Science and Religion Paper

Science and Religion


In a recent Diane Sawyer interview of Stephen Hawking, Hawking said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works (Heussner 2010)." Science replacing religion as the system humankind uses to make sense of the unknown is not a new thought. James Frazer thought that science was replacing magic and religion as the dominant theory of thought, but it might not even be the final resting point. He thought that science was the hope for the future, even saying “It is probably not too much to say that the hope of progress – moral and intellectual as well as material – in the future is bound up with the fortunes of science, and that every obstacle placed in the way of scientific discovery is a wrong to humanity (Frazer 2008, 105).” There are others that believe that science and religion can reconcile if both are aware that they cover different spheres of influence and leave the other's purview alone. Does religion have a place in a world that is increasing being explained by science? Annie Hardison-Moody states, “The match seems to be set: in one corner we have scientists who argue for science, reason, modernity, and progress and in the other, we have religious believers who see an intelligent design in creation and a divine plan for life. But is it really that simple? (Hardison-Moody 2010) “ If the answer was that simple, there would not be much a debate. To examine possible answers to the question of whether religion is being replaced with science, we will start at the beginning with the framing of religion and science in a religious evolution context, then examine reasons the debate rages on and conclude with possible alternatives in the theories of how the matter should be approached.

The basis of some of the science versus religion framework is based in the idea of religious evolution. Thinkers like James Frazer and William Robertson Smith thought it was natural that human thought should progress though stages like biological evolution, from magic and animism, to religion to science (Strenski 2006, 128-134 & 143-150). There were several problems with their theories. One problem with their theories is they assumed in evolution that each change was for the better without evidence to back up the theory. Scholars of evolution, especially early ones, tend to paint a mythic version of humankind's progress as a type of hero tale (Landau 1991, x). Evolution does not always imply progress, regression is possible. Many scholars agree that the religious evolutionary model is based in thoughts of ethnocentrism, racism and the assumption that current Western thought is the best. While many scholars in the humanities have abandoned these theories there is a current still present in discussions of religion and science that science is the logical replacement of religion and just as we dismiss the superstitions of yesteryear, so soon will we dismiss religion for the more rational realm of science. What is forgotten by many when debating the topic is that science itself is based on theories building their foundations on other theories and so forth, and that at times a entire house of theories can come tumbling down based on one of the basic theories being wrong. The problem with most discussions of religion today is that the people speaking the loudest are extremists on both sides of the fence. Both religious fundamentalists and atheistic pro-progress scientists are who are most frequently sought out when a debate rears up. The more moderate heads who can imagine a world where religion and science both play a role in everyday lives are dismissed by a public more interested in a fiery debate than focusing on real issues.

Why is there such a large debate? One possible answer is that a large portion of humankind, even those that are very pro-science, seems ill at ease with the answers that science is giving. William B. Drees addresses how science affects people's self-image:

If we are nothing but neurons, or selfish genes, or molecules in motion, or atoms, what about important notions such as free will, identity, rationality and morality? The 'scientific image' of reality seems to conflict with our common-sense understanding of the world and ourselves, our 'manifest image'. Given this threat, a function of 'religion and science' might to be resolve discomfort about the scientific image of ourselves (Drees 2010, 30).

Most people, on some level, want to think of themselves as special and unique, a snowflake among snowflakes perhaps, but still like no other. Another contributing factor to the debate between science and religion is both sides' more prominent speakers. Denis R. Alexander suggests, “... Dawkins' campaign of atheism may have simulated the rise of creationism; if you keep telling people who believe in God that 'evolution equals atheism', it should be not be surprising that they become attracted to rosier creationist alternatives (Alexander 2008, 18).” The simple argument between religious creationists and atheist evolutionists is easy to put in a sound bite or write a passionate book about, but it is harder to discuss someone who thinks that the Bible and science hold truths and how the two reconcile.

Modern academics are trying out alternative, but more complex theories than a simple science versus religion model. One single model might not be the answer, but a useful one is the model of integrated complementarity. It argues that to explain the convoluted nature of human existence can be explained in slices of a cube. The cube is really one entity, but the human mind has difficulty absorbing the entirety at once, so it compartmentalizes different explanatory levels, scientific, ethical, aesthetic and religious. The largest problem with this method is that some put each section in isolation like Stephan J. Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria. However, with the overlap of these fields, there is movement between these levels. Just like the morality of a piece of art can be argued, so can religion and science branch into each other answering parts of the same question, like how we involved and why it happened (Alexander 2008, 18-21). Just like religion is better with explaining some things, so is science, a factor often forgotten in the modern world. Most people would not look in their religious text for explanations of cell division or wave theory, it makes sense they should not look for their faith in their biology or physics textbook.

Keith Ward says, “we should not expect one key to open every lock. We should not expect any specific type of scientific explanation to explain everything. So to say that 'science explains everything' is just the hypostatisation of an abstraction. It is not so much that it is false as that it lacks meaning (Ward 2010).” Science does a fine job of trying to explain the natural world and the phenomena found in it, but just because someone can explain how the human body functions does not make them an expert on speculating on if we have souls. However, science and religion should not be simply put neatly into separate boxes. Rather a true dialogue is needed. Drees argues, “... our primary purpose would then be to challenge nonsense and pursue truth, rather than to find a place for religion in a world seen through the sciences (Drees 2010, 6).” Pursuing truth seems like a more noble enterprise than endless debates on whether science and religion can exist together or if science is bound to replace religion as our primary system of thought. Religion and science both should have a place in our world and our goal should be to make it possible without champions of either field either being attacked or feeling like there is a struggle for the minds and souls of men.










Biography
William B. Drees http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5241R.pdf

Alexander, Denis R.. The Edge of Reason? Science and Religion in Modern Society. Alex Bentley. New York: Continuum International, 2008.

Frazer, James. From the “Golden Bough”.Thinking About Religion: A Reader. 2 ed. Ivan Strenski. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008.

Hardison-Moody, Annie. "Religion and Science: Busting Assumptions ." August 18, 2010.http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/science/3104/religion_and_science%3A_busting_assumptions .

Heussner, Ki Mae. "Stephen Hawking on Religion: 'Science Will Win'." June 7, 2010. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Technology/stephen-hawking-religion-science-win/story?id=10830164&page=1 .

Landau, Misia. Narratives of Human Evolution. New Haven: Yale Unversity Press, 1991.

Strenski, Ivan. Thinking About Religion: An Historical Introduction to Theories of Religion. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

Ward, Keith. "The parts science cannot reach." July 16, 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jul/16/science-religion-philosophy