As someone who loves both religion and science, I often struggle with how they interact.
Are they in opposition to each other? Do they need to be reconciled? What happens when new scientific knowledge challenges the tenets of my faith?
Part of the difficulty in talking about science and religion is that there are several different ways we can discuss their interaction. Dr. Jennifer Wiseman, the Director of the Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, outlined several different models in an outstanding talk. Therefore, inspired by her, I want to share four different ways we can frame the discussion about how we talk about science and religion.
Stephen Jay Gould popularized it with the phrase "Non-Overlapping Masteria" (NOMA), which he describes as follows: "The magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap."
But there are two problems with this paradigm. First, religion has theories about what the universe is made of -- for example, Jewish tradition has statements about the way the world came into being and why the world is the way it is. And science is now talking about morality and even meaning, with books like Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" about the science of morality and "The Brain and the Meaning of Life" by Paul Thagard about neuroscience and meaning. Thus, the magesteria, in fact, do overlap.
Second, and perhaps even more importantly, it's simply not true that science talks only (or even primarily) about "how" -- there's a lot of "why" in there, asking questions like, "Why is there something instead of nothing? Why do our brains work in the way that they do?" Similarly, religion doesn't talk only (or even primarily) about "why" -- there's a lot of "how" in there, asking questions like, "How do did humans come to be? How should we act in this world?"
So for people who view themselves as both scientific and religious, the Contrast model often makes them comfortable. But as science enters into the realm that has historically been the purview of religion, and especially if we look more deeply at religion and at science, this model stops working very well.
The Concert model is the opposite of the Contrast model, as people try to directly reconcile science and religion. It is another attractive outlook to those who are both dedicated to their faith and committed to reason, since it means they would not have to reject either. This model makes claims such as the concept of a "day" in Genesis may actually be billions of years, or that the crossing of the Red Sea was actually finding a swamp that could be crossed at low tide.
Indeed, this model makes it hard to do a critical analysis of biblical texts, and that type of study frequently leads to a crisis of faith. In order for it to work, this model requires significant mental gymnastics, and forces people to maintain only a surface understanding of both science and religion.
So while this view may be appealing at first, it is actually quite fragile. All that needs to happen is for science to discover something that contradicts a deeply held belief, and people will easily elect either atheism or fundamentalism.
But while this outlook generates the most passion from people on the extremes, there are a vast number of people who do not buy into it.
An article in The Huffington Post describes recent work by sociologist Elaine Ecklund, who
...interviewed 275 tenured and tenure-track faculty members from 21 research universities in the United States. Only 15 percent of respondents said religion and science were always in conflict, while 15 percent said the two were never in conflict. The majority, 70 percent, said religion and science are only sometimes in conflict.
Thus, while zealous advocates on each side often dominate the discussion, there is a large silent majority who do not see science and religion as inherently in conflict.
The bigger problem is that while the Conflict model produces a lot of heat, it rarely creates light. It regularly devolves into unproductive arguments and ad hominem attacks, and causes both scientists and religious people to become either overly aggressive or feel themselves to be "victims" of the other side.
So even though for some people, this is an outlook they hold strongly to, it is much more likely to shut down conversations than to open them.
The Contact model reminds us that science is not independent of the scientists who pursue their field of inquiry. After all, while the universe may be 13.7 billion years old, and humans may have evolved on the African savannah, it has only been since modern times that human beings have sought to undertake a rigorous understanding of fields like cosmology, paleontology, psychology, neuroscience and biochemistry. We have to remember that not only does scientific knowledge provide information, it is deeply influenced by the passions, the curiosity and the personal experiences of the scientists who pursue it.
Similarly, our own personal experiences influence our religious outlook. People's feelings about religion are naturally affected by how they were raised and what has happened in their own lives. In the words of Rabbi Laura Geller, "All theology is autobiography." And while religion is older than science, it is still a human creation, helping us structure our human experiences, and asks deeply human questions like, "How should I act? What should I value? Who should I choose to associate with?"
When we place science and religion in the context of human experiences, we recognize that both science and religion are driven by human needs and are victim to human foibles. The Contact model thus encourages humility in both science and religion, reminding both sides that there are things we do not know, and things we will never know.
