Science and Religion Reconsidered

Howard Johnson
Sep 5, 2018 · 3 min read

DA; this discussion is well done within what is often a very difficult discourse. People are often using the same words but mean very different things. So many perspectives; often hard to reconcile. This is but one more.

Survivalist reality TV is interesting in this way. We have to learn very much in order to enter into the natural world and survive without the instruments of culture around us and survival for most of us would be far from assured if we found ourselves without support. Why are our everyday lives not like this; because we are primarily a cooperative, collaborative and culture bound species. No other species have such an extensive artifactual culture and that includes not only physical artifacts, but also ideas like life, liberty and the freedom to worship as one chooses. If we including those who have gone before us, we as a species are much more than the sum of our parts. We are supported by each other and we are supported by what our forbearers have left behind; including ourselves. In fact, through culture, we are more than the sum of our genes.

Let’s look at this scientifically. How would evolution select for such a species. How would it choose genes for collaboration and genes that supports a deep interface with a culture based on collaboration. For everyday life is notable not only that we work together, but also for the trust and faith that we need from each other on a daily basis. When I see something as common as religion and other forms of faith expression, I want to know whether this form of faith has been selected for our species; whether it is something that is important for our development as a collaborative species.

For me this currently comes down to this question. Is the ethical philosophy laid out in the Sermon on the Mount (often considered to be a synopsis of the Gospels) be such a religious artifact that would enhance the trust and faith that we daily express to each other in this joint activity that we call life? I believe it is.

I’ll make one additional comment. Evolution continues and cultural evolution tends to proceed faster than our physical bodies. Our bodies are much the same as they were tens of thousands of years ago. But today we are also throughly modern people in culture and in thought. Even deeply religious people think in very modern ways; different than even three or four hundred years ago. The meanings of religious text also mean something different than they did in premodern times and they will mean something even different in the future. (A note on Biblical inerrancy; meaning change, even as the text remains the same.) We need to reexamine regious texts for their relevance today and that includes scientific relevance. I would suggest that much of modernity will prove to be worthy of deselection, especially if you look at our current problems associated with ethics and governing. We are unlikely to return to premodern ways, but we can consider what comes next that is a natural way to move us forward to become more human. If we think that religion and science are simply two incompatable ways of looking at the world, we are not necessarily being scientific.

Howard Johnson

Written by

Pragmatist, Ed Psychologist, Win the future of Ed

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade