Can Science and Religion Be Partners?

For at least a millennium the basics of the world’s major religions have stood with an admirable amount of constancy. The world’s faith systems have withstood all manner of social, technological, and political change, often shifting how their organizations are structured, but generally staying true to the founding intents of the faith. Unlike religion, science changes fundamentally with every generation. Moore’s Law, although used primarily in the computing industry, has been used to characterize the rapidity of change in science and the technology that results from it. The long running conflict between science and religion, including which should hold sway over our societies, is, in part, based on these differences in pace.

Even though science has proven itself to be changeable and unstable in its understanding of natural phenomenon, “evangelical atheists,” many of whom are prominent scientists, believe that the people of the world should place their ultimate hope and understanding its principles. This belief defines a type of fundamentalism which is normally reserved for conversations about religion. Evangelical atheists, as sure of their beliefs as are evangelical Christians, hold that advances in science, communications technology, and knowledge will fundamentally change how people think and relate to each other, leading inevitably to improved relationships between people. Unfortunately these theories have not been proven. Nor are they likely to be. There has hardly been any great improvement in human relationship throughout the centuries. We have seen improved qualities of life through the practical application of the scientific method, but humans continue to war against and exploit one another. This is one of the defining characteristics of fundamentalism. In all stripes, atheistic, scientific, theistic, etc., fundamentalism appears to be a complete rejection of reality coupled with a distorted hope for a future purity of life. Such distortion of sight can only lead to unintended and unjust outcomes.

Having railed for a moment against the rationalist view, allow me to say that I have nothing against science. I have always enjoyed the study of the natural world and a solid base in science was/is necessary for my chosen profession (engineering). But science cannot answer some of the fundamental questions with which humanity wrestles. Though we may one day identify the chemical switches that equate to the emotion love, science will never be able to quantify what love is. Though science may come to be able to map out the social networks that hold together families and societies, it will never be able to fully comprehend the spiritual nature of those connections. Science does not search for meaning. Science searches for fact. Science can and does illumine the mechanisms of human life but it has no ability to discern the meaning of those lives, either individually or communally. The search for meaning is the purview of disciplines and faith systems that are much less quantifiable.

At our core, people need something to believe in. It has been asserted in scientific literature that we are hardwired for belief. Humans cannot escape it. And though these findings have been used in several venues to discredit the notion of “god” and discount religion, the true revelation of the findings revolves around the human need for belief in something outside of the individual. We all believe in something that helps us to define how we experience our being in the world. Whether we place that faith in a transcendent God, an economic system, raw knowledge, our family or community, or a particular system of governance is highly relevant to how we interact with other human beings. If one of the goals of civilization is to find some sense of harmony among ourselves then the core of our necessary belief must be solid – not unchangeable, but changing, at worst, at an evolutionary pace. Science does not provide such a firm foundation, nor does economics, whose primary mode is acquisition at cost to others, or government, whose goal is the maintenance of order through some form of social control. Non-fundamentalist religion, on the other hand, does provide the necessary foundation to achieve, not a utopian paradise, but a just society which values both the needs and the contributions of all of its members. The great religions of the world, including Islam, at their roots, seek to uphold human dignity, to spur restorative relationships, and to spread non-coercive justice. As with any human institution, the practice of religion is corruptible, and indeed, has been corrupted many times. But the ideals of faith are the keys worth pursuing. For those ideals, difficult as they may be to achieve, are aimed towards an existence which promises freedom, belonging, and justice for all.

I do not believe that science is inherently inferior to religious belief. Rather, I view them as seeking separate, though not all together incompatible, goals. Working together science and religious belief can create a powerful force for justice on our planet. And with the amount of suffering that we presently see in the world, this marriage cannot come a moment too soon.

Image Credit: Mattes (Own work) [see page for license], via Wikimedia Commons