The Integration of Science and Religion
Anonymous
INTR 342
May 24, 2003
At first glance, many facets of science and religion seem to be
in direct conflict with each other. Because of this, I have generally kept them
confined to separate spheres in my life. I have always thought that science
is based on reason and cold, hard facts and is, therefore, objective. New ideas
have to be proven many times by different people to be accepted by the wider
scientific community, data and observations are taken with extreme precision,
and through journal publications and papers, scientists are held accountable
for the accuracy and integrity of their work. All of these factors contributed
to my view of science as objective and completely truthful. Religion, on the
other hand, always seems fairly subjective. Each person has their own personal
relationship with God, and even though people often worship as a larger community
with common core beliefs, it is fine for one person’s understanding of
the Bible and God to be different from another’s. Another reason that Christianity
seems so subjective is that it is centered around God, but we cannot rationally
prove that He actually exists (nor is obtaining this proof of great interest
to most Christians). There are also more concrete clashes, such as Genesis versus
the big bang theory, evolution versus creationism, and the finality of death
versus the Resurrection that led me to separate science and religion in my life.
Upon closer examination, though, many of these apparent differences between
science and Christianity disappeared or could at least be reconciled. After
studying them more in depth, science and Christianity both seem less rigid and
inflexible. It is now clear that intertwined with the data, logic, and laws
of science are subjective thought, paradigms, and uncertainty. Many once accepted
ideas have been changed or replaced over time; there are very few absolute truths.
I have also realized that a more metaphorical interpretation of the Bible does
not threaten the core beliefs of my religion. Scripture is about God’s
relationship with His people, and it does not have to be interpreted literally
for its true meaning to be understood. There are still some areas of my life
where religion provides answers that science cannot, such as explaining why
we and our universe are here, what purpose our lives serve, and what meaning
our existence has. Although there are still a few specific points where I have
trouble reconciling them, for the most part, it is possible for science and
Christianity to be integrated, or to at least compliment each other, in understanding
the world.
One of my main hurdles in bringing science and religion together
was the fact that the Bible contains events that cannot be true scientifically,
and since I believe that both science and scripture are true, I could not really
see how to unite the two. After reading Barbour, I realized that science was
not quite as objective as I had thought it to be. This is not to say that I
think science is any less important than I used to; I still believe that it
can tell us many things about our world. I just do not believe it is as infallible
as I used to. Barbour’s discussion of paradigms was extremely helpful to
me in seeing this. As he says, paradigms "implicitly define…the type
of explanations that should be sought. They mold assumptions as to what kinds
of entity there are in the world, what methods of inquiry are suitable for studying
them, and what counts as data." The core beliefs a scientist holds determine
what type of evidence he will be looking for and to some extent, what he will
find. This in turn influences his ideas or models and the new questions he will
ask. The cycle keeps repeating and repeating. The fact that a scientist keeps
finding data to support his hypothesis can make the hypothesis seem true, but
a large part of this apparent truth may stem from the fact that the scientist
was only looking for data supported by his paradigm. For example, a scientist
that believes in evolution and is studying it will continually find evidence
to support the theory, which would make it seem more and more correct. However,
this does not mean that there is not an equal body of evidence for creationism.
It only means that the scientist was not looking for it because he does not
believe that the theory is true. Again, this does not mean that science is worthless
or completely untrue (I do believe in evolution); it is just something to keep
in mind when thinking about scientific data and theories and helps make the
integration of science and religion seem possible.
Another aspect of science brought out in the reading that is useful
in the reconciliation of science and Christianity is the idea that there are
physical entities in this world that science cannot explain. For example, quantum
theory can make good predictions about how subatomic particles will act and
can give probabilities of where certain particles, such as electrons, will be
found, but scientists do not know the exact structure of an atom or the laws
governing particle behavior, as shown by Bell’s Theorem . I do not think
that this is because we have not yet discovered certain laws; I think it is
because our brand of science simply has no way of answering certain questions,
no matter how far we manage to extend our present knowledge and way of doing
things. As Barbour says, "the atomic world cannot be described in terms
of the concepts of classical physics and observable phenomena." Science
as we know it has limitations. The best we can do to explain certain aspects
of the world is to come up with theories and models. I agree with Barbour’s
critical realism that these are useful to explain the interactions we observe
but are not actual representation of reality. We greatly influence what we observe
since we cannot separate ourselves from the system we are studying. We can only
observe it as it interacts with us, not as a system on its own. Understanding
the limitations of science helps me integrate science and religion by removing
some of the flawless nature I generally attribute to science.
Another idea that I find helpful in reconciling science and religion
is that there are certain areas of life that only religion can deal with. Science
is useful for explaining how the world works, but not why. This is where religion
becomes especially important. The big bang theory can explain how the universe
formed (at least from 10-43 seconds after the big bang), but only religion can
give us answers as to why it formed and later, why we formed. Even if one believes
that the universe formed as it did purely because of the initial conditions
of the big bang, there is no way to scientifically explain why there was a big
bang in the first place. However, in Christianity, the creation of the universe
and mankind is explained by God’s desire for order and good. He wanted
the universe and mankind to exist, so we do. It is also religion, not science,
that gives meaning to our lives. Understanding how our bodies work in terms
of biology, chemistry, and physics or how our societies function in terms of
sociology, anthropology, and psychology does not give meaning to our lives.
Christianity, however, does; we are part of a greater good and each one of us
is important to our Creator. Although rendering religion more important than
science in certain areas does not really help integrate the two, it at least
shows how they can compliment each other in our understanding of the world when
full integration is not possible.
Along with the abstract conflicts between science and religion,
there are also some more concrete disagreements, especially regarding the Bible.
One of the main issues that has always hindered my integration of science and
Christianity is the apparent contradiction between their creation stories. If
the Bible is read literally, it is not possible for science to support the events
described in Genesis. The world cannot have been created in six days with everything
in its present form and also have been created over billions of years with things
constantly evolving. I believe that the scientific evidence we have, especially
the genetic data, overwhelmingly supports evolution, but I also believe that
the Bible is true, so there must be a way to reconcile the two. In this case,
it is my interpretation of Christianity, not of science, that has changed. For
me, the best way to reconcile the two is to read the creation story in Genesis
as a symbolic representation of God’s relationship with His people and
His place in the world, not as a literal account of the events of creation.
As Karen Armstrong says, the creation story was "never intended as a literal
account of the physical origins of the universe. …it [is] a symbolic account
which helped men and women to cultivate a particular religious attitude."
Accepting that creation did not happen exactly as Genesis describes does not
diminish the sense of God’s power and benevolence or His position as our
Creator, which is the real message of Genesis. Again, quoting Armstrong, "as
its name implies, Genesis traces the early stages of the human relationship
with the divine." It does not (and does not need to) give an actual description
of the beginnings of our physical world. Science can do that.
Having established that the creation story in Genesis should not
be taken literally, it is interesting to look at some of the general similarities
between this creation story and the big bang theory to further the integration
of science and Christianity. First of all, both accounts describe the emergence
of order out of chaos. The universe developed from a small mass of undifferentiated
energy into an organized system of galaxies, solar systems, planets, and in
our case, life and intelligent beings. In Genesis, God created an orderly world
out of chaos, making the Earth, the sun, the moon, plants, animals, and finally
humans. Both of these examples demonstrate a pattern of increasing complexity.
Life as we know it today started as a single-celled organism and eventually
became eukaryotic and then multi-cellular. After this, bacteria, protists, fungi,
plants, and small animals developed. Finally, larger, more complex organisms
arose, eventually leading to human life, which at least for now, is one of the
highest forms of complexity of which we know. In Genesis, God starts by creating
the sky and Earth, follows with land and water, then plants and animals, and
finally humans. Again, the pattern of emerging complexity is evident. Another
similarity is the presence of an unseen reality or force which controls the
way things operate in the world. In Christianity, this force is obviously God.
We cannot see Him or even prove His existence, but nevertheless, He is there
and regulates what goes on in the world. In science, this unseen reality is
the physical laws that govern the way things behave and interact. For instance,
gravity influences the way bodies interact with each other, and without it our
world may not have even come into existence, and yet nobody can see gravity
or knows exactly what it is. We can only experience it through the effects it
produces in the world, much as we experience God by the effects He produces
in our lives.
Although I can successfully reconcile science with the creation story of Genesis,
I have trouble doing the same with the Resurrection. I truly believe that Christ
died and was brought back to life after three days, but scientifically, this
is not quite feasible. There are many theories that attempt to explain this
incongruence by saying that Jesus did not actually die. Some popular ones are
that He lost consciousness for three days and then suddenly regained it, that
the disciples stole His body from the tomb and just said He had risen, or that
Mary Magdalene saw a vision and others soon claimed to see the same thing. I
do not believe any of these theories. Removing the Resurrection from Christianity
would undermine many of its core beliefs. The Resurrection is what allows us
to be freed from our sins. It also shows God’s mercy and goodness and assures
us that Christ is God and that through Him we can reach Heaven. Because these
beliefs are so central to most denominations of Christianity and are dependent
on Jesus dying and then actually returning to life before ascending to Heaven,
I do not believe that the Resurrection can be reconciled with science by saying
that Christ did not physically die. I do not know of any way to reconcile scripture
and science in this case; I am not even sure they can be united here. This is
one of my main sticking points in the integration of science and religion. At
this point, I just do not see how both of them can be true in this situation
without undermining the principle beliefs of either one.
Another struggle for me has been trying to figure out at which level God works
in the world, especially in science. It seems very logical for God to have worked
at the lowest levels forming our world and its foundations, but I do not think
that is His only role. As our universe and everything in it was forming, numerous
factors had to be just right to create the world as we know it. I really do
not think that all the factors could have come together as a matter of chance;
I believe that God coordinated them to create our world, and eventually us.
I also think that He set up the basic principles on which the world would run,
including scientific laws such as gravity. Unlike the Deists, I do not think
that God stepped out at this point and let the world run on its own. I am not
comfortable confining God to such a limited role; I believe that He is still
present and active in the world today. I agree most with Barbour’s idea
that God influences everything that happens in the world but without taking
explicit control of things. As Barbour says, "chance, lawful causes, and
God enter the constitution of every event." I particularly like this conception
of God’s role in the world because it allows for His influence at the lowest
and highest levels without precluding other influences. He can influence the
actions of the particles described by quantum theory, but there can also be
an element of chance in their movement. He can also shape the grand path of
evolution without eliminating chance from it, which can explain the many dead
ends or "mistakes" in nature’s history. He can also influence
the thoughts of the human mind, which is one of the most complex and highest
levels known to man. Paraphrasing from Charles Birch, Barbour says that God
is "a God who influences and is influenced by the world, who allows freedom
in humanity and spontaneity in nature, and who is involved in the world and
participates in its slow growth." To me, this is an excellent summary of
God’s role in science and the world.
Yet another thing I found fascinating and helpful in reconciling
science and religion is realizing that we have come full circle in terms of
God’s place along side science. In the early history of modern civilization,
there was no real science to speak of that could explain how and why the world
worked as it did. People relied on religion for those types of answers. God
had a very central and important role in people’s everyday lives, but the
rise of science challenged this. Starting with Copernicus, Galileo, Newton,
and the like, science began to replace religion as the way to explain worldly
occurrences. God began to be slowly pushed to the side as reason gained more
and more power. This reached its climax during the Enlightenment, when many
people did not see a use for God at all since science was able to explain the
world to them. Today, though, it seems like the more discoveries we make in
science, the more unanswered (and maybe unanswerable) questions we find. Having
awareness of the complexity and intricacy of our world, in everything from quantum
theory to life itself, has once again left a hole in our understanding of the
world that only God can fill. I find this aspect of the reconciliation of science
and religion extremely interesting and valuable.
Since the rise of modern science with Galileo and his contemporaries,
science and Christianity have had a very tenuous relationship. More often than
not, at least on the surface, they seem to contradict each other. However, if
both are carefully studied and understood I believe that a fairly complete integration
is possible. It is important to recognize the limitations of both science and
Christianity. Although science is a worthwhile and valuable pursuit of truth,
it is not infallible. It is based on paradigms that shape what questions are
asked, what evidence is found, and what theories are then created. There are
questions about the physical world that our science simply cannot answer and
questions about life where only religion is fruitful. Science can answer "how?,"
but it is religion that answers "why?" On the religious side, it is
important to realize that the Bible is not always meant to be read literally;
there are some stories that have to be interpreted metaphorically. One of these
is the creation story in Genesis. It should be read as a story about the beginning
of God’s relationship with His people, not the beginning of the physical
world. Once this is understood, it is actually easy to see the similarities
between that creation story and the big bang theory. Unfortunately, it is not
as easy for me to integrate science and Christianity in terms of the Resurrection.
I simply do not see a way to unite the two without weakening the pillars on
which each stands. This is the one problem I have left in which I cannot see
how science and religion can complement each other, much less be reconciled
with each other. Almost everywhere else, they work together beautifully. God
is present and active at so many levels in the world without completely controlling
things. He influences everything from the sub-atomic level to the human mind.
As humans in this age of science, our views of God seem to have come full circle.
Before the scientific revolution led by Galileo, Copernicus, and Newton, religion
provided answers about physical happenings in the world, not just about spiritual
matters. Once modern science developed, and especially during the Enlightenment,
God and religion were relegated to a lesser role because it was thought that
science could explain everything. Now, though, the farther we plunge into science,
the more questions we find that can only be answered by religion. When science
and Christianity are both studied and well understood, especially in the context
of their limitations, it is possible to integrate them, or at least for them
to complement each other, in my view of the world.
Works Cited
Armstrong, Karen. A History of God. New York: Ballantine Books, 1993.
Armstrong, Karen. In the Beginning. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996.
Barbour, Ian G. Religion and Science. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1997.
Maas, A.J. "Resurrection of Jesus Christ." New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.
20
April 2003 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm>.
The Integration of Science and Religion
Anonymous
INTR 342
May 24, 2003