Science and Religion: Some Initial Comments on How They Differ

Preface: Before I begin, I would like to thank Phil Hunter for inspiring this forum as well as apologize for the length of my opening statement. It is not, I trust, grossly over-done, yet it is longer than the two page maximum rule that, in general, I shall endeavor to adhere to.

Introduction: In this modest little essay I shall argue against the notion that science and religion are very similar, let alone identical, phenomena. The differences between them will therefore be stressed while those similarities that do exist will be neglected. The differences, as I see them, are as follows:

1) Different attitudes towards personalities and texts
2) Different in terms of advancement or progress
3) Different questions and emphases
4) Different methods for understanding the nature of reality

I shall discuss each of these four differences in turn.

1. Different attitudes towards personalities and texts

In the world of science, past scientific personalities and literature are sometimes accorded esteem and renown, yet they are not considered sources of authority nor, quite often, is intimate knowledge of these individuals or their works deemed necessary for practicing the sciences they have engendered or advanced. Newton with his Principia and Darwin with his Origin of Species, for instance, are each (rightfully) accorded high honors and respect by scientists. Yet it is not necessary to read either the Principia or On the Origin of Species to study physics or evolutionary biology. Though these books and these men are revered for their groundbreaking achievements, they are not authoritative, nor is there any inkling of the notion that either Newton or Darwin knew more about their subjects than do their modern counterparts. In fact, the obvious conclusion is quite the opposite, for there are tens of thousands of professors and college students (even undergrads!) who know more about physics and evolutionary biology than either Newton or Darwin did. This is not because Newton and Darwin were dummies (or because we modern types are so clever) but because these fields of scientific research have fantastically advanced since the 17th and 19th centuries respectively.

I do not mean, of course, to deny the importance in science of literature and personalities. These are, in fact, very important. But what is really most relevant to the practice of science is (relatively) CURRENT theories, books, papers, and personalities. Science, unlike religion, clearly advances, and all the action (unless you're a philosopher or historian of science) is happening right here, right now. It is, in general, living scientists--who are RIGHT NOW discussing, experimenting, theorizing, and writing--who are the real heart of the scientific enterprise, for it is they who are the living culmination of all the scientific learning of the past. Likewise, it is THEY who will be advancing the frontiers of science. This means they know more about their subjects than anyone in the world--past or present. However, though their position is CURRENTLY privileged, it is by no means PERMANENTLY so! For just as surely as past scientific figures, theories, and formulations of theories have been moved beyond, and in many cases forgotten, by their "descendants," the exact same fate will befall modern scientists. Someday they will be as irrelevant to then-current, ground-breaking scientific discussions and explorations as Newton or Darwin are now. This is not to say, of course, that their achievements are therefore hollow or illusory! Even if they are forgotten, their contributions will remain. To illustrate my point with an analogy, we may not know who our respective great-great-great grandmothers were, but there can be no doubt that, without them, we wouldn't be here because they formed a necessary link--a necessary bridge--between us and the past.

The difference between this non-idolizing, anti-authoritarian way of viewing past and present literatures and personalities and the religious way of viewing them could almost not be more different. In almost all the modern religions, it is PAST figures and ANCIENT literature which are accorded the highest honors, authority, and presumption of access or proximity to true knowledge. No Christian would argue that we know more about the nature of reality than did Jesus or Paul for instance. Likewise, no Christian (or maybe very few) would suggest that the writings of modern Christian theologians are more relevant or truthful than the works of the men who wrote the Gospels. Jesus, Paul, and the evangelists are not figures whose opinions or writings need correcting or improving (other than in the purely technical sense of trying to put together as accurate a text as possible)--rather, they, two-thousand years ago, possessed a state of knowledge and insight that we today can hope to approximate in only a very modest or, dare one say, "fallen" fashion.

2. Different in terms of advancement or progress

As I have already indicated, science is far more bent upon ADVANCING in its respective fields than dreaming of some kind of RETURN to an earlier state of grace or knowledge or experience. (e.g. by means of the second coming or God's grace or being "born again") It looks forward not backward. It is constantly moving and changing, and, in theory, nothing is completely solid and unchangeable. Even greatly revered texts and figures (past and present) can and will be sacrificed if it seems warranted by the evidence. This unrestrained, open, future-oriented search for the truth (not, e.g., salvation!) matters far more than personalities or what some revered figure claimed (or is claimed to have claimed) in the past, and the truth--or at least the search for it--has a life of its own that subsumes individual personalities, writings, and opinions within it. This portrait of science is, of course, partially idealized. In actual practice, its advance has been occasionally marked by egotism, group-think, and an unwillingness to bend or adapt before opposing evidence. And yet, overall, looked at from a higher perspective than the one on the ground, it is clear that science has advanced and that better theories and ideas have a strong tendency, in the long run, to win out over the worse ones. (and I mean "better" in terms of "better according to the available evidence") Religion differs in that there are, in general, few obvious examples of advancement. It certainly changes, even "develops," but whether these changes take us closer or farther from the truth seems far more a matter of idiosyncratic opinion, esoteric reasoning, or individual religious background or experience than anything else. In fact, the story religion tells often seems more one of failure, back-sliding, and decline than the growth of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. We are constantly--and hopelessly--falling short.

