During this past week, our good friend Charles Darwin turned 200 years old. While he isn’t exactly a figure in Mormonism, his work has affected nearly every part of humanity. Incidentally, his revolutionary discoveries were being made in the same time period that the Church of Jesus Christ was being restored to the earth. So, in honor of the famous scientist, I would like to discuss the idea of science and religion, and why they are such good friends.
Of course, I am not a scientist, and therefore will not pretend to have a deep understanding of concepts such as evolution. The purpose of this blog is religious in nature, so discussing a topic such as this may seem to make little sense. But, as you all know, evolution often gets used as a chess piece the pseudo-competition between science and religion.
First and foremost, let me say that I think that this so-called battle between science in religion is non-existent and even rather stupid. Sometimes I like to imagine science and religion as two neighbors living in the suburbs. I see them having barbeques together, watching college basketball games, and doing all of the things that good neighbors do. However, because they both have such strong personalities, the other neighbors start gossiping about what they see as differences in opinion. The idea spreads that “religion and science will never get along.” However, in reality, they get along just fine. In fact, they even compliment each other in many ways. The combination of their individual strengths makes the entire community a better place.
As a religious person, I can honestly say that I have never felt the slightest bit threatened by scientific research or ideas. Mormon doctrine at times refers to the “mysteries of godliness,” meaning those things which pertain to our existence that we currently have limited or no understanding of. Any good scientist will also admit that there are unlimited “mysteries of the universe,” that is to say, those things which aren’t currently understood. In fact, science exists as a discipline to study and try and understand these mysteries.
So maybe you can help me understand where the conflict lies? Are those who use religion to refute science simply afraid that life might have too many hidden complexities to handle, and therefore want to use the simplified version of religious belief to explain everything? That doesn’t make sense to me, because religion has been nothing but bottomless and complex to me as I have studied. I learn something new from religion nearly every day.
And what about those who use science to refute religion? I can understand the agnostic approach, saying that there is no conclusive scientific proof to verify many religious beliefs. But, using that same logic, there is also a lack of proof to discredit these same ideas. How do some then try to claim science is an adequate “proof” that religious beliefs are false?
Now, for many people, the conflict between science and religion has long subsided. But, every once in a while, you hear somebody bringing it up again. A couple of years ago, I recall a Sunday School teacher telling of how he recently saw some amazing animal (I think it was an Elephant Seal), and how he “didn’t understand how people could accept the doctrine of ‘Darwinism.’” Or in another case, I remember watching a documentary where a scientist who discovered the body of a pre-historic human ancestor said that his discovery would lead religious people to “get off the fence” and admit that they are wrong.
Maybe we will eventually recognize that religion and science are not enemies at all, just two great parts of our existence that both play very important and necessary roles. But for now, let’s thank the great minds in religion and science alike. Mr. Darwin, this one’s for you.
DISCLAIMER:
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I was talking with a frined today about the exact same topic, and he said something interesting I would like to share: why is it, that many people are willing to admit something might be of godly origins when we cannot explain it scientifically YET. Using your metaphor, this would be like chatting to neighbour "religion" until neighbour "science" is finally available to talk to.
Does this diminish the role of religion?
Michaela.
Many great scientists were also religious as was Darwin himself.
It would appear, however, that religion, a conservative institution, has often come in conflict with science, a progressive institution. For example, the preposterous idea of heliocentrism, which contradicted passages in the Bible such as "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Religion is in the unfortunate position of retreating before new revelations in science.
For those people who take an orthodox approach to religion, such as refusing to accept treatment from a doctor, or refusing to teach contraception, or refusing to accept what studies show about genetic predispositions, refusing psychoanalytic explanations of poor behavior, and the list goes on... cannot enjoy all the benefits of science unless they find a church which can adapt, or leave church altogether.
None of my examples above are about evolution, on purpose. As you said Nils, evolution often sparks debate about science vs. religion. I think evolution is one of the clearest dichotomies because it is belief in a Creator which is fundamental to religion, and this belief is directly contradicted by the idea that nothing created us, we happened, just as fungus happens.
Which is not to say I'm not a fun guy.
Taking the view that all religion must retreat before science would imply that all religion is flawed. If all religion is flawed, how can one be better than another? But that's a separate topic.
I agree, thanks for your post, very nice
So I'm back after a long commenting absence. And here are my thoughts.
First, very rarely (if ever) do you find people who are scrutinizing science or religion and testing either one without some sort of agenda. True objectivity is nigh impossible, especially from a human standpoint. Someone reading the Book of Mormon for the first time likely has an agenda, often either to determine its truth or to try and somehow invalidate it. When examining the ideas and theories behind natural selection and evolution, Darwin had an agenda: he was trying to rectify his observations of nature with his perceptions of God. He couldn't understand how God, who was supposed to be loving and kind, could allow pain and suffering such as Darwin had sometimes observed in the natural world. So he tried to find another explanation, and he did. Maybe it's valid, maybe not (I lean towards the latter, but that's not the point). The point is, everyone has an angle. Cynical? Maybe. But true, more often than not.
