Science Versus Religion:
A Different Perspective
Summary:
Though science and religion can operate without, or independently of, one
another, they do so at their peril. Science is based on knowledge and provides
logic and understanding of the physical world. Religion, which is based on
faith, provides a moral compass and an understanding of the spiritual.
(AUTHOR’S NOTE: This
article, while likely valid in some ways for “religion as a whole,” is not
to be read as an endorsement of all religions as equally valid. The term
“religion,” in this article, refers to the Christian biblical religion in the
context of its long-standing, ongoing debate with science in the West.)
The
renowned physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson once said, “Science and
religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big
universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give
different views, but both look out at the same universe. Both views are
one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real
world. And both are worthy of respect.”
While this is an admirable, even noble insight into the intersecting realms of
science and religion, never has the nature of the relationship been agreed upon.
At its worst, the multitude of conflicting viewpoints has led to innumerable
conflicts, often violent and long-lasting.
As
people look toward an uncertain future, they can’t help but wonder how things
will change. For example, will the incredible growth of science someday supplant
the role of religion? Or—as some ask it more broadly—as science progresses, what
will become of religion’s influence? The matter has sparked countless debates
and predictions, but perhaps the best answer is that no one knows. A look at
science and religion throughout history clearly shows there have always been
periods when the influence of one has waxed or waned in relation to the other.
But the nature of the relationship reaffirms the importance of the role
religion needs to have in science and in society.
One
problem with trying to predict the future of religion’s influence is that none
of the basic arguments (“it will gain influence,” “it will lose influence,” or
“it will stay about the same”) is an argument capable of being defended. No
solid evidence, from either history or elsewhere, lends itself to a claim about
what is to come. Certainly, both science and religion have always been
influential, but throughout the course of history, the predominance of religion
has ebbed and flowed, as has that of science, and oftentimes the resurgence of
one’s influence correlates with the fade of the other’s. (But that does not
mean that one must necessarily decrease while, or because, the other one
increases.) Also, it is all but impossible to make a forecast so broad that it
could equally blanket all religions—or it would have to be so overgeneralized an
argument that it would have little to no meaningful insight. The realm of
religion is almost inconceivably vast, and to try to sufficiently address the
entirety of religion within a simple argument is futile.
Though
evidence of its applications can be seen as far back as the ancient
civilizations, for a long time science wasn’t referred to as such, or considered
a field of study unto itself. Nor was it divorced from religion until the past
few centuries. History does, however, provide many examples of the fluctuation
that has almost always characterized the influence of religion and science. One
example is the Enlightenment, the 18th-century intellectual and philosophical
movement that embodies the words of Protagoras of Abdera, the ancient Greek
philosopher: “Man is the measure of all things.” This statement says that man’s
identity doesn’t come from a Creator (or if there is one, He leaves man to
determine the metrics), and therefore man determines what is true or
just. The Enlightenment, which saw great advances in science, was “marked by a
rejection of traditional social, religious, and political ideas”
and held that all could be explained through rational analysis and reason.
Enlightenment had its origins in France and remained highly influential there
for nearly a century, as it did throughout much of Europe. It exemplifies the
religion-science “ebb and flow” by the increase of science’s influence and
by the rejection of religion’s role. Enlightenment thought, which held that only
man determined morality, extended to the French Revolution, a violent, amoral
period of conflict, which in part represented an effort to put Enlightenment
political thought into practice. The Revolution was the source of significant
cultural change and even improvement, though its means were unbelievably brutal
and bloody. (To be fair to the French revolutionists, the church hierarchy was
corrupt and thereby failed to provide a moral compass.) The Enlightenment’s
influence on the Revolution, however, shows the consequences that can befall a
society that functions without the moral framework of religion.
By
contrast, the Wesleyan revival taking place in England roughly around the same
time effected many improvements without shedding any blood. The movement had its
origins in England and was primarily started by John and Charles Wesley.
Discussing the Wesleys and the small group of evangelicals to which they
belonged, Rev. Dr. George B. Koch says, “In addition to their lengthy opposition
to slavery, much of their money and attention was focused on local missions for
the poor, the blind, the imprisoned, foundlings, sailors, Germans, Russians,
Spaniards, and many more,” adding that they displayed “a vigour and passion for
God [that] was virtually unknown in the church of their day, as it is in ours.”
This same revival was also responsible for the British Parliament’s abolition of
slave trade in
England
and, eventually, the abolition of slavery itself in the United States. The
Wesleyan revival stands in stark contrast to both the philosophy of the
Enlightenment and the violent revolution that its purely secular values helped
create.
Initially, perhaps, it may seem irrelevant to use two historical periods to
discuss the nature of the role of science and religion and the amount of
influence each one has. But consider this: First, the fact that two completely
different types of change were being effected—within relatively close
chronological and physical proximity of each other—attests to the
frequently shifting dominance of science or religion. In fact, it shows that
this “ebb and flow” both occurs intermittently (the roles have changed back and
forth, over time) and is far too varied to be predicted, even
geographically. The multitude of factors exerting influence on this relationship
would render any prediction completely unreliable.
The
powerfulness and influence of science’s progress, if left unchecked by a
religious or moral compass, can often and very quickly lead to brutal, needless
actions. The French Revolution/the Enlightenment is just one illustration among
countless others. This is not to say that religion is not also misused as an
excuse for violence and terrible decisions, but the Wesleyan revival shows that
religion has a great deal to offer that science alone cannot provide. Such
examples of each continue to prove true today.
The
ongoing dialogue between two schools of thought (religion and science) is
essentially being debated by the intellectual and philosophical “descendants” of
the Wesleyan revival and the Enlightenment/French Revolution. Much of the
scientific, Humanist Manifesto-type worldview today has its roots in
Enlightenment thought, whereas American Protestantism traces its roots back to
the Wesleys. These two movements exemplify the “debate” that still continues
today, and the Enlightenment/Revolution still serves as a reminder of the
importance of religion’s role.
The
nature of the relationship between science’s influence and religion’s influence
is intricate but graspable. Science is, almost by self-definition, amoral;
religion is inherently moral. Pure science can raise new ethical questions, but
it can’t answer them; it is ethically neutral, and it does not and cannot
provide any guidelines because it is not inherently “aware” of ethical concerns,
and religion and morality are not scientific constructs. In this context,
religion’s role may be described as a moral framework for answering the ethical
questions that science poses. Even when religion or science is bringing itself
negative publicity or doing a poor job of explaining itself, it still
perpetuates the debate and keeps it alive in the public sphere.
A
prevalent belief, including among scientists, is that science will ultimately
displace religion as the former is “perfected.” The conclusion is that science
will ascend, becoming more broadly successful, while religion permanently
descends. This conclusion, however, contains a hidden and unstated premise, one
that religionists certainly would not accept—the premise that either there is no
God, or if there is, He is not involved in humanity’s affairs. This premise is
necessary for the argument’s conclusion. But if the premise is wrong, the
conclusion is unproved. If there is a caring God, He won’t allow human
history to progress without Him. Ergo, the premise of the argument is
unprovable. Scientists can deny all they want that there is a God, but if
they’re wrong, they can’t stop His influence.
Science
left unchecked can run amok. (Of course, so can religion, as it did in the
Inquisition and at Salem!) If this were a world without religion, then in a
sense, the only way for the world to progress would be a sort of Darwinian
nightmare of survival of the fittest: If there were only science and its
advancements, not religion, people would eventually realize the need to—and
surely they would choose to—“establish” or “invent” a religion, or something
akin to it, to keep science in check and prevent its advancements from being
used by the strong to control or crush the weak. Ultimately, it may be said,
morality comes from religion, not man “thinking in a vacuum” about what he
wants. Furthermore, we do well to keep in mind that, like everything else,
religion and morality both come from God—not from man. A very famous man once
wrote:
For the scientist who has
lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He
has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak;
as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians
who have been sitting there for centuries.
The
quote comes from Dr. Robert Jastrow—scientist, former director of NASA, and the
recipient of the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement. Even science
is finally starting to concede that religion does have far more merit and
more truths than science once believed. One cannot claim to know what will
become of religion’s influence; but as science fails to provide answers to
greater questions and comes to admit certain truths long proclaimed by religion,
it becomes increasingly evident that those who assert that science will “win
out” fail to realize the significance of religion’s influence. We lose our way
without it.
The
influence of either science or religion at any given time cannot be measured or
foretold, but both are worldviews that have something to contribute that the
other cannot offer—which is why one can never attain complete dominion over the
other. Albert Einstein once said, “Science without religion is lame, religion
without science is blind.”
Religion and science are windows that both look out on the universe before us,
and maybe we’re still learning how to pull up the shade.
About
the Author:
George A. Koch is a writer, editor and photographer. The oldest son of Rev.
George Byron Koch, George A. is the copy editor for Mainstay Ministries,
Spiritual Counterfeits Project, and other Christian ministries, as well as
university publications. George lives with Asperger Syndrome, which, despite the
challenges it presents, gives him unique gifts and perspectives in his mission
to reach others with the truth of the Gospel and the reality of God. George
graduated Summa Cum Laude from Benedictine University.
The
author invites readers to share feedback and comments regarding the article:
GeorgeAugustKoch@aol.com
