Can Science and Religion Coexist?
Cambridge Hall of Fame featuring Sir Isaac Newton (centre) flanked by the likes of Sir Alfred Tennyson and Francis Bacon in the Anti-chapel at Trinity College, Cambridge (Mar., 2008). Photo by K. Mitch Hodge on Unsplash
By Hollyanna McCollom
I have long been fascinated by the relationship between religion and science. Years ago, I wrote a paper examining the medical similarities of near-death experiences in an attempt to argue that the key difference from one experience to the next could not be explained by a particular truth or untruth, but rather by our perception of the experience itself. I was young and naïve, and I had too little understanding of individual faiths to draw meaningful conclusions, but the intention was to look at the tangible evidence so that I might extract social significance.
In the ongoing debate about whether science and religion can co-exist, I think it is important to understand that whether we are talking about religion or the scientific field, perception and human experience are at the core of it. One of the things that the fields of science and religion share is that they are constantly evolving. Early faith was once guided by heliocentric ideologies before Galileo’s discoveries were accepted as valid. The Mormon faith evolved away from the practice of polygamy because the practice no longer fit with the society of the time. So too has science evolved as we discover more about the world around us. Francis Bacon is credited with developing the early forms of the scientific method that we still use today as well as early forms of empiricism; and yet, Bacon was strongly influenced by his Anglican faith.
The scientific method has evolved over the years but still stems from such ideologies as outlined by Peter Harrison when he stated that the Doctrine of Original Sin played a role because of the belief that postlapsarian humans had to rely on observation and experimentation instead of a priori thinking. So, in this Baconian line of thinking, we must make observations, gather evidence, make hypotheses and test them, and then reject any inconsistencies. However, the existence of God was not in question; we as humans were simply tasked with gaining as much knowledge and understanding of the world as possible through experimentation and observation. If we were to expand on this and approach it from a dialogue perspective, there could be a mutualistic relationship between religion and science in that they share methods, concepts, and presuppositions—separate, but communicating.
In this way, religion and science can coexist, though some have argued the opposite. Richard Dawkins, for example, has written that while we may wonder about how a person could hold beliefs that contradict scientific findings (in the way we wonder why a moth flies into a flame), it may simply be a misfiring of the brain or an underlying psychological tendency that no longer serves us well. I disagree with this perspective and am more inclined to agree with Paul Bloom in that religion is rather a manifestation of our propensity to draw distinction between our minds and our bodies. We are thinkers and dreamers and we spend a lot of time interpreting the world around us—both physically and metaphysically. Many of those interpretations can share space and still hold meaning in our never-ending quest for answers. We are, after all, as W.S. Bainbridge noted, interested in the things that affect us and we tend to pursue the knowledge that is the most beneficial.
The human factor is, of course, equally present when considering a socio-historical examination of religion and society. Our practices and beliefs may be deeply ingrained but they were all—at some point—interpreted by humans. This has had both positive and negative results. As Sharon Brous stated in her TED talk “It’s Time to Reclaim Religion”, our traditions contain the raw material for both violence and extremism, but also for compassion and kindness. Religion and its traditions are so intricately woven into our society that it would be nearly impossible to imagine our world without its influences. Decades ago, when regular church attendance was much more commonplace, the church played an important role in shaping the moral and social structures that defined society—both inside and outside the church. Religion sometimes served as a catalyst for tremendous change in society, such as with the corruption of the Catholic church and the resulting dissent of Martin Luther. But, for as much as we can credit religion with helping to build and bolster healthy communities, we must also acknowledge that a great deal of pain and destruction has been committed by people with the name of God on their lips. Death cults, slavery, and terrorist bombings are a part of our culture and as we seek to understand them, we cannot ignore the intense role that religion plays. Furthermore, as noted by Brous, even when religion isn’t invoked in acts of extremism, it is often still used as a” political wedge” that serves to justify stigmatization of LGBT people, racism, and the subordination of women.
Whether considering the relationship between science and religion or the examining the social history of religion, I feel the human factor at play is significant to the past, present, and future of religion as it is an element that cannot be removed. Religious and spiritual practices have touched nearly every aspect of our lives from the development of the family structure, to the development of our government, and, yes, even the way we engage with science and nature. Our country was founded on the idea of preserving religious freedom (among other things) and the actions that we have taken to maintain that freedom have supported and enhanced our socio-economic progress in the world. Socially speaking, we have allowed religious practices and beliefs to shape our society despite the separation of church and state because faith-observant people have tended to be more civic-minded, stable, and altruistic. For many people, in fact, faith and religious practices serve as a pathway toward peace of mind and balance. To this end, it is notable to mention Harold Koenig’s findings in Religion, spirituality, and health: The research and clinical implications which stated that religion provides coping skills that can reduce stress, increase happiness and diminish the likelihood of depression, anxiety, and suicide or substance abuse. Koenig also noted that since religious organizations have rules and regulations that practitioners can adhere to, they are given a sense of purpose and a moral code to follow which contributes to a feeling of community and connection. Scaling that perspective out, however, we can see that across our society there are vastly different moral codes, structured for each individual and group, based on their culture, upbringing, gender, age, nationality, and experience. Nonetheless, in a free religious society, we have the opportunity to form cooperative practices across faiths based on the concepts of being fair, just, respectful, and helpful, all for the sake of collective growth. A fundamental belief among each of the world’s religions is that of caring for those less fortunate and turning our attention outside of ourselves. Of course, the standards of what is right and wrong are subjective and what we may view as right and good today may not be considered tolerable in the future. The one thing we can trust is that our world (both physical and metaphysical) will be observed, analyzed, and interpreted by humans. There will be plenty of opportunity for debate and, perhaps, if we can have more dialogue about it, we can gain an even greater understanding of ourselves.