And my second point is that who is to say science and religion can't go hand in hand? Who can say unequivocally that God didn't use processes best explained by science when creating the world? When the scriptures talk about the face of the earth being changed, that could certainly be explained by geological processes like plate tectonics. Does anyone think God doesn't understand meteorology or biology or astronomy or oceanography or paleontology or all other -ologies/-onomies/-ographies?
I think he understands science better than we do, and that there are principles of science incomprehensible to man at this point. And further, I think it's possible that some miracles can be explained "logically" by principles of science that haven't been discovered yet. Who's to say there isn't a scientific explanation behind the creation of the earth, a great miracle indeed? Does that make it any less wondrous or miraculous?
I say no.
I know I'm hogging the comments, but I came across this article, and I think it's pretty interesting. It is almost related to the topic at hand, in the sense the science brings technology, and it's related to my comment about religion giving way to advances in technology.
Check it out.
.
Hey. New commenter here...
Many people believe science and religion get along, many don't. That's kind of a wash to me as far that reasoning goes. It really depends on me as to how literally people interpret scripture. If you have a more loose interpretation, you can more easily find a place for science. If not, then there tends to be less of a place.
Something that I take issue with is the idea the just because you can't disprove something means that it is proof. Or at least makes it as valid a hypothesis as something which has a reasonable amount of evidence against it, but ultimately has no true way to disprove it.
For example, you say there is no definitive way to disprove the existence of god. That must then mean the existence of god is just as valid a hypothesis as the nonexistence of god.
By that same reasoning, pink unicorns, all ancient gods (Zeus, Apollo, etc.), and current religions (Judaism, Islam, Jainism, Scientology, etc.) are also true. Or are at least as likely as the existence of your god, or the nonexistence of any gods. So if you think that because you cannot disprove something means it exists, or is as likely as the alternative, then ALL of the above are equally likely scenarios.
This is, of course, ludicrous. Pink unicorns, Zeus and Apollo, etc. do not exist. I would bet that most, if not all, people that read this do not believe they exist. But why? Why do you accept one god or idea as true and rational and dismiss all others?
Tobyo hit the nail on the head. The problem isn't science vs. religion. It is fundamentalism. If a belief is held with no room for flexibility of thought or reflection, any idea that challenges that belief will be 'wrong' regardless of its truth.
People of all religions who subscribe to fundamentalist thought are dangerous, because they are constantly bombarded by a world that seems to attack their beliefs at all sides (scientific, social, political, etc). This is why so many resort to violent and excessive forms of protest like bombings and self-mutilation. I feel that when religion can finally be subject to scrutiny, debate, and change then it will become a living and evolving part of the human experience that pushes us beyond our current spiritual flaws.
Science is always up to being proved wrong. It's time for the other side to give a little ground.
I wonder if one of the things that makes people uncomfortable in the debate is the idea of truth. I think Paxus has an interesting point about fundamentalism, and how religious people should be willing to give ground.
I think there's a difference between hearing arguments against religion (because of scientific evidence) and accepting such arguments. As a firm believer in what I believe, I feel I can hear all kinds of arguments of religion, discuss them constructively, and still end up believing in the same things I believed in from the start.
There are two experiences that might be defined as a crisis of faith: a faith-trying experience, and a faith-shaking experience. I've had many of the former and very few of the latter. Faith-trying experiences involve people who are challenged in what they believe somehow, consider and examine what they believe, maybe even question it, but end up stronger in that faith- either because the challenge bolsters their belief, or because they learn their belief can stand up to that challenge.
Faith-shaking experiences, I think, happen more frequently to those who are unsure of or not confident in what they believe, to the point where any challenge that comes along shakes them like wind does a tree, and because they aren't strong, they are constantly at risk of being toppled over.
I think it's possible to get to a place where one isn't shaken about by "every wind of doctrine." I think those of faith should be willing to accept scrutiny and hear arguments and challenges. Faithful people, especially those who have been faithful for a long time, shouldn't shut something down just because it might be different.
Example: "The Da Vinci Code" implies that Jesus Christ was at one time married to Mary Magdelene, and that they had children. Many immediately wrote that notion off as heresy and dangerous and evil thinking. However, there is no concrete evidence to either concretely support or refute the idea. Maybe He was, maybe He wasn't. But the possibility that He was shouldn't dissuade someone from being Christian. Nothing about the idea of Christ being married is anti-Christian.
At the same time, too much exploration into opposite views can be harmful. A Mormon reading anti-Mormon literature runs the risk of having his/her faith shaken, rather than tried. This is largely because anti-Mormon literature has no agenda but to get people riled up. Much of what is published/said against any religion isn't out of a true desire to save a soul, but rather to put a religion down. Little could be less Christian, for example, than to try and tear down the beliefs of another Christian simply because they are different.
