Science and Religion

False dilemmas and the search for wisdom

“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” Denis Diderot (French Philosopher 1713–1784)

In the late 1500s Thomas Hobson owned a livery stable on what is now St Catherine’s College, Cambridge, in which he owned 40 horses that could be hired. A customer upon entering could reasonably assume that had their choice of mount. However, in order to preserve his best horses Hobson gave every customer a restricted choice — either take the horse in the stall nearest the door, or no horse at all. Hobson’s Choice had reduced a panoply of choices to a false dichotomy that left you either with (what may often have been) the lame horse or no horse.

The discussion of the relationship between Science and Religion can look exactly the same, boiling down a complex array of different options to an unnecessary choice that asks you to abandon one or the other. So, do you choose a world of reason, making deductions based on observable data and deriving theories that fit those observations - with what are undeniably frequent material benefits to our lives — vaccines within a year, clean water, reduced infant mortality, mobile phones etc... or, do you prefer a world of transcendent purpose and a God who has made Himself known through deep sacrifice — and the frequent good that spins out of this — a sense of community, a lived hope, cultural philanthropy — food banks, schools, hospitals, charity, sacrificial time etc… (Now of course Science isn’t always used for Good, and Good doesn’t always come from Faith — there are multiple counter-examples that anyone can point to depending on your preference.), but the end question is usually the same — Choose wisely, but you may not choose both, and depending on who we are, what we experience and how we change as we grow older you may gravitate towards one of these.

However, like Hobson’s Choice, the dichotomy is a false one, as not only is their overlap but you can hold both, quite comfortably, without mental gymnastics. So why the perception of conflict? Well in part this originated in the late 1800s through the writings of two popular and charismatic scientists John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White — who postulated that science and faith had been in irrevocable conflict throughout the ages. Their writings had considerable popular appeal going through multiple reprints and translations and laid the groundwork for what historians now know as the “conflict hypothesis”. Most of their theories were simply wrong (e.g. that the Church taught that the Earth was flat, or that it banned anaesthetic to women) and historians of science have moved away from the idea but nevertheless their work introduced some big ideas that have stayed in the public imagination ever since.

The perceived incompatibility between Science and Faith was further tested back in 1914 by Swiss-American psychologist James Leuba who conducted a survey of 1000 scientists to gauge their broad view of religion. He found that the scientific community then was broadly equally split, with around 42% ascribing to a mainline Faith, and roughly the same not believing. The expectation then, and perhaps as now, was that given enough time the number not believing would rise and the number of scientists ascribing to some mainline religious view would dwindle.

So when the question was repeated in 1996 (by historian Edward Larson) many were surprised to see the numbers unchanged. The survey was once again repeated in 2009 with the numbers again the same.

A general harmony

“Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs…Science simply cannot adjudicate the issue of God’s possible existence. We neither affirm it nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists. — Prof. Stephen Jay Gould (palaeontology)”

In 100 years of Scientific progress and extraordinary cultural upheaval the numbers haven’t budged, and it can be said that most scientists don’t see a necessary conflict. Indeed, the granularity on the last survey showed that of the 41% with no particular belief, only 17% were atheist (the remainder being agnostic or without opinion) and that a plurality of younger scientists were statistically more religious than their older counterparts. (Worth noting that even of the 17%, not all are atheists because of Science — many being so because of the suffering seen in the world, or from prior commitment — i.e. their atheism prompted them to become scientists not the other way round).

This being the case, then why is there still a public perception of irreconcilable difference? Well in essence for two main reasons.

1. Scientists are still more likely to be atheist than the background population (by a factor of 10 from one of the polls). And there are once again charismatic Atheist scientists with significant public profiles (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris etc…) that to some extent define the public perception of the scientific community as a whole and successfully perpetuate the “conflict hypothesis”.
2. There are often points of specific conflict where Church theologians may hold out for an interpretation of natural history (e.g. YEC) that is in direct conflict with current Scientific evidence. These instances of conflict are often portrayed as characteristic of the Christian community as a whole, and at times, fuel the rise of atheists such as Dawkins and Andrew Dickson White.

With the former there is little that can, or needs to be done — this just reflects a cultural moment that waxes and wanes like any other. The conflict hypothesis has been around for 150 years, it wasn’t true originally and it isn’t true now. The New Atheists have been very prominent but there impact has been limited — the drift away from Christianity hasn’t been balanced by a rise in atheism — in the main it has seen a rise in a mish-mash of semi-religious practices and New Age mysticism — with modern gurus (Russel Brand for e.g.). There are no specific commitments but amongst this people still yearn for the supernatural, for a transcendent purpose and many still pray — even if for the moment they don’t want to put a name to what or who they are praying too. In a sense too, this reluctance reflects the cultural moment with lower levels of commitment to public institutions in general.

