“A HARMONY OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION”

A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear

Sunday, April 13, 2008

All Souls Unitarian Church

Indianapolis, Indiana

READING from Albert Einstein, “Science and Religion,” an address at the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, New York, 1940.

“Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has nevertheless learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed in an image: Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

SERMON

There is a surprising irony in the observation by Albert Einstein in 1940, when he said that “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” The irony is that his remark came after centuries of antagonism between science and religion. There is also irony in the fact that such antagonism continues to infect many within the halls of science and the temples of religion today.

The “war” between science and religion has been going on longer than any other war on record, I suppose. The word “war,” of course, is figurative, but it is also not without some historical grounding. In the 1874, New York University professor John William Draper published a widely popular book entitled a “History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science.” That was fallowed in 1896 by a two-volume work by Andrew Dickson White, president of Cornell University, which he called “A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.” For those involved in the controversy, it must have felt like a battle.

The fight was over the ownership of truth, and both science and religion laid exclusive claim to the property. In many ways it was a fight for survival in both cases. And from our perspective after more than a century, we know that though science won practically every battle that was fought. Few people cling to a view that the earth is flat or is the center of the universe. Educated people accept as a matter of fact that human beings are the product of an extraordinarily long process of evolution. Science has won each battle, and yet religion is a long way from defeated.

It all began, of course, with Isaac Newton, the spiritual father of modern science. Newton, of course, was a devout Christian, and never expected his work to be seen as competing with religion. Newton would show how natural events that had previously been considered miraculous in fact had natural and identifiable causes. It was his aim to discover the natural laws that God ordained. With devout piety, Newton exclaimed, “Oh God, I think thy thoughts after You!”

It was those who came after Newton who set the stage for the conflict that would ensue. If all observable events had natural causes, they would assert, then the so-called “miracles” of the Bible were fairy tales. And one-by-one, nearly all observable but mysterious events – eclipses, lightening, scarlet sunsets – were explained by natural causes. Eventually, the church had to give in to overwhelming evidence, though they continued to hold on to ancient miracles that had no scientific witnesses.

Newton detailed a set of mechanistic laws of the universe that displaced superstition. In that spirit, the emperor Napoleon once asked mathematician Pierre Simone de Laplace where God fits into Newton’s explanation. Laplace answered simply, “Sir, we have no need of that hypothesis.”

The war between science and religion continued, and ever so gradually, science would win each battle. After centuries of conflict, a decisive battle came in 1860 when biologist Charles Darwin theorized that all species, including humans, evolved from simple to more complex forms through a process of random variation and natural selection: evolution. The church by then was battle-weary. Actually, it gave in fairly quickly, within about 40 or 50 years. Catholicism and most major Protestant denominations came to accept, at least in theory, Darwin’s theories. The only real hold-outs were a small band of Christians known as fundamentalists, but by and large they didn’t care about science anyway.

It looked as if finally, after 300 years since Newton, science would at last defeat religious superstitions and reign supreme before the end of the 20^th century. Religion would die a natural death.

But, of course, that didn’t happen. Religion remains strong and a vital force in society. More Americans are regular church-goers now than when this country was founded, a hundred years before Darwin! And religion flourishes in ever more schools of thought.

Religion in general is not as hostile toward science as it used to be, but in many ways it is still seen as competitive. Either you accept the tenets of religious faith, or you accept the conclusions of scientific evidence.

Some corners of the scientific world seem to perpetuate this unnecessary battle as much as some religionists. There are scientific spokespeople who claim that all religious views are superstitious and therefore suspect. There are scientific voices which claim that any religious views, especially those which accept the idea of a God, are irrational and unacceptable. And there are religious voices who claim that since God created the laws of nature, God is not subject to them.

The problem with this continuing battle is that it is entirely unnecessary. Religion and science are both important parts of our human experience, and together they enhance our understanding of the world. If we want to understand who we are, science and religion both play a part, and one without the other is incomplete. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.

However, as Einstein suggested, they speak to very different parts of human experience. Science tells us about what is. Religion tells us about what we should be doing with what is. Science is about facts of life. Religion is about values of life. Science is, and ought to be, value neutral as much as possible. Science cannot tell us about our goals in life. It cannot tell us right from wrong.