Yes, truth is truth. And yes, truth is absolute and imperturbable. But until any human understands and knows every shred of every truth, there's always room to listen and examine and scrutinize. I've done it, and my faith is stronger because of it. Learning about science has bolstered my beliefs, not beleaguered them.
Final point (I promise): the funny thing about arguments, religious and scientific, is that each side has a whole body of evidence to support it. So if someone comes along saying the Book of Abraham isn't what Joseph Smith says it is, and gives me studies that have been done, I can toss back just as many studies saying it is exactly what Joseph Smith said it is.
Michaela -
Thanks for your comments, and good question. To answer it as best I can, I don't think that this has to diminish the role of religion, the same way that religion shouldn't diminish the role of science if somebody is looking at the situation from the opposite perspective. Science explains physical things, which make up our universe. Religion explains spiritual things, which are not physical in nature as science is. In a sense, religion therefore becomes more of a social science, or even something entirely different, perhaps I will call it a "spiritual science."
For many religion is supreme. For others, science is. For others, it might be something completely different. Like they say, a hammer sees the whole world as a nail, or at least gives greater attention to all the nails in the world. I think they should both be seen as equally legitimate in their own right.
Tobyo-
Like you say, when people turn religion into an institution that is too conservative, and try to use religion to describe everything, they end up trying to fix something using the wrong tool. You wouldn't use a trumpet to solve a calculus problem, you would probably use an equation. Using religion to try and describe the physical universe is inadequate, because religion by nature doesn't exist to describe the physical universe. It might make reference to it, but the Bible or other religious texts aren't written for the purpose of being science textbooks. Their purpose is that of spiritual teachings.
I am curious as to why you imply (or you may be referring to others) that evolution automatically means that their isn't a creator? I have never been able to find anything about evolution which would make the idea of "creation," at least in the religious sense, invalid. Could evolution be the physical manifestation of creation? Or does the "creation" refer to certain points in our evolution?
Steven-
I agree that no matter what one is analyzing, they always do so with some inherent bias. The efforts we make for objectivity in all subject areas, including both religion and science, are a demonstration of our understanding, or at least capacity to understand, different ideas and alternate viewpoints.
I also agree with your idea that God, with higher understanding than ours, also understands things with a physical nature. Like us, I believe that God too has a physical and spiritual nature. However, for us, at least at this point, the spiritual aspects, or those things which make up "religion," are what we see as most important, and that may well be the case, at least as far as our understanding of God.
Lifeofdi-
Thanks for your comments and welcome! I think your point is right on concerning the literal interpretation of scripture. One thing I have talked about in the past is people reading scripture as a history book. In your example, people treat it like a science textbook. I think either approach is erroneous, because scripture by nature is written for one purpose - to give spiritual truth, the same as a science textbook is written to give scientific truth or a history book exists to retell and/or analyze historical events and figures.
I also agree that using the justification that just because something can't be proven means it is just as likely to exist as it is likely to non exists is very weak reasoning indeed. Concerning God, however, I think what people often fail to consider is that while their may not be any physical proof to the existence of a physical God, there is a significant amount of spiritual evidence (including the fact that there are many who believe in His existence in varying capacities and who make claim to experiences which are spiritual in nature).
I personally believe that God does also have a physical nature, but I base that from deductive reasoning of the evidence in my own personal life that I have both a physical and spiritual nature, and therefore I assume that He has something similar. Of course, if He isn't physically part of this world or any part of the universe where humans have explored, than there isn't any way of proving that.
I liked your examples of both Pink Unicorns and the Greek gods. I do think putting all "unknown beings" into one category is often limiting. Pink Unicorns are one thing (no, I don't believe in them or any other cryptozoological figures for that matter). There isn't any physical or spiritual (or social or psychological or any other icals or ogicals) evidence that I know of concerning their existence. While I might recognize the remote possibility that they (or Bigfoot, or Nessie, or whatever) do exist, you would never see me putting money on that. As for the Greek gods, however, who is to say that belief in them at one point was just an alternate interpretation of the same God that Christians, Muslims, Jews, and many others believe in today? I don't know the answers to those questions, but it is interesting to speculate...
Thanks again for your comments! We hope to hear more from you!
Paxus-
I must say that I am very happy to have your comments for me, because you addressed one of my favorite subjects and something that I feel very strongly about - the dangers of fundamentalism. I do think that one can be a fundamentalist in all schools of thought, not just religion. While they might not be as prominent, there can even be fundamentalists in the studies of the sciences and other disciplines. This goes back to the idea that if you put all your stock in one discipline, you cloud the ability to consider others.
Thank you all for your comments! I hope you enjoy reading and look forward to continually hearing from you all.
Nils,
Just to respond to your question..
My comparison was to the atheist camp, because while there is room for a deist to accept evolution as triggered or governed by God, it is the other notion, that humans evolved without any help, that contradicts the existence of a Creator.
Post a Comment