focused on the differences between scientific method and some religious interpretations was the 1925 legal case “State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes,” commonly known as the Scopes Monkey Trial. The State of Tennessee had passed a law making it unlawful to teach human evolution in any state-funded school. Substitute teacher John Scopes was accused of violating that law. He was found guilty and fined $100 before the verdict was overturned on a technicality. The trial, however, garnered national publicity, in part because famous lawyers Williams Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow faced off. In fundamentalist corners of the church there are still evolution verses creation debates and people who believe that the teaching of the widely accepted theory of evolution in schools somehow undermines religious teaching. While many faithful Christians do not see the inconsistency between evolution and Creation, the legal case and the national debate is sparked continues to influence the thinking of both scientists and religious leaders.
Both arguments, it seems to me, involve both a misunderstanding of the nature of religion on the part of scientists and a misunderstanding of the nature of science by religionists. They also, in my opinion, involve no small amount of mistaken representations of Christian theology on behalf of both sides of the argument.
The reading of sacred texts as if they were science books is not only disrespectful to the texts, but also can make it difficult, if not impossible, for readers to grasp the multiple levels of truth contained in the texts. To assume that faith is only the answer to things we understand is to assign faith to an ever-diminishing role as scientific discovery expands.
I simply don’t see it that way. I have no particular interest in debating the existence of God. From the first words to the very end the Christian Bible is not interested in that discussion, either. It simply accepts the existence of God. The entire book is a testament of faith by those who believe in God. As such, God is in everything. There is no scientific observation that is not an observation of the work of God. Each new scientific discovery leads to a deeper understanding of God. Before the era of modern science, many people thought that the universe was rather small compared to what we now know. From my point of view that makes the work of God and the very nature of God much more grand and beyond our capacity to imagine than was previously understood.
When I listen to classic debates of science verses religion, I find that the God whose existence is debated is a theological construct that is very different from they way I understand God. Often in such discussions I find myself thinking, “The god you don’t believe in isn’t the God in which I believe.” Conversely, the god espoused by some fundamentalists is such a narrow vision of the complete nature of God, that I don’t recognize the Biblical God in their description. There are psalms that speak of God’s conception of time being vastly different than ours, but there are some who read the accounts of Genesis as if God operates on a 24-hour day and sees time from a human perspective. Multiple places in the bible speak of the role of God in the creation of even the most distant stars, and yet it appears as if some religious thinkers can’t accept the vastness of the universe and want to continue to think of god as some kind of supernatural being that only cares about one planet.
The debates are rather silly in my opinion.
One of the corners of scientific exploration that fascinates me is the discoveries in neuroscience of recent years. Our brains are amazingly complex organs and the ways in which we think, retain ideas, and assemble them into coherent thoughts is truly amazing. We still understand only a very small part of the process. New medical imaging techniques provide a less-invasive way of studying the brain and seeing how it works. There have been several studies using functional MRI to observe the processes in the brain during intense religious experiences. One study focused on the brain activities of meditating monks and discovered amazing abilities of the monks to control brain processes and functions.
Studies of the Broca’s area in the brain have led to a theory that religion, like language is an inherent part of being human. Religious thoughts and expressions are part of the necessary genetic code that forms humans. To state it is religious terms, scientists have discovered that religion is not some thought developed by humans, but rather a part of our essential nature - we were born to love God. It is not what we do as much as it is who we are.
We are only beginning to learn a small amount about the even wider reality of God. And we are only beginning to understand the relationship between religious expression and human identity. There is much that remains to be discovered.
So far, however, there is nothing that leads me to the conclusion that scientific method or thought is any kind of a treat to religious practice and expression. The polarization between science and religion is artificial. The debate is not a place where I want to invest much of my time or energy. I’m for attracted by the possibilities of new discoveries.
Some contemporary thinkers will point to that controversy as the beginnings of conflict between science and religion.
Another famous incident that focused on the differences between scientific method and some religious interpretations was the 1925 legal case “State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes,” commonly known as the Scopes Monkey Trial. The State of Tennessee had passed a law making it unlawful to teach human evolution in any state-funded school. Substitute teacher John Scopes was accused of violating that law. He was found guilty and fined $100 before the verdict was overturned on a technicality. The trial, however, garnered national publicity, in part because famous lawyers Williams Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow faced off. In fundamentalist corners of the church there are still evolution verses creation debates and people who believe that the teaching of the widely accepted theory of evolution in schools somehow undermines religious teaching. While many faithful Christians do not see the inconsistency between evolution and Creation, the legal case and the national debate is sparked continues to influence the thinking of both scientists and religious leaders.
Both arguments, it seems to me, involve both a misunderstanding of the nature of religion on the part of scientists and a misunderstanding of the nature of science by religionists. They also, in my opinion, involve no small amount of mistaken representations of Christian theology on behalf of both sides of the argument.
The reading of sacred texts as if they were science books is not only disrespectful to the texts, but also can make it difficult, if not impossible, for readers to grasp the multiple levels of truth contained in the texts. To assume that faith is only the answer to things we understand is to assign faith to an ever-diminishing role as scientific discovery expands.
I simply don’t see it that way. I have no particular interest in debating the existence of God. From the first words to the very end the Christian Bible is not interested in that discussion, either. It simply accepts the existence of God. The entire book is a testament of faith by those who believe in God. As such, God is in everything. There is no scientific observation that is not an observation of the work of God. Each new scientific discovery leads to a deeper understanding of God. Before the era of modern science, many people thought that the universe was rather small compared to what we now know. From my point of view that makes the work of God and the very nature of God much more grand and beyond our capacity to imagine than was previously understood.
When I listen to classic debates of science verses religion, I find that the God whose existence is debated is a theological construct that is very different from they way I understand God. Often in such discussions I find myself thinking, “The god you don’t believe in isn’t the God in which I believe.” Conversely, the god espoused by some fundamentalists is such a narrow vision of the complete nature of God, that I don’t recognize the Biblical God in their description. There are psalms that speak of God’s conception of time being vastly different than ours, but there are some who read the accounts of Genesis as if God operates on a 24-hour day and sees time from a human perspective. Multiple places in the bible speak of the role of God in the creation of even the most distant stars, and yet it appears as if some religious thinkers can’t accept the vastness of the universe and want to continue to think of god as some kind of supernatural being that only cares about one planet.
The debates are rather silly in my opinion.
One of the corners of scientific exploration that fascinates me is the discoveries in neuroscience of recent years. Our brains are amazingly complex organs and the ways in which we think, retain ideas, and assemble them into coherent thoughts is truly amazing. We still understand only a very small part of the process. New medical imaging techniques provide a less-invasive way of studying the brain and seeing how it works. There have been several studies using functional MRI to observe the processes in the brain during intense religious experiences. One study focused on the brain activities of meditating monks and discovered amazing abilities of the monks to control brain processes and functions.
Studies of the Broca’s area in the brain have led to a theory that religion, like language is an inherent part of being human. Religious thoughts and expressions are part of the necessary genetic code that forms humans. To state it is religious terms, scientists have discovered that religion is not some thought developed by humans, but rather a part of our essential nature - we were born to love God. It is not what we do as much as it is who we are.
We are only beginning to learn a small amount about the even wider reality of God. And we are only beginning to understand the relationship between religious expression and human identity. There is much that remains to be discovered.
So far, however, there is nothing that leads me to the conclusion that scientific method or thought is any kind of a treat to religious practice and expression. The polarization between science and religion is artificial. The debate is not a place where I want to invest much of my time or energy. I’m for attracted by the possibilities of new discoveries.