Science can ask and, theoretically, answer the question: "Are there other intelligent life forms in the universe?" Science cannot ask, nor can it answer the religious question: "Would the existence of other life forms in the universe enhance, diminish, or not affect my own sense of personal significance." Science can, theoretically, ask and answer the question: "What risks do future generations face when we dump of toxic waste given today's technology?" Science cannot ask, nor can it answer the essentially religious question: "What is my responsibility toward the health and welfare of future generations?" Science can ask and answer the question: "Have all life forms evolved from the same origin?" Science cannot ask, nor answer, the question: "Since I am related through evolution to all forms of life on this planet, do I carry a responsibility for their well-being?”

To the extent that this battle between science and religion appears to continue in our day, it is being waged, I think, by voices that represent mere caricatures of science in religion. It is being waged by those who don’t understand the dramatic changes over the last century that have altered the nature of both science and religion. The changes in both science and religion have made warfare unnecessary, and in fact are making it possible for the two spheres of human thought to become allies.

A century ago, both science and religion believed truth to be their rightful possession. Before Newton, religion was the sole property-owner of truth. That ownership would challenged by science, who also claimed to be the just title-holder of truth. Like many wars, this one was a dispute over proper ownership of property, and that property was truth.

The changes in both religion and science in the last hundred years or so have made it possible for each of them to let go of their absolutist claims. I want to look a little closer at those changes.

I begin with science. There was a time when it was thought that science was capable of answering all questions we might have about life. It was once thought that the reach of scientific inquiry was limitless. The last century has modified that view substantially.

The fact is that the scope of science is alarmingly narrow. Science limits itself to subjects that can be observed, tested, and measured. That, I suggest leaves out far more than it includes. It leaves out all the range of human emotions. It leaves out love and hate and happiness and fear and grief. It leaves out the entire range of human values. It completely avoids any question containing the words "should I?" or "ought I?" Science cannot tell us whether life is worth living, what flavor of ice cream to choose at Baskin Robbins, or what career to choose, or who to marry, or whether to marry. It cannot tell us if abortion is murder – for “murder” is not a scientific category – or whether building more nuclear arms increases or decreases our danger of being blown up. It cannot tell us when to laugh and when to cry and when to hold someone who needs us.

There is really very little that science can tell us, but the magnificence of science is that what it can tell us is told with a level of certainty that no other method can match. The answers that science gives are far more reliable than any other answers we get from any other source. The problem is simply that there aren't that many questions that science can ask.

Huston Smith, a philosopher of religion and science, puts it this way:

AA scientific world view is impossible. I do not mean that we are a long way from having such a view; I mean that we never will have one‑‑it is impossible in principle, a contradiction in terms. For "world" implies whole and science deals with part, an identifiable part of the whole that can be shown to be part only.... To hope for a world view from science is like hoping that increasingly detailed maps of Illinois will eventually produce the ultimate map of the United States.@

Huston Smith goes on to list four areas which science cannot address. First it cannot address issues of values. It can tell us, for example, our statistical chances of surviving a crash by wearing seatbelts, but it cannot tell us whether wearing seatbelts, for a specific person, is worth the bother.

Secondly, Smith says, science cannot address issues of purpose: Why do I live the way I chose to live? Or thirdly, it cannot address issues of meaning: Not only the old, "What is the meaning of life?" kind of question, but also more mundane meanings, such as, what does a piece of music, or a work of art, or a literary work, mean to me? Why is it that one person in a household can find meaning and passion in watching a specific football game on television, and another person in the same house finds that activity entirely pointless.

And then fourthly, Smith says, science cannot address issues of quality. What is it that makes Shakespeare immortal and most romance novelists forgettable. Or on a more basic level, why do people have favorite colors or prefer one furniture style over others. Science tells us nothing about taste and quality.

I believe Huston Smith is right: science deals with that part of life and experience which can be measured, predicted and controlled. It does not deal with world views; world views are the subject of philosophy and religion.

