The Apparent Conflict Between Science and Religion (Part 2)

This is a continuation of a previous post (Part 1), and I feel the desire to to take it up again because of some important things that I've experienced recently. The reason I haven't written anything in so long, is because after the spring semester was finished, I immediately began a summer class, general physics 1, and it has occupied all of my time since.

Speaking of physics, I remember that taking physics in high school was a real eye-opener for me. At the beginning of 3rd grade, I remember seeing, on the cover of our math books for that year, a picture of a frog, leaping through the air, and a dotted line tracing his trajectory. I thought, "Cool! We're going to learn how frogs jump!" Well, I waited, and waited, and we went through the whole book, and we never did learn about the frog, and I was really disappointed. The mystery went unsolved for me, until my high school physics class, where we learned about energy, work, gravity, and Newton's Laws. Then, finally, I understood how frogs jump!

You're probably thinking: "Jordan, you're such a nerd!" I won't argue with that, but I'm just trying to express what's been on my mind in a coherent way (not an easy task!). The point is, that even as a child, I knew that everything in the world, no matter how simple, or complex, must have an explanation, whether the explanation is known to us, or not. I didn't know how it worked, and I couldn't figure it out myself with the tools and knowledge available to me, but I didn't lose faith that, someday, I would learn how it worked, and I didn't just settle for the simple answer of childhood: "it's magic!"


That's why I feel science, in many ways, is a companion of religion: they both rely on faith as a starting point for discovery-- faith, that we shall find what we seek. Some would argue that science is based on doubt and skepticism, and is only concerned with what can be dis proven. I would argue that this distinction is only a matter of perspective. Einstein once said, "The only true miracle, is that there are no miracles." That statement, depending on your perspective, can be taken two ways: 1, that science explains everything; hence, no miracles, or 2, that the fact that science enables us to understand our universe, and ourselves, is a miracle-- that everything is a miracle!

As I mentioned, I recently finished reading Utopia. One of More's descriptions of the people from the philosophical city, impressed me: it reveals, "They [the Utopians] think that the careful investigation of nature, and the sense of reverence arising from it, are acts of worship to God" (pg 82, religion). This is in harmony with the medieval and early Renaissance sentiments toward science: that it is synonymous with religion, because it is concerned with truth.

And here, we have reached another apparent conflict. You see, the average scientist, nowadays, would not say that he or she is a student of truth, but of statistics: because physical "laws" are generalizations of the observable behaviour of matter, when lots of it is present. However, at the sub-atomic level, matter, and existence itself, is a totally random occurrence, explicable only be statistical means, not by laws, or "truth." I think that, in their "over-abundance of caution," scientists are unwilling to maintain any authoritative claim to the truth, because they need the flexibility and freedom to challenge the status quo, if they make a new discovery that turns conventional knowledge on its head. And while this stance makes perfect sense to them, it leaves a large intellectual and ethical gap between science and the rest of humanity, especially religion.

In his book Ethics for the New Millennium, the Dalai Lama candidly expounds on this growing disparity between the material and the spiritual schools of thought:

In the past, religion and ethics were closely intertwined. Now,
many people, believing that science has 'dis proven' religion, make the further
assumption that because there appears to be no final evidence for any spiritual
authority, morality itself must be a matter of individual preference. And
whereas in the past, scientists and philosophers felt a pressing need to find
solid foundations on which to establish immutable laws and absolute truths,
nowadays this kind of research is held to be futile. As a result, we see a
complete reversal, heading toward the opposite extreme, where ultimately nothing
exists any longer, where reality itself is called into question. This can only
lead to chaos.

As something of a "spiritual authority" himself, I think this complaint against the scientific community on behalf of religion, is justified. But I think there's more to it than that.

I see the rivalry between these schools of thought, as I see that between Republicans and Democrats: philosophically, they are not that different, it's just that they are so accustomed to taking opposing sides, that they do it out of a sense of duty, almost. These partisan allegiances encourage them to take opposite stances on almost every issue, and fuel a near-hatred for each other. It reminds me of a tribal blood-feud that now exists for its own sake, not for any memorable cause. They use the titles 'conservative' and 'liberal' not in their true meanings, but as a catch-all category for what the other side believes, when in fact, both sides embrace many classical liberal and conservative values.

(Yeah, that was a rant. Sorry. I meant for that to be an allegory, not a political diatribe. Hopefully you got the concept.)


The tendency is for people to choose one side or the other, and migrate to the extreme ends of the spectrum. The consequences of this migration are adverse for both parties: for the religious, it develops into a deep mistrust of science and the acquisition on knowledge, as secular, and even atheistic, activities. For the scientific, it excludes, or greatly hinders, the perception of meaning and purpose in life, as well as the feelings of joy that accompany an open heart to the existence of a benevolent God. As is often the case, a religious scientist, the type of individual once revered as the classic "Renaissance Man," is now both laughed at by his scientific peers, and considered a heretic by his brothers-in-faith. How curiously tragic!

Going back to Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God, I found a quote that summarizes the fallacy of this ultra-religious bias: that science is out to disprove God's existence, and so we ought to shun it, or hope that it fails.

As a Christian, I find the flow of their logic particularly
depressing. Not only does it teach us to fear the acquisition of knowledge,
which might at any time disprove belief, but it suggests that God dwells only in
the shadows of our understanding. I suggest that if God is
real, we should be able to find Him somewhere else-- in the bright light of
human knowledge, spiritual and scientific (pg 267).

If we thought about it, drawing battle lines between science and religion, can only end badly for religion: we don't have a highly skilled army of enthusiasts working around the clock, and the globe, gathering indisputable evidence for the reality of our claims, like the Resurrection, or the existence of a spirit world. Why? Because a belief in these things follows from a spiritual and mental investigation of the plan of salvation, and from faith in revealed truth. These claims cannot be proved or disproved by a scientific investigation. So, why should we consider religious and scientific concepts as opponents on an equal field, if the same rules don't apply to them? The army of enthusiasts we do have, does a wonderful job at spreading these revealed truths throughout the world, and helping people overcome their obstacles to accepting it, but they don't do so with scientific equipment, or methods.

The biggest reason we shouldn't pursue such a course is, as Ken Miller puts it:

If a lack of scientific explanation is proof of God's existence,
the counter logic is unimpeachable: a successful scientific
explanation is an argument against God... That's why this reasoning,
ultimately, is much more dangerous to religion than it is to science (chap 9, pg
266).

By pinning our belief in God on something as unpredictable, and unlikely, as a future scientific vindication, we will almost certainly be disappointed, and kept waiting. I am not suggesting we regress to the magical world-view, on the contrary, I suggest we embrace the notion that God does His work through the medium of His creations, and respects their free agency.

I consider myself very fortunate that I was encouraged all growing up, in addition to "say my prayers," and "read the scriptures," to seek for knowledge and not be afraid that I might lose my faith. It is not easy to reconcile them, sometimes, but I cannot imagine how empty my life would be without either my spiritual beliefs, or my understanding of the natural world. I don't think that God would allow Himself, or His spiritual truths, to be put under a microscope. Faith in Him is, ultimately, a question of personal trust and optimism, not a consensus on a scientific theory. And that's how He wants it.