Biblical literalism, and the corresponding idea of the inerrancy of Scripture, has been bumping up against the sciences for a long time now. Way back in the Renaissance, the church insisted that the Bible taught that the sun revolved around the earth, and charged Galileo with heresy for claiming otherwise. Today, the debate between the Bible and natural science continues, most notably in the evolution/creation debate. But while discussions of religion and science usually revolve around conflicts with natural science, I'd like to propose that the place we really should be placing our attention is the relationship between faith and the social sciences.
As our understanding of all science grows, it becomes harder and harder to maintain the position of biblical literalism without seeming absurd. Maybe we haven't all heard the thunder peal yet, but the lightning bolt has already struck a while ago. We are going to have to adjust our reading of the Bible to coincide with a modern scientific understanding of the universe.
In broad strokes, that shift has already happened. The battle lines have shifted away from claiming that the Bible is authoritative in all matters, to instead claiming that it is authoritative "in matters of faith" or more vaguely "in all that it affirms," allowing Christians to sidestep the issue of natural science altogether, and instead focus on the Bible's moral claims. Because of this shift, we are free to embrace advances of natural science while keeping all our doctrinal views.
So while the evolution debate may be raging on in some parts, when it comes to things that have a more direct and practical impact on our everyday lives, Christians today are happy to accept the insights of natural science. For example, we pretty much all accept modern medicine, even though it seemingly contradicts the views of sickness in the New Testament where they believed that illness was caused by demons and/or a person's sin. Despite this rather clear perspective of the Bible, the vast majority of Western Christians call a doctor when they are sick, rather than an exorcist.
So we're happy to accept science in areas of technology and modern medicine, but when it comes to issues of morality, that is where we draw the new line in the sand. That's where we insist that the Bible has the final word, trumping all others. That may sound like a reasonable separation, but what it overlooks is the fact that science has not only impacted the fields of technology and medicine, but also had a huge impact on how we understand human development, mental health and ethics: Through the social sciences, over the past 100 years, we have come to understand many things about human nature and behavior which are extremely helpful to a deep understanding of morality and ethics -- discoveries that lead to better relationships, helping people break out of hurtful patterns of behavior, and to develop moral depth and empathy.
That doesn't mean, of course, that religion has nothing to contribute and we should all become secularists -- as if the only available choices were between a fundamentalist faith or fundamentalist atheism. Embracing the insights of social science isn't about reducing our understanding of humanity to mere mechanics, it is about deepening that understanding. A purely materialist position would equally reveal an ignorance of the contributions of the social sciences.
Despite the constant stream of pop-science news stories with attention-grabbing headlines -- like "Scientists find God-spot of Brain," implying that faith is just a form of neural firing -- the more we learn about science, the more we learn that our human experience involves a lot more than just mechanistic explanations. Social science is at its best when it help us understand ourselves and our relationships in greater depth, rather than reducing them to nothing but bio-chemical reactions, or nothing but social conditioning (something a friend of mine likes to call the "nothing-butters").
The insights of the social sciences need not be seen as a threat to faith or morality. On the contrary, they can serve to greatly compliment and enrich our faith. So rather than drawing a dividing line and claiming that the Bible is the sole source of moral authority, we could greatly benefit from listening and learning from the insights of the social sciences, just as we have done with natural science in the past.
Part of stretching our current understanding requires however that we Christians take a second look at our beliefs about human nature as depicted in the Bible, which is part of the reason why wrestling with scientific evidence can seem so threatening to believers.
An example of this is the notion that humans are simply "evil" or "wicked" at heart, expressed in the doctrines of total depravity and original sin. What we've come to understand through psychology and sociology is that the dynamics of human personality and behavior are considerably more complex than this. That's not to deny that people do some really awful things, but it does mean that if we hope to change that we need to understand the full complexities of what is going on.
In the same way that we now know that we live in a solar system, and therefore recognize that the Bible's language of the sun traveling through the sky (Ecclesiastes 1:5) is better read as poetic than as scientific description, we also need to recognize that when the Psalmist says, "Surely I was wicked from my mother's womb!" (Psalm 51:5) this is likewise better read as poetic language, rather than as a divine insight into his moral condition as a fetus. It is an emotional cry of personal remorse, not a general doctrinal pronouncement of human nature.
