Recently, while enjoying a
far-too-frequent “study break,” I found myself skimming the news feed of my
Facebook page. Among the usual pregnancy photos, wedding announcements, and grainy
videos of people working out, I stumbled upon an article being posted and
shared by a few of my good friends. The article, thumb-nailed by a picture of
Bill Nye the Science Guy (one of my childhood heroes), was titled “Bill Nye to
Anti-Abortionists: ‘You Literally Don’t Know What You’re Talking About.’” The story
linked to an online blog titled Because
Science on the pop-culture website Fusion.net.
This combination intrigued me; while the headline of the story suggested an
opinion piece, the host website invoked science. Quickly, I conjured all I
could recall of high school science—namely that it is supposed to be an
objective study of the behavior of the natural world—and came upon the
conclusion that there was not a whole lot about this article that could be considered
objectively scientific, especially considering most of Bill Nye’s argument was
comprised of non sequiturs connecting his science with his sweeping personal
philosophical views.
WHY CANT WE BE
FRIENDS?
On September 27th 2015, an American Airlines Boeing 777-200 sailed quietly into the late-evening skies above the City of Brotherly Love. With yellow and white Vatican flags flying proudly above the cockpit windows, the plane began its four thousand mile journey back to Rome, and those of us who had been following Pope Francis’s first visit to the United States were finally able to turn off our TVs and return to reality—only this time with a little bit more hope than we might have had a week prior.
On September 27th 2015, an American Airlines Boeing 777-200 sailed quietly into the late-evening skies above the City of Brotherly Love. With yellow and white Vatican flags flying proudly above the cockpit windows, the plane began its four thousand mile journey back to Rome, and those of us who had been following Pope Francis’s first visit to the United States were finally able to turn off our TVs and return to reality—only this time with a little bit more hope than we might have had a week prior.
Over the course of those seven days, Catholics
and non-Catholics alike had been challenged with friendly reminders such as our
obligation to defend the sanctity of human life, the necessity of protecting
our common home, and the importance of promoting a dialogue of peace in the
face of conflict. Personally, it was the third of these messages that resonated
most with me. By my count, the word dialogue
was mentioned twelve times during Pope Francis’s speech to congress on Capitol
Hill. So what is it that makes dialogue so important, anyway? Surely there are
other important issues facing Americans (like the state of the D.C. Metro or
the controversial MLB wildcard game). The fact of the matter is this: effective
dialogue is the foundation of peace. In a culture of extremes that celebrates
conflict and disagreement, dialogue is the means by which we can best begin to
listen to each other.
ROCKET MAN
When I was a kid, I wanted to be an astronaut. I suppose this is not an uncommon desire for a five year old (perhaps second only to a career as a ninja or a dinosaur). As I watched Ms. Frizzle and her class blast off into space aboard The Magic School Bus, I imagined myself floating alongside them in my spacesuit, observing my miniature home from thousands of miles away. As a boy, the mysteries of the universe—albeit in Playskool form—were never far from my mind.
For the
sake of transparency, I’ll admit that I never did become an astronaut (turns
out I’m deathly afraid of heights). But that desire for discovery is something
that has followed me for twenty-five years, and now fuels my studies for the
Priesthood at the Catholic University of America. Rather than daydreaming about
flying to the moon with Tom Hanks and Kevin Bacon, I spend a lot of my time
studying theology, philosophy, and scripture. While I have filled plenty of
notebook pages with important names and dates (and if I’m honest, lots of stick
figures), nothing that I’ve learned has been more profound than my renewed
understanding of the cooperation between reason and faith.
When I was a kid, I wanted to be an astronaut. I suppose this is not an uncommon desire for a five year old (perhaps second only to a career as a ninja or a dinosaur). As I watched Ms. Frizzle and her class blast off into space aboard The Magic School Bus, I imagined myself floating alongside them in my spacesuit, observing my miniature home from thousands of miles away. As a boy, the mysteries of the universe—albeit in Playskool form—were never far from my mind.