3. Different questions and emphases

There is also a difference in the what we might call the objects of science and religion. Religion has near (if not at) its heart the question of ethics, or, more broadly, the proper or best way of life. Science, though of relevance to these questions, does not--and can not--itself address, let alone answer them, without serious distortion. The closest we can get in this regard is philosophy, which is the valiant attempt to be "scientific" about religious-type questions.

Along the same vein, religion has humanity at its center. It is generally believed by theists that humanity is (in one way or the other) the real reason for the universe existing and that of all the things in the universe the creator takes an interest in we ourselves take up a degree of his attention that is utterly disproportionate to our size or numbers. Thus, religion is VERY anthropocentric. For science on the other hand, humanity (and its hopes, joys, pains, and fears) is not central or wholly necessary for the understanding of nature, in part or as a whole. (except, obviously, insofar as humans are necessary for there to be science in the first place!) Though humanity is of great interest because of its peculiarity--and we are, of course, naturally very curious about ourselves--the scientific world view goes far, far, far, beyond it. In a way, human beings are just one sort of thing in the universe, in essence no more important or relevant than anything else. They are a piece of nature. The deepest scientific understanding accepts this as at least a working and practical--if not universally applied or proven--hypothesis.

4. Different methods for understanding the nature of reality

It is clear there is a great difference between science and religion with respect to methods. Religion fundamentally depends, at some level, on authority and, typically, not a few untestable or highly debatable hypotheses and assertions. Tradition is highly honored and, though not necessarily unquestionable, is far less pliant than tradition in science. The answers provided by science on the other hand (which usually do not fall into the same category of answers religion is interested in), are far more based on what theory, or group of theories, can best explain ALL the relevant and available evidence and resists being constrained by the arbitrary or debatable dictates or parameters set by authority or tradition. To an extent religion does this, too, though the context in which religious debates and discussions generally occur is not a "global" one where anything goes, but is instead often radically circumscribed by numerous unquestionable assumptions--such as the more or less literal truth of the bible or the idea that Jesus was (a) god. One problem I have with some examples of the religious enterprise is precisely this unwillingness to question such extraordinarily questionable notions as biblical inerrancy or the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. It is true there are some questions that would be laughed off the stage in scientific circles--for instance, if someone wanted to re-open the question of the shape of the earth(maybe it might be flat after all?)--but, in general, the ONLY rule that applies to scientific debate is that you must have a good argument--one that is capable of answering some important questions, that has evidence in its favor, and that, at the very least, may contain the seed of some future theory or answer or valuable information within it. It also is extremely helpful if that theory or argument is testable and can make accurate, verifiable predictions. In contrast, religion often utilizes something called revelation (essentially a personal communication from a deity or spirit) which is primarily noteworthy for being a type of evidence unavailable for study or experience beyond the heads of mystics--profound or otherwise. (It is also, by the way (if we are to take all claims seriously), an extremely common phenomenon that is well-represented in every religious tradition--past and present--known to us) The claims of people and religions that have had divine things revealed to them are often accepted by others on the basis of, or by means of, something called "faith," which is essentially the power to accept a fantastic claim as true for no terribly compelling reason. (other than, perhaps, because one's parents told you so, "what else am I supposed to think?," or because of yet another private communication from a deity) In any case, it is clear that the word "leap" in the phrase "leap of faith" refers to something important; something that is not nearly so pronounced in science.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, I would like to say a few things to guard against my being overly misunderstood. 1) I am not arguing that religion should be thrown out because it is not science; 2) I do not mean to suggest that religious "truths" or ideas are not debatable and that much real and valuable discussion does not--and has not--taken place among religious seekers. In this respect, then, I consider religious discussion more akin to philosophical discussion (which is likewise almost always painfully inconclusive, uncertain, and tentative) than true science (which also explains why religion, unlike science, has trouble really advancing: because both it and philosophy are concerned with issues that are not amenable to scientific investigation and are, it seems, too complex and opaque for human beings to achieve anything approaching consensus. However, this does not mean that seriously addressing them is not extremely worthwhile or that better and worse answers, however tentative and full of ambiguities they may be, cannot be found and even lived); 3) I am not putting science ABOVE religion (or its noble cousin or offspring, art); 4) I do not intend to be putting forward an inflated notion of the importance of REASON; faith, in one sense or another, is necessary, though people will disagree as to how far it should be allowed to go and the definition of its proper function. Even science, at its heart, is based upon the faith (or hope) that the universe is intelligible and that human beings are capable of at least partially understanding the order it so magnificently manifests.