We don't need to fear science, including social science. Science is based on curiosity, hypothesis and observation of the way things are. In other words, it's about truth, and we should never fear seeking truth -- even if that means continually updating and expanding our current level of insight and understanding. We need to develop a way of reading the Bible that lines up with reality, a way of practicing our faith that fits with the full depths of our human experience. That way, we can have a relevant and living faith benefiting from integrating all areas of knowledge -- the sciences, the arts, religion, etc. -- rather than pitting them against each other.
Follow Derek Flood on Twitter: www.twitter.com/therebelgod
Stephen R. Friberg: Science, Religion, and the Bahá'í Faith
Karl Giberson, Ph.D: Mythologizing Evolution Revisited
The problem arises when people take the rules and teachings added in by the various clergies over the centuries - teachings made essentially for the self-aggrandizement of the clerical caste - and try to apply them to today's world.
From where I sit, there can be no conflict between religion and science - because if the proven facts of science conflict with the dogmas of a church, then the churchly dogma is wrong.
Offer for your consideration: every 'race' of man is cross-fertile with every other 'race' of man. Yet there are churches founded on the principle that some 'races' are inferior, and some superior. The evidence of DNA is there to prove that the 'races' are merely local adaptations to the local conditions, just as Dachsunds and Labrador Retrievers are local adaptations of the race of dogs.
Jesus said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and then describes this as “summarizing the law and the prophets” (summarizing morality).
Science reveals this version of the Golden Rule is a heuristic (a usually reliable rule of thumb) for a winning game theory strategy called indirect reciprocity. Further, virtually all past and present enforced cultural norms, no matter how diverse, contradictory, and bizarre, are also heuristics for increasing the benefits of cooperation to meet group goals.
But by logical necessity, science is silent concerning ultimate human goals. Right here, at the boundary between moral means and moral goals, lies the natural division between science and religion.
Religious people should not understand such a division to imply “handing over morality to science”. By defining the goals (ends) of morality, religions can maintain the proper relationship between science and people: science is our servant, not our master.
How could religious people find such a science based understanding of morality useful?
Understanding the Golden Rule as a fallible heuristic for increasing the benefits of cooperation in groups (and thereby meeting a religious goal) clarifies: when it is immoral to follow the Golden Rule, what moral standard replaces it when you do abandon it, and why you should not feel guilty in abandoning it in order to “increase the benefits of cooperation in groups”.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?
If I were gay I would want to be discriminated against, so I'll discriminate against gay people. If I were a witch I would want to be burned to death so I don't go to Hell, so I'll burn witches to death. If I weren't a ________ I would want to be tortured to death if it means saving my immortal soul.
Those are not merely hypotheticals.
If science has taught us anything it is that working in an intellectual vacuum is a disaster of errors, illogic, and cognitive biases. We must work together with the specific intention of eliminating those problems.
I'm limited by comment length here but let me tell you that what I look to in brief and that is INFORMED -- CONSENTING -- EMPOWERED. Try considering some moral issues under those additional lights and see what you think (no moral system is complete, but I consider these to be invaluable and necessary yardsticks).
A heuristic is a simple and quick, usually reliable, rule of thumb for achieving a goal.
You are not proposing a useful heuristic for making moral choices based on being INFORMED -- CONSENTING – EMPOWERED (however you define that process). You are proposing a major research project.
There is nothing wrong with major research projects into what is moral – many moral issues are quite complicated. People rely on cultural moralities to have many such moral problems pre-worked out for us. But in day to day life, when people must often make moral choices with little to no knowledge of the other people, no time for careful consideration, and no compelling guidance from their culture, then “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is actually usually reliable. I am aware of no better quick and simple heuristic for moral action.
As empirical evidence of its practical value, versions of the Golden Rule are found all around the world and are the most widely spread simple heuristic for moral behavior.
If you know a better simple, quick, heuristic for making moral choices in the face of inadequate knowledge and inadequate time for consideration, please don’t keep such moral wisdom to yourself – but no research projects, please.