For the
sake of transparency, I’ll admit that I never did become an astronaut (turns
out I’m deathly afraid of heights). But that desire for discovery is something
that has followed me for twenty-five years, and now fuels my studies for the
Priesthood at the Catholic University of America. Rather than daydreaming about
flying to the moon with Tom Hanks and Kevin Bacon, I spend a lot of my time
studying theology, philosophy, and scripture. While I have filled plenty of
notebook pages with important names and dates (and if I’m honest, lots of stick
figures), nothing that I’ve learned has been more profound than my renewed
understanding of the cooperation between reason and faith.
YOU GOTTA KEEP EM
SEPARATED?
In my class on the Pentateuch (the
first five books of the Old Testament), we as a class have spent almost as much
time studying Darwin, Pinker, and Hubble as we have Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
This partnering of science and religion has quickly become a passion of mine,
reconciling my youthful interests with my current pursuits. Unfortunately, this
relationship is seen by many to be that of dichotomy—a conflict in the greatest
sense of the word. There is no compromise—only two disagreeing sides with
separate ideas about the nature of the universe. Many believe that there is
nothing either side can hold in common; the best we can expect is that science
and religion stand apart at a comfortable distance so each discipline can mind
its own business.
I don’t accept this; science and religion, by their natures, are non-contradictory. Science is the “how” to religion’s “why. Science is the natural while religion is the supernatural. It is my belief that while many Americans have fallen into the trap of believing that science and religion are in vehement opposition, the two modes of thought are in fact interdependent—both being vital for achieving a well-rounded and competent worldview. In other words, both sides have much to gain by embracing dialogue. Contact, rather than conflict, is the best way of structuring the relationship between science and religion.
I don’t accept this; science and religion, by their natures, are non-contradictory. Science is the “how” to religion’s “why. Science is the natural while religion is the supernatural. It is my belief that while many Americans have fallen into the trap of believing that science and religion are in vehement opposition, the two modes of thought are in fact interdependent—both being vital for achieving a well-rounded and competent worldview. In other words, both sides have much to gain by embracing dialogue. Contact, rather than conflict, is the best way of structuring the relationship between science and religion.
EMPIRICAL STATE OF
MIND
In order to better understand the necessity of contact between science and religion, we have to first acknowledge the ineffectiveness of stances based on conflict. Let’s consider the aforementioned article written by Bill Nye. There is a familiar term in psychology called “The Law of the Instrument,” or “Maslow’s Hammer.” It is attributed to Abraham Maslow, who said in 1966 “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” As Catholic Answers writer Trent Horn stated in his September 27, 2015 article “Bill Nye the Non-Scientific Abortion Guy,”… “In this case, the hammer is science and the nail is anything people disagree about. While science can tell us a lot about the world, it can't answer all of our questions.”
In order to better understand the necessity of contact between science and religion, we have to first acknowledge the ineffectiveness of stances based on conflict. Let’s consider the aforementioned article written by Bill Nye. There is a familiar term in psychology called “The Law of the Instrument,” or “Maslow’s Hammer.” It is attributed to Abraham Maslow, who said in 1966 “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” As Catholic Answers writer Trent Horn stated in his September 27, 2015 article “Bill Nye the Non-Scientific Abortion Guy,”… “In this case, the hammer is science and the nail is anything people disagree about. While science can tell us a lot about the world, it can't answer all of our questions.”
This is not a new phenomenon. In
fact, it is my observation that in straying away from the organized religions
of their parents and grandparents, many millennials have embraced empirical science
as a form of pseudo-religion. In attempting to assign meaning to human life
through statistics, data, and observations, some young people have forgotten
one of the most important limitations of science: it is sufficient for
answering the question of “how?” but insufficient in answering the question of
“why?” In his remarks on abortion, Bill Nye uses “Maslow’s Hammer” by approaching
the highly contentious debate of abortion as if it were a common-sense issue.
Because most fertilized human eggs are never born as infants anyway, Nye
argues, it is unreasonable to criminalize the abortion of a developing fetus. This
position is the metaphorical “trump card”; it pretends that science can
eliminate any and all need for religious, moral, or ethical debate.