So the other crucial piece to bear in mind for the Contact model is that "religion" and "God" are two separate things. "God" is bigger than any one human being or group of people; "religion" is our particular attempt to understand God, and is necessarily limited. As Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel taught: "[R]eligion for religion's sake is idolatry ... The human side of religion, its creeds, its rituals and instructions is a way rather than the goal. The goal is 'to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.' (Micah 6:8)" ("I Asked for Wonder," p.40-41)
So for those of us who feel connected to God, when we forget that religion is not Divine, but human, we can easily fall into the trap of arrogance and narrow-mindedness. Micah thus reminds us that justice, mercy and humbleness are truly the most important values.
Indeed, our ultimate purpose in life is to strengthen ourselves, both as individuals and as a society. Science does that by giving us a fuller understanding of the world, by advancing knowledge, and by examining the relationship between theory and evidence. Religion does that by giving us a sense of purpose, by strengthening communities, and by giving us a potential glimpse of the Divine.
When we remember that both science and religion are human enterprises, we can remember that the most important question isn't whether they need to be viewed separately, or if they can be reconciled, or if they are inherently in conflict.
The most important question is: How are they being used?
Follow Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiMitelman
Secondly, Tawheed (the worship of Allah alone) is the essence on which Islam is built.It rejects all types of myths and superstitions,since they are the greatest enemies of science.Tawheed refers all aspects of causality to Allah.Therefore, scholars should be able to investigate and discover these relationships, know them, and then put them to the use of humanity.
Secondly, Tawheed (the worship of Allah alone) is the essence on which Islam is built.It rejects all types of myths and superstitions,since they are the greatest enemies of science.Tawheed refers all aspects of causality to Allah.Therefore, scholars should be able to investigate and discover these relationships, know them, and then put them to the use of humanity.
Presently, people want to create a world according to their wishes.They forget that for all their brilliance they cannot answer the question 'why'.They cannot answer why there is the way it does, why there is a universe, why matter acts in the way it does, why oxygen and hydrogen form water ?They may know how all those thing happen but never why.
The religion that can meet the needs of humanity and integrate and interact with the universe in a harmonious way is Islam? It instructs man to use his powers of intelligence and observation for two main reasons: Firstly, the Glorious Qur'an and the Noble traditions of Prophet Muhammad urged the people to contemplate and study their own nature as well as themselves and the universe around them. “We will show them Our Signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is over all things a Witness? “(The Qur'an 41: 53)
, "Are those who know equal to those who do not know? Only they will remember [who are] people of understanding". (The Qur'an 39:9)
"Allah will raise those who have believed among you and those who were given knowledge by dergrees. And Allah is Acquainted with what you do". (The Qur'an 58:11)
"Do those who disbelieve not see that the heavens and earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?" (The Qur'an 21:30)
As a matter of fact, the last verse that talks about how the universe was created has the very information by which two physicists were awarded the 1973 Nobel Prize. However, these scientific facts had already been revealed to Prophet Mohammed more than 1400 years ago. >>> to be continued
The Qur’an is the final revelation from god to humanity. The Qur’an is not primarily a science book, but it does contain scientific facts that have been scientifically discovered only recently through the advancement of technological equipment. Indeed, studying and understanding the nature of creation enables people to further appreciate their creator and the extent of his Sovereignty. Some examples follow:
1- Human embryonic development
In the Qur’an, god speaks about the stages of man’s embryonic development: “We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)...” (Qur’an, 23:12-14)
The Arabic word alaqah has three meanings: (1) leech – when comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarities. Also, the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to a leech . (2) suspended thing. (3) blood clot – the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage are similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage. >>> to be continued
The next stage mentioned is the mudghah stage which means “chewed substance.” If one were to chew a piece of gum and compare it to the embryo at this stage, we would conclude that the embryo resembles a chewed substance.This is due to somites (cells that form the vertebrae) at the back of the embryo that, according to Dr. Moore and Persaud, “somewhat resemble teeth marks in a chewed substance.”
2- The Creation of living beings from water
“Allah created every [living] creature from water. Some of them go on their bellies, some of them on two legs, and some on four.Allah creates whatever He wills. Allah has power over all things.”(Qur’an, 24:45)
Water is the main component of organic matter.Between 50-90% of the weight of living things consists of water.Furthermore, 80% of the cytoplasm (basic cell material) is water.The analysis of cytoplasm took place hundreds of years after the revelation of the Qur’an.