When faced with direct evidence of the failure of a platitude the correct answer isn't to mischaracterize other evidence. That many cultures have variations of a common platitude is no evidence that they successfully apply it in practice or that it adds any value. It's only evidence that empty platitudes are popular, because when you're right, you're right.
What tends to happen is that people in a culture largely just happen to agree and so the already inevitable agreement acts to reinforce a Confirmation Bias (as if by magic, people who agree on behavior, agree on behavior).
The problem is that in every single case where people disagree, and that is when people need actual guidance, the Golden Rule pops up and says "you are always right" and there is no resolution to the conflict.
This is the only case that matters and it fails every single time because, in reality, it is an empty platitude with absolutely no guidance to offer anyway.
>>> no time for careful consideration
So basically you are just saying that whatever you want to do is the right thing. That's absolutely no guidance at all. That's how people act in the absence of actual guidance. Throw a false rationalization on top of that and you start getting into problems.
The concept of informed consent is hardly a major research project or a new concept or difficult to apply. But nice try at a red herring.
Is an all too human and fallible theology, the foundations of mono-theism [and faith] even a valid intellectual endeavor or just the ultimate vanity of a human nature that continues in a profound ignorance of that potential called God, but not honest enough to admit it. History will one day have to make that judgement and no doubt that judgement will be final. http://www.energon.org.uk
Religion is a faith-based mythological belief system.
Science is an evidence-based methodology for finding out how the natural world works.
Religion only accepts supernatural causation.
Science only accepts natural causation, and doesn't consider the "supernatural" to exist.
There is no overlap or intersection between the two--why would they need to be reconciled, apart from the discomfort that religious folks feel when they think science somehow invalidates their faith.
For a great many people faith is an evidence-based methodology for finding out how the world works. Therefore science is a welcome compliment to it.
So there's some evidence for you. What will you do with it? Will you adapt and grow in your understanding, or will you cling to your pejorative idea of what religion is so you can continue to dismiss those who are not like you?
My guess is that to the degree that you feel threatened, you will not listen and continue to be defensive and antagonistic. But no one is trying to convert you, and no one is questioning the validity of science. So I really don't know what you have to be threatened about here.
What I was going to say is, I am having trouble remembering an example of how faith helps one work out how the world works.
Hoping you can help me out here.
Science has no prophets, no revelations during dreams, no ancient scriptures which claim to be infallible. The more your religion approaches scientific methodology, the more supernatural beliefs give.
The Congregations for Secular Judaism are compatible with science, but most religion is not.
The first word doesn't line up with the second.
A fundamentalist is someone who refuses to change his/her views even in the face of overwhelming evidence. That doesn't apply to atheists, who would be quite happy to change their minds about a Supreme Being if believers could offer even the smallest SHRED of evidence for one.
Or do you consider yourself an atheist fundamentalist when it comes to Zeus, Krishna, Thor, Santa Claus, mermaids, and vampires?
If you ever need evidence of the existence of fundamentalist atheists, all you need to do is scroll down and read the other comments here.
I didn't drop my religious beliefs because people were being nice to me and telling me how tolerant they were of religion. They said it was wrong, stupid, lies, ridiculous, harmful and I thought they were incredible jerks who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag, so I set out to prove them wrong, and I failed.
Sometimes it takes a shock to the system to crack that biased egghead.
With that perspective, I say, a "fundamentalist" is someone who demands strict adherence to a specific set of theological doctrines. Unless I wanted to disparage an entire group of people by false implication.
This also insults real fundamentalists who are NOT all hostile, outspoken, nor disparaging. So I suggest that perhaps a Hasty Generalization has been made?
>>> mirrors the behavior of the religious fundamentalist
It mirrors human behavior across every spectrum (especially online)
>>> embattled self-righteousness
Here you have a good point. They (all sides) are largely being hostile because they perceive others as attacking what is, to them, a simple and obvious truth and they view the alternative as harmful (at least to society).
But this is just good old Cognitive Biases (and frustration), it isn't only 'fundamentalists', by any definition, that do this.