BAD RELIGION
One day I read an unfortunately serious explanation given by a scholar concerning the longevity of several Old Testament figures (Methuselah, for instance, lived to the ripe age of 969). Rather than going the normal route of assuming the ages to be symbolic of humanity’s fall from grace, this particular argument consisted of lots of speculative science involving the physical composition of the Earth’s atmosphere changing in the years after Noah sailed his ark around a flooded world (a foolproof theory, certainly). Having subjected myself to poor Biblical interpretation and poor science all at once, I was reminded that in the conflict between science and religion, Maslow’s Hammer certainly swings both ways.
One day I read an unfortunately serious explanation given by a scholar concerning the longevity of several Old Testament figures (Methuselah, for instance, lived to the ripe age of 969). Rather than going the normal route of assuming the ages to be symbolic of humanity’s fall from grace, this particular argument consisted of lots of speculative science involving the physical composition of the Earth’s atmosphere changing in the years after Noah sailed his ark around a flooded world (a foolproof theory, certainly). Having subjected myself to poor Biblical interpretation and poor science all at once, I was reminded that in the conflict between science and religion, Maslow’s Hammer certainly swings both ways.
Our temptation is to look back at
the 1925 Scope’s Trial and laugh at William Jennings Bryan for using the Bible
as a shield to keep at bay the attacks of Clarence Darrow and his Darwinist
companions. Then we realize that ninety years have passed and some of us are
literally doing the same thing today as Jennings Bryan did so long ago. Such closed-mindedness
does not stem from the Bible, but rather from an errant interpretation of the
Bible. Look at Genesis 1 and 2 for example. This is a creation narrative—a genre
of literature intended not as a scientific or historical account of the world’s
beginnings, but as an examination of the nature of the world. So while an
accurate reading of Genesis 1 and 2 would tell us that humans are a valued
creation of God, made in His image and likeness, many Christians are still
using Genesis 1 and 2 to craft theories about the true age of the Earth or the existence
(or non-existence) of dinosaurs. Such interpretation does violence to the text.
It is a genre mistake that poses a much larger problem: what do such
individuals do when accepted and peer-reviewed science denies the possibility
of their religious claims?
Like Bill Nye overruled the need
for religion with his science, such fundamentalists overrule the need for
science with their religion. How else can we explain the existence of a modern
organization founded upon the idea that the earth is actually flat (The Flat
Earth Society), or the belief that our planet is only six thousand years old?
Clearly science (and airplanes) tells us that the world is round, and
radiometric age dating tells us that the world has been around for over four
billion years. But it’s not in the Bible—probably because the Bible is compilation
of sacred scripture and not a science text book— so it must be suppressed.
WOULDN’T IT BE NICE?
Extreme
stances spark society’s collective interest. It is our love of conflict that
makes us tune in to see Richard Dawkins debate Bill O’Reilly, or Bill Nye the
Science Guy tangle with Creationist Ken Ham. Conflict promotes division between
neighbors and leads us to pursue our own agendas. It influences the news
sources we watch, the leaders we follow, and the voices of philosophy and
morality to which we give ear. But does it have to be this way? What would
happen if we rejected conflict in favor of contact and understanding?
During Pope Francis’s visit to the United States, I was pleasantly surprised by the overall impartiality with which most of the major news stations covered the many speaking engagements, parades, and Masses. It was almost as if the country, influenced by the example of the Pope himself, had decided to let go of extremes for a week and live as a family founded on the principles of our common identity as sons and daughters of God. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could let go of conflict for more than a mere week? Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all take the opportunity to learn something new from one another, rather than assuming the innate stupidity of those who disagree? There are already countless positive examples of such interaction between science and religious thought…
During Pope Francis’s visit to the United States, I was pleasantly surprised by the overall impartiality with which most of the major news stations covered the many speaking engagements, parades, and Masses. It was almost as if the country, influenced by the example of the Pope himself, had decided to let go of extremes for a week and live as a family founded on the principles of our common identity as sons and daughters of God. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could let go of conflict for more than a mere week? Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all take the opportunity to learn something new from one another, rather than assuming the innate stupidity of those who disagree? There are already countless positive examples of such interaction between science and religious thought…
SO HAPPY TOGETHER
In history, religion has lent, and
will continue to lend, a guiding hand to scientific thought. It is through the
contact of science and religion that we embrace the Big Bang theory (Fr. Georges
Lemaitre) and the science of genetic inheritance (Fr. Gregor Mendel); besides
shaping modern science, both of these discoveries came from the minds of
Catholic priests. It is through the contact of science and religion that The Water Project, an organization based
on Christian principles, has gone about building small sub-surface dams and
constructing water filtration systems in order to assure potable drinking water
in sub-Saharan Africa; their mission statement reads “We're Christ-followers
and we believe that Jesus has made an unambiguous call to ‘provide a cup of
cold water’ and to answer the needs of those who say ‘I am thirsty’ (Matt 25). It is through the contact of science and religion that Pope Francis wrote Laudato si'; we must be mindful to take care of our earth which is both a gift from God and our common home. And, it is through the contact of science and religion that Freud’s theory of
Psychoanalysis has been used for meditative and spiritual healing purposes (the
“12 steps” models are a great example); one of the most effective priests I
have ever met, Fr. Thomas Acklin, O.S.B., is a trained psychoanalyst who uses
Freudian techniques and prayer as methods of spiritual liberation.