3- Mountains As Stabilisers
Mountains play an important role in stabilising the crust of the earth, by hindering its shaking. God has said:
“And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you...”(Qur’an, 16:15)
Likewise,the modern theory of plate tectonics agrees that mountains work as stabilisers for the earth.The knowledge about the role of mountains as stabilisers has just begun to be understood by scientists in the framework of plate tectonics.to be continued
Let's start with the didactic title: "How to talk about science and religion"
In other words, "I'm going to hand down the wisdom from the mountain. I don't care what YOU think is the right way. And I also assume that both MUST be talked about (aka equally considered)."
Next, let's look at how flawed the logic is in the "contact" model. If science and religion are in separate spheres then they cannot "mutually inform each other." They would then be slightly overlapping circles. Drawing them this way and using arrows instead, while claiming they can remain separate, is a total cop-out and a way to try and re-frame the same tired argument that mythology has a legitimate place in the same world as science. It simply does not - and no amount of geometric shape sleight-of-hand will change that.
And putting conflict as one of the failed models, framing it as two sets of extremist beliefs - that's pure chicanery, when one side rejects mythology and accepts physical evidence, while the other accepts mythology and rejects physical evidence. It's an utterly absurd attempt to invalidate the truth as a "worldview" that is just a polar opposite of a mythological - yet equally valid - "worldview."
one word needs to be added to this paragraph. the word MATERIAL needs to be added to the front of the word "world". ie "understanding of the material world"
religion has many degrees of awareness all the way from a god made in the image of a human to a seeking of self awareness. old souls new souls thingy. :-)
Separating communities and supporting tribalism is more like it. A glimpse of the "Divine".....morning coffee must be a religious experience.
You've basically attacked the Conflict model via logical fallacies, namely appealing to popular opinion and (hypocritically) the ad hominem. The fact that the Conflict model is unpopular or at least rejected by some people doesn't logically imply the Conflict model is wrong. Maybe those people are mistaken. Complaining that the model creates a heated discourse and in your opinion is unproductive is purely ad hominem, just because you think the Conflict model is not nice and has a bad tone does not make it wrong. You know, maybe a small group of nasty atheists are right to hold the Conflict model. I mean, you attacked the Contrast and Concert models purely on valid philosophical grounds, why attack the Conflict model on these irrational grounds? Why'd your logical, thoughtful responses to the prior models suddenly vanish for the Conflict model?
To picture Conquest, imagine a large circle that represents all the questions humans can pose. This is Religion. Imagine a smaller circle completely enclosed by that one, representing all the useful, reliable answers to those questions. This is Science.
Now realize that the Science circle is growing. Each time it finds an answer it displaces the old religious answer "How old is the universe?" used to be a question for religion to answer, but science has displaced religion there. The inner circle is expanding -- and accelerating -- leaving less and less room for religion to claim it has the answer. Science is inexorably conquering religion.
To me, the image is of science as a "Big Bang" of knowledge, exploding in a black universe of ignorance and superstition. The Big Bang of science is expanding to fill the void. At its frontier are the defenders of religion, watching their traditional explanations be devoured one by one as science finds the correct answer, and caught up in the dilemma of whether to push back against science, or to join it and claim to be its moral pilot.
I'll dispute your own conclusion, which I think tries to preserve the validity of religious inquiry.
Your version of a "God" is dependent on claims to knowledge.
Religion has no access to evidence for these claims. You know scriptures are written by men. Do you really think a god intervened, or are these *just* stories? If so, you should not be speculating at all about the unknown, suggesting that there is a god or that you know its nature and desires.
How to act and how to value are questions that can be solved through moral philosophy.
Adding religious metaphysics to moral philosophy (which religion has gotten horribly wrong for most of human history) is not a sensible step to take. Science and religion are both human endeavours - but one is based on truth and one is based on imagination.
Of course all scientists don't think religion and science are always in conflict. I'm a very strong atheist, and even I don't think that. The majority said they were at least sometimes in conflict, however. What else do you expect when you attempt to adopt millenia-old idea into a world infused with modern science?
If religion is speculation, just admit that you don't know. You'd be a great moral philosopher, I'm sure, but your career is based on pretending knowledge you don't have.