On Religion and Science

At the end of this academic year, provided I spend a little more time in the library and a little less time on Facebook, I’ll receive a Bachelor of Arts degree in medical science.  This apparent discrepancy is no doubt a delicious throwback from an age when the dividing line between ‘art’ and ‘science’ was somewhat fuzzier; though the awkward juxtaposition does perhaps highlight a modern subject with some gravitas.

Yes, I speak of that thorny polemic, the mother of dichotomies: religion versus science.  Never has a relationship been so fraught with controversy, so riddled with conflict, and so distorted by misrepresentation.  There seems within this ‘war’ to be two extreme schools of thought.  There are those who believe religion and science to be incompatible by nature and so doomed to an eternity of bloody battle till one emerges triumphant, or both perish.  The second argues that there are absolutely no difficulties in incorporating one’s religion with  science- this is the ‘two sides of the same coin’ argument, where religion perhaps looks at ‘why’, and science at ‘how’.  I believe both of these arguments to be fallacious. 

The basic natures of religion and science do not render the two incompatible.  To explain why, I’m afraid a brief jaunt into the land of semantics is necessary.  In his 1945 article for Tribune entitled ‘What is Science?’, George Orwell advances a compelling argument in which he proposes science to be ‘a method of thought which obtains verifiable results by reasoning logically from observed fact’.  Science is not a list of data nor is it a book of facts; rather it is a critical way of thinking that can be applied to any field, be it biology, theology or literary criticism.  Dare I say it, science is a state of mind.  That phrase made me shudder, yet I stand by it.

Viewing science in this way invalidates the argument proposed by the first school of thought: that religion and science are intrinsically opposed.  Religion, or rather theology, should be based upon sound scientific reasoning.  Religious doctrine should be guided by careful evaluation of sources, be they scriptural or other avenues of revelation, such as tradition.  I maintain therefore that science as a whole is certainly not in conflict with religion, if the reasoning within a religion is conducted in a truly scientific manner, as it should be.  There are of course arguments that question the validity of ‘revelation’ as a source of truth, but this is a topic for discussion elsewhere.

So to the second school of thought: that religion and science are in a beautiful, complementary embrace which only serves to encourage mutual development and support.  I find this view hard to stomach.  When people speak of religion and science being the ‘why and how, respectively’, they often mean by science not the critical thinking tool, but rather specific instances of scientific research and knowledge.  An example; they may argue that science tells us how the universe was created, probably by a ‘big bang’ mechanism, whilst religion tells us why this creation took place: because of the creative love of a benevolent God.  Before addressing this outlook, it is necessary that I say something more of what I mean by ‘religion’.  As a Roman Catholic, I speak primarily of my own religion, though many of the points made will be relevant also to other Christian denominations, as well as to other major world religions such as Judaism and Islam.

I find the second school of thought dissatisfactory because there are certain pieces of experimental data, derived in a scientific manner, which pose fundamental questions about the validity of certain religious paradigms.  Some examples are necessary, I think.

Evolution by natural selection.  The Roman Catholic Church has recognised the validity of this beautiful theory as one possible hypothesis for the origin of species upon earth.  In fact, in the words of Pope John Paul II in a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 22^nd October, 1966: “some new findings lead us towards the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”  The Church even goes further by recognising evolution as a potential source of the human body.  So far, so good. The conflict arises when religion accepts a scientific finding on a notional level, whilst failing to look at the wider implications of such acceptance.  

What such implications?  These: can evolution happen by a truly random mechanism and there still exist a creator God?  Can Man be the evolutionary progeny of animals, bacteria, and who knows what else, whilst still being set apart and made in the image of God?  Can the Christian doctrines of original sin and atonement by Christ’s death and resurrection still be valid in light of the fact that there was no Adam and Eve, nor was there a historical Fall?  The Church may accredit the theory of evolution in an albeit limited way, but without addressing these fundamental questions, it may as well not have done so.  Rome has a reputation for moving very, very, very slowly on such matters (not necessarily a fault); though some preliminary movement is perhaps detectable.  In his recent book: ‘Christianity in Evolution: An Exploration’, Professor Jack Mahoney (a Jesuit priest) delves into these very questions, unperturbed by their sizeable implications.  Thank God for Jesuits.  And yet elsewhere in the Church, prominent figures cling to the same flawed arguments from design, which only serve to make the institution appear scientifically incompetent (see here).    

A second potential conflict between religion and scientific data comes in the arena of knowledge of the human person.  There are certain ‘truths’ to Man which are integral to religious belief in the Catholic tradition.  The material basis of higher human faculties is becoming apparent.  Conscience and morality, often seen as spiritual bastions, can be modulated with brain lesions.  The sexual fidelity of voles (I joke not, this research was conducted using a cunning system of tethers and portals: see here) can be altered using a drug to antagonise the vasopressin receptor in the brain and this data is thought (though not proven) to have parallels to human marital fidelity, possibly holding wider implications for the nature of free will.  The previously immaterial is being given a material basis.  These findings do not of course prove there is no spiritual dimension to life, but they do question some of the stock evidence used to support the concept of an immaterial nature to the human person.

So, if you’re still with me (your reward will be great in heaven.  Or not…), where do we find ourselves?  There are undoubtedly some scientific findings, particularly in the life sciences, which pose real questions for faith as we know it.  So, what to do?  Concede that faith is revealed as naïve by solid research and drop it?  I certainly hope not.

It may interest non-catholic readers to learn that Roman Catholics currently find themselves in a ‘Year of Faith’; a year-long process of deepening, developing and growing in faith.  This has the potential to consist solely of making a rather strange post-creed ‘pledge of allegiance’ during the Mass, but perhaps it equally has the potential to consist of something far deeper.  Perhaps this year is an opportunity to look challenging scientific data in the face; to not shy from them because of the implications they might hold for our belief system, but to engage fully with them, confident that our beliefs will withstand and prove truthful (though perhaps not always in the form that we had envisaged.  He’s meant to be a God of surprises after all, eh?).  A faith that rejects challenge out of fear is no faith at all.   The faith of this year might manifest as courage to subject beliefs to analysis in a thorough scientific fashion in light of modern scientific findings, with the necessary humility and diligence.  We might trust that rigorous questioning will not prove our religious faith immature, but rather that such investigation will lead to its maturation into something more substantial and true. 

It is, then, the role of our non-religious brethren to guide the faithful into these uncomfortable areas through constant questioning and evaluation.  Judging by the behaviour of Professor Dawkins, the atheist community is only too ready to oblige.  In return, theists must be completely honest with themselves and others; not entering into discussion with the intention of ‘destroying the enemy’ or point scoring (see here for a point scoring mentality, on both sides), but instead, doing so in an earnest search for truth.  Then we might make some progress.

So; a year of faith: a year of science.  Bring it on.