And science has lent, and will
continue to lend, a guiding hand to the interpretation of religious revelation.
It is through the contact of science and religion that we can follow the course
of creation through Charles Darwin’s theories of biological evolution; through
a miraculous process of nature, humankind has developed from primitive ancestry.
It is through the contact of science and religion that we can better understand
human nature through Stephen Pinker’s research concerning the psychological
evolution of human beings; morality and virtue are not meant only for religious
individuals. And, it is through the contact of science and religion that we can aptly converse about a topic such as gender identity; individuals who identify as gay or sexually
ambiguous are not sinners in need of conversion, but rather our brothers and
sisters deserving of our love.
WAITING ON THE WORLD
TO CHANGE
In his book After Virtue, author and philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre explains
that much of our society’s arguments are the result of our loss of a common
understanding; we have lost our ability to speak to each other and to
understand each other in a “Tower of Babel” sort of catastrophe. We are a world
of differing views, and that’s acceptable—beautiful even. But our strong views
cannot get in the way of dialogue. We have been misguided in our attempt to dichotomize
science and religion; there is simply no sense in having a how without the why, or
vice versa. Humans are dynamic thinkers. Our actions are based not only on our
perceptions of how the world works, but why it works as it does. Without this holistic
incorporation of science and religion, we are doomed not only to be a nation of
one-dimensional thinkers, but also a nation of one-dimensional listeners. We
will never fully understand the human experience, as our notion of what it
means to be human will be no more than either graphs and spreadsheets or pages
from the Bible.
Vatican astronomer Br. Guy Consolmagno
S.J. said in 2009 “I think that there is a conflict between science and
religion because people don’t understand what science is and they don’t understand
what religion is. That’s because most people stop learning about both of them
when they’re ten years old.” This needs to change. No matter what our personal
belief system is, we owe it to ourselves and to our neighbors to harbor an
attitude of mutual respect and understanding. Both science and religion cannot
fully thrive without contact.
Br. Zack:
ReplyDeleteI think you summation is accurate. Both those who don't yet know Christ as well as those who do know Christ tend to see both science and religion as mutually-exclusive. However, I wonder where part of that derives from? Are those who profess and follow Christ simply not taking the time to slow-down and think critically about the question you have posed? And, are those who do not yet know Jesus Christ at all, attempting to seek an answer to which science does not provide? Eternity. Paradise. Heaven. What then could science ever say of thus?
It is my view that since, "...God created the heavens and the earth" as mentioned in Genesis 1:1, would it not logically follow that the processes of science like photosynthesis or meteorology not be also divinely-inspired?
Science attempts to explain the physical world around us. It's knowledge, knowledge about God's creation.
Religion explains that which could not otherwise be explained. It's wisdom, a wisdom only derived from God.
I wonder if King Solomon understand the difference between knowledge and wisdom, he might not have been as frustrated as he had been in Ecclesiastes 1:12-18. For wisdom is a special understanding derived from God and knowledge is simply facts about God's awesome creation.
-Zach Pearce
Elder, Deerpark Reformed Church (Port Jervis NY)
Hello. I teach Religion and Philosophy at Mount St. Mary College in Newburgh, NY. I also am intrigued by this topic, and focus on it in my courses. I'm very busy at the moment, but will just say this: I do not see any conflict between Science, and Religion. the conflict is between "Scientism", (or Scientific Materialism as a philosophy of everything) ant "Theism" (or the acknowledgment that there is more than one kind of reality.)