Specific conflicts

“What man of intelligence, I ask, will consider that the first second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars” Origen — 185 AD — 254AD

However, the second reason is worth reflecting on, particularly in relation to the reading of Genesis, the creation accounts, the Tower of Babel and Noah’s Flood. It is certainly true that around the 1550s many, though not all Christians, probably ascribed to a fairly literal view of these texts. From antiquity this was not necessarily the case with, for example, Augustine oscillating between literal and allegorical, and many of the Church Fathers favouring an allegorical reading. Origen perhaps most notably. But come the 1500s and the Reformation many reformers moved towards literalism as the best way to read Genesis. Over the next 300 years this changed as Scientific and Geological evidence mounted towards the deep age of the Earth such that by the middle of the 1850s almost no educated theologian or scientist held to literalism with respect to Genesis, and multiple examples can be found of both arguing for deep time and allegorical readings of Genesis.

Whilst this transition was tentative and occasionally muddled it was without the conflict suggested. Just one example to illustrate this would be William Buckland who was the former president of the Geological Society of London and also Dean of Westminster. He also published in 1823 what might be seen as the last great defence of the Universal Deluge “Reliquiæ Diluvianæ, or, Observations on the Organic Remains attesting the Action of a Universal Deluge” — though even by this stage he was arguing for an event that occurred on an already ancient Earth and left very little residual deposits.

He later moved away from his hypothesis but never relinquished his Faith or saw a conflict. Buckland’s general opinion of Genesis reflected the then most commonly favoured allegorical split which was to take Genesis verse 1 as referring to deep time and the days that follow to be a literal, or a semi-literal recreations in recent history, possibly at punctuated intervals. Other ideas developed with time some more allegorical such as the literary framework hypothesis others more literal such as Gap-Theories — some of these are better than others — but the precise nature of the interpretation isn’t that crucial … the point being that by the mid 1850s British culture, steeped in reformation theology was comfortable with an old Earth and a largely allegorical reading of Genesis.

In light of this the timing of the writing of the original New Atheists is curious, as they were constructing a conflict hypothesis, in exaggeration of the conflict that existed and in a society that had already harmonised the findings of current Science with practiced theology. That their ideas found popular purchase may reflect that the Church was not popular but it doesn’t reflect a conflict that was real, and with many claims that are demonstrably and historically false.

The resurrection of New Atheism by Dawkins et al., most likely reflect a resurgence in YEC which began in the 1960s — this belief in a Young Earth — typically <6000 years old, has certainly occurred in some parts of the Church and to some extent reflects the original beliefs of the 16th century reformers. I think, in part, it derives from consternation at the decline in Church attendance and influence and is seeking to reverse it by appeal to the Reformers. There is also a sense that sometimes discussions about harmonising Science and Faith feel like attempts to explain away Genesis as an embarrassing text that we therefore no longer need to read. This is a tragedy on both counts as Genesis remains foundational to our Faith regardless of how allegorically it is read.

However, the concerns are misplaced as historically and scientifically Christians have been confident combining deep time and theological orthodoxy long before Andrew Dickson White popularised the idea of a conflict.

Postscript

“We can expect very big advances in machine learning, in medicine, in personalized medicine, and particularly genetic interventions. And if that is to be used wisely and well, deep down we will get to the same question, which is what does it mean to be Human and how do humans flourish?” — Professor Andrew Briggs (Nanomaterials)

“You can’t derive an ought from an is” — GE Moore

The above discussion highlights why Science and Faith can be considered compatible, and one of the big reasons to focus on doing so is the rapid rate of change that is going to require Scientists and Theologians to grapple with huge ethical dilemmas and to lead society through them.

This is especially important now as the likely advances of the next 50 years will dwarf those of the last 300. Science, in a technical sense, will more than ever be able to define culture and the limits on how we organise society and live our lives. Wisdom means engaging with this to encourage the best possible and ethical outcomes — whether that be climate justice, the impact of artificial intelligence, our body self-image or even the colonisation of Mars.

Within this a Church that unnecessarily mutes itself (by perpetuating the conflict hypothesis) or is forcibly muted (by unfounded antipathy towards the Church) will be of less use in grappling with the ethical conundrums coming down the track, or in picking up the pieces of society hurt by changes that proceed too quickly or carelessly. Balancing sceptical caution with embracing the good of the new will require judicious balance.

References

The amount of literature out there is vast but the following references were specifically helpful to me at different stages preparing this talk;

Genesis Chapter 1 and Geological Time — Detailed Paper https://michaelroberts4004.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/genesis-1-geological-time-from-1600-1850.pdf

Several “BeThinking” Resources on the question — e.g. https://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/science-god-fake-news

Statistics wise the following were used;
https://www.premierunbelievable.com/articles/less-than-half-of-uk-people-now-identify-as-christian-but-the-christian-story-is-far-from-over/14403.article
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

Several Books, including;
“Rock of Ages” — Stephen Jay Gould
“Varieties of Atheism in Science” — Ecklund & Johnson
“Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?” — Denis Alexander