But there is a more fundamental change in science over the last century that helps make hostility with religion unnecessary. From its earliest practice, science was viewed – by scientists and non-scientists alike – as demonstrating exactly what the world is like. Science looked at life like a mechanic would look at an engine. The parts would tell us everything there is to know about the whole.

But through the twentieth century, there were quite a few discoveries in science which revealed some limitations to scientific claims. It turns out that scientific claim to the property of truth has boundaries.

The boundaries to scientific truth are more than expected. First of all, there is Einstein’s theory of relativity. It was not conceivable before him that truth could be relative to circumstance. But there it is.

Next, the theory of evolution which is the backbone of natural science contains a surprising element – random mutation. “Random” is another word for “unpredictable.” “Unpredictable” entails that we cannot tie cause and effect. Unpredictability provides another limitation to the boundaries of science.

Unpredictability is found not only in biological evolution, but it has been identified in physics as well, known as Heisenberg’s “Principle of Uncertainty.” Here again, science found a wall of reality that it cannot cross.

At least one other limitation on science identified in the last century is worth mentioning. It seems that the entire notion of “objectivity,” of objective study of he world, has limitations. The line between subject and object, the observer and the object observed, cannot be drawn with accuracy. So not only are the boundaries of science quite limited, they are getting fuzzier. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to say of things, “this is fact,” and “that is not fact.

If the claims of science are not quite as far reaching or exact as they used to be, it squatter’s rights on the property of truth isn’t as complete as they once thought it was. With the boundaries of science’s claims to truth narrow, the reason for conflict with religion’s claims is softened.

Religion, as well, in general does not make the claims on the property of truth it used to make. Religion’ original mistake – original sin, if you prefer – was to think that the purpose of religion included the ability to tell us what the world is about and how the world works. This is not the purpose of religion, and never was.

Somewhere along the line, the church made a terrible mistake in thinking that the Bible was some sort of science textbook, and that you can extrapolate form Bible stories to understand the natural world. The Bible tells of the time that the sun “stopped its motion,” so the sun, according to the Bible, must move around the earth. If you count the generations mentioine in the first Chapter of the book of Matthew, which seems to give a genealogy from Adam, the first man, to Jesus, you can deduce that the earth was created about 6,000 years ago, rather than some 4 or 5 billion years ago, as science currently estimates. When such conclusions about nature which are drawn from the Bible are pitted against scientific findings, the Bible is bound to end up with egg on its metaphorical face.

The mistake was in assuming that religion is supposed to give us answers about the workings of nature. That is not what religion is for. Religion deals not with the structures of the world, but rather the meaning of the world. It is religion and philosophy which supply the world view through which we try to interpret the meaning of the information and data supplied by science.

Over the last century, many religious leaders have come to accept that religion has boundaries to truth. By and large, mainstream religion has given to science its claim to ownership of that part of truth which has to do with fact. Religion, however, continues to claim that part of truth which has to do with meaning, or with value and ethics.

So the boundaries of religion’s claim to the property of truth gradually became accepted as more and more limited. Such claims are not nearly as far-reaching as they used to be, and their squatter’s rights on the property of truth are not as complete as they once were. With the boundaries of religion’s claims ot truth narrower, the reason for conflict with science is softened.

Where that leaves us is exactly what Einstein identified. The property of truth for humanity is not owned solely by either science or religion, but each supports the other in exploration of truth. Science without religion is lame – for it only tells us what is, and does not tell us what is to be done. Religion without science is blind – for without science it cannot give us reliable guidance on what is to be done.

Let me offer one specific example of this interdependence of religion and science. One great historical controversy between science and religion has been over the theory of evolution. It is commonly believed that evolution threatens theology because it removes God from the scene of creation, and is therefore atheistic. In fact, evolution may challenge some ideas of God, but not God altogether. It is common among scientists to accept both evolution on one hand, and God as the author of evolution on the other.

However, evolution offers an even more profound challenge to religion than the denial of God. The religious teaching that evolution brings into the question is not whether God exists, but rather whether human beings are somehow special within creation, and somehow the very reason for, the nature world that God created. Evolution challenges the assumption within many religious traditions that human beings have a more sacred role within God’s creation, or that they are