ReplyDeleteHere's a link of a TED talk I use that explains it pretty succinctly. Good luck with your project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg
Zachary,
ReplyDeleteThe personal interplay between science and religion is one that is suspect happens within individuals more often than most of us will admit publicly.
I remember my HS calculus teacher, a guy that was clearly had a bright logical mind, who was the advisor of a bible study club. It was surprising to me at the time that one of the more concrete and logical teachers in the school had such deep faith. I think in our teens and twenties many of us come to a point that could be called a crisis in faith. Some theological institutions openly try to bring their students to such a crisis, believing that such deep questioning is critical to true belief.
I think science and religion will always be difficult to reconcile. I like the structure proposed by Thomas Aquinas: proof of the existence of God can been seen through observation of the world around us, but we need faith in the existence of God to complete accept God's existence.
Religion and Science are more similar than most find comfortable. In generalities, we can feel comfortable with many concepts, but in the depths and details there are many contentious debates that are unresolved. Perhaps the root of the conflict between science and religion come from the fact that we, as humans, are both spiritual beings and physical beings at the same time. Our spiritual self can be examined scientifically, and our physical self can be examined theologically, but usually we tend to separate the two into the spiritual / theological side and the physical / scientific side. Perhaps that is a false division.
Perhaps the bigger hurdle is that we do not like to admit we really know very little. We have constructed wonderfully detailed and complex models of physical objects and how they interact, being planets, atoms, or biological beings. We have constructed theological belief systems that rival science in complexity and detail. However, we actually KNOW very little. It is pretty scary to admit that, and leave oneself open to hearing alternative viewpoints.
This may be why there is perceived conflict between science and religion: We believe that we KNOW quite a bit more than we actually do know. Bothersome reminders of the flaws in our belief system just make us want to fortify those weak spots rather than consider that we may actually be walling ourselves off to a valid alternate viewpoint.
Br. Zack,
ReplyDeleteGreat reflection. I really liked how you said that science gives the how and that faith gives the why. I believe that too often people find the need to dislike one discipline or the other because there is lack of understanding or dialogue. I appreciate how you are encouraging the dialogue and understanding between faith and science. Would that we all would be open to dialogue and understanding with others.
Br. Zack,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your thoughts and think you have made some great points.
I'm not quite sure if any input I give is valuable, but I can offer my personal opinion of how people (at least I) view science and religion.
I grew up in a Catholic household, attended Sunday school for years, and was confirmed when I was 13. Since then, I openly admit, that I have not been very in tune with my (more accurately my parents) religion. I am now a 22 year old college student working towards a degree in the science field. From my experience with my classmates, professors and friends, it is obvious that humans as a species are inherently curious. We want to know why and how things are the way they are. We want to make order of a world that seems chaotic. To me, science allows people to do that. It allows us to follow a procedure and figure something out about how the world around us works.
As a millennial, I feel like I am in the majority when I look to science for answers. With science comes evidence and data and procedure and order. Something that can be referenced later and the results can be confirmed. Religion is different in my mind. Religion relies solely on faith. Faith in a higher being, faith in other people, faith that there is a heaven and a purpose for the lives we are living. For me, it is hard to take anything on faith alone. Maybe it is because science has been drilled so heavily into my brain throughout my schooling, maybe its because I don't come from an extremely religious family, or maybe its just the changing views of the generation, but its not an easy thing to do. I think this is one of the biggest reasons why there is such a conflict between science and religion. I think many people who refuse to accept religion or a religious way of thinking are people who need proof in order to believe.