So I find no cause in which I would ever use 'fundamentalist atheist', it seems an empty pejorative.
I'm an evidence-driven atheist myself; but I could imagine a world where science shows strong evidence for a god or gods (let's choose the Babylonians) and some people still refuse to accept the possibility of their existence. At that point, those atheists would actually be the ones operating on faith rather than empirical evidence.
Then again, that's an imagined world.
Whereas some 90% of theists "never question" their religion, making them almost universally gnostic theists.
On the other hand, there are atheists who, motivated by a love of science and at times academic careers, try to be precise about what they think and to not claim things without strong justification, and religion simply does not live up to that standard. We don't chose to believe something and then make it sound less silly, we chose what to believe based on what the facts shows isn't silly.
"That doesn't mean... we should all become secularists" No, but it doesn't mean you should become moderate religious either. Why on earth would you be religious?!
Moreover, what truth is there in the story of Job? That the character of God is a jerk who messes with and tortures people on a mere bet with Satan? That Job had blind faith and devotion to God despite God being a royal jerk to him... and this is somehow a good thing? I'm sorry, I just don't see what value and truth Christians could see in such a story.
It seems to me that they only know it subconsciously, and that if it were fully conscious, they would have ceased to be religious.
The second thing is that the author seems to think that atheists think there is merely a conflict between science and Biblical literalism. Um, no. We think there is a conflict between science and all religion. Forget about Biblical literalism, they are irrelevant crazies, No True Christians, or whatever. I still think there is a conflict between science and liberal/moderate Christianity.
The author's understanding of reductionism is laughable. There are numbers of different ways to think about the world, including human behavior. No scientist thinks the only way to think about human behavior is in terms of neurons. Human behavior might reduce to neurons, but that is hardly the most insightful way to think about humans.
religion: mental retardation...or republican lol
Correct!
"We need to develop a way of reading the Bible that lines up with reality,"
Crash and burn.
No, see that's the opposite of the commendable attitude you just finished describing immediately before it. Insisting that you NEED to continue to believe that a two thousand year old holy text written by superstitious primitives is right and if it doesn't seem that way you just have to twist and turn and re-interpret it any way necessary to avoid admitting that it just doesn't work is not expanding your level of insight or understanding, it is is *shackling* it to static collection of pages of text written by people who understood nothing about the world compared to the knowledge we possess now.
It's saying "sure... I'll accept science... as long as I can somehow figure out how to jam it into the box outlined by this old book that I'm never ever ever going to submit to real critical scrutiny. I might bend it and twist it and contort that box to try and jam science in there and then sit on the lid while my buddy tapes it shut... but it HAS to go in the box! It HAS to!
Let us know when you realize how absurd that is by writing a better article.
I think that at the core, religion preys on fear and science sweeps in and dissuades this. It shows that there is nothing to fear once one understands how things work. Biblical assertions have been debunked again and again, how then can it be of any relevance today?
I say leave the bible and biblical teachings in the church and let the rest of the world move forward with what has been proven to work again, and again, science!!!!!!
Religion thrives when it is embraced by the state and educated to the young. It is embraced when common sense and education are lacking and or not encouraged.
As young people gain access to the Internet and are able to read history and the bible for that matter, they can better gain an understanding of just hour outdated the information in the Bible is. What was of great interest is illiterate farmers who lived in Bronze age Palestine, is not so interesting today.
Our country goes to war with Iraq and 99% of Christians in the USA approve. People get rich and reject the poor and any charity or handout that might go with it and the Christians approve of this overwhelmingly. Christians in the USA reject Universal Healthcare, Medicare, and any dole. Even though Jesus says that you should love your enemy, turn your cheek so your enemy can strike of you again. Jesus say so get rid of your possessions and that a rich man can not get into heaven.
Christianity and Science... compatible? How about Open heart surgery and faith healing. Are they compatible?
Why don't we do away with our court system and instead of evidence, let's just have the lawyers pray to god about the innocent or guilt of the plantiffs...
Take one more step and see the Bible for what it truly is instead of attempting to force it on reality, a book of rehashed myths.
Sounds like you're a "nothing-butter."