the line about Maslow really struck a chord with me. It definitely seems that people... Billy Nye, Planned Parenthood leaders, pro-choicers in general.. .seem to use whatever one tool or "weapon" they have at their disposal.... science, expertise, a degree, power, religion, the Bible... and use it beat the issue at hand to death, to try to demolish all other view points. Of course, we as Christians are guilty of using the exact same tactic. We all have to do better, in order for anything to happen. We can't just pray, we have to use dialogue... even if its treacherous and scary like St. Francis going to talk to the Sultan. Did the Sultan convert? No. But both parties left alive and with a better understanding of the other.It strikes me that Socrates, one of the greatest or the greatest philosopher of all time, professed that the only way to come to truth was through dialogue. All of the accounts we have of Socrates teachings, are from Plato (his student) transcribing of their dialogue back and forth addressing their questions of the world. It also strikes me to think of how Jesus taught. He asked a lot of questions. As some have pointed out to me: when Jesus asks a question we should pay attention. Because he knows the answer. He doesn't ask the question for His benefit, but for ours. He asks it to open a dialogue. Between one person and another, between us and Himself, God and man, between Heaven and Earth. The essence of all prayer is opening ourselves to a dialogue with the Divine.
ReplyDeleteIf He has modeled the tactic for us, how can we refuse to use it?
the line about Maslow really struck a chord with me. It definitely seems that people... Billy Nye, Planned Parenthood leaders, pro-choicers in general.. .seem to use whatever one tool or "weapon" they have at their disposal.... science, expertise, a degree, power, religion, the Bible... and use it beat the issue at hand to death, to try to demolish all other view points. Of course, we as Christians are guilty of using the exact same tactic. We all have to do better, in order for anything to happen. We can't just pray, we have to use dialogue... even if its treacherous and scary like St. Francis going to talk to the Sultan. Did the Sultan convert? No. But both parties left alive and with a better understanding of the other.It strikes me that Socrates, one of the greatest or the greatest philosopher of all time, professed that the only way to come to truth was through dialogue. All of the accounts we have of Socrates teachings, are from Plato (his student) transcribing of their dialogue back and forth addressing their questions of the world. It also strikes me to think of how Jesus taught. He asked a lot of questions. As some have pointed out to me: when Jesus asks a question we should pay attention. Because he knows the answer. He doesn't ask the question for His benefit, but for ours. He asks it to open a dialogue. Between one person and another, between us and Himself, God and man, between Heaven and Earth. The essence of all prayer is opening ourselves to a dialogue with the Divine.
ReplyDeleteIf He has modeled the tactic for us, how can we refuse to use it?
I agree completely that science can never answer the question of "why." Why do we exist? Why is there evil and beauty in the world? Some point to evolution or altruism or a variety of other scientific concepts, but as you say, they are the "how." They are merely mechanisms that cannot sufficiently explain something as organic and complex as life.
ReplyDeleteWhere I would disagree is in the conceptualization of religion as the real "why." Religion is my why. I choose to try everyday to live by the example presented by Christ. But everybody is trying. Maybe I am too idealistic, but I truly believe that everybody wants to do good, and they have their own ethic of "why" that guides them in this endeavor. This can look like the Ten Commandments, or the Eight Fold Path, or utilitarianism, or the simple belief in human dignity. Religion, specifically Catholicism, is the "why" that I choose to believe. But I find it difficult to say that anyone else's why is wrong, especially when some of the most agnostic people I know are also some of the best people I know. To say that the discussion must occur between science and religion seems to impose my own "why" onto that of others.
This dialogue does need to occur, but I see it as a conversation between the "how" and the "why," whatever that "why" may be. An example is a class on medical ethics at a state school where God is not mentioned once the entire semester. I also believe this conversation must first take place within each person. We must understand our own "how" and "why" and recognize how their intersection guides our own actions before that conversation moves to the public sphere.
Br. Zack,
ReplyDeleteI just had this discussion with one of the surgeons I am rotating with. We both acknowledged that science, as you mentioned, does an excellent job of answering "how" but there remains a vitally important question that remains unanswered, "why". Unfortunately, it seems as if many people in my future line of work contend that there is only one absolute reality and that God serves no purpose other than to lend credence to the idea that people are weak and need a "higher power" to comfort them. I cannot disagree more and you hit the nail on the head with this post (no pun intended relating to Maslow's Hammer). Religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive. Rather, they serve to complement each other like a nice Chardonnay and a Kobe beef steak. The hardest step to overcome will be to have people acknowledge this inherent truth. Only then will we see the day when people do not corrupt religion or science to discredit the other.
God Bless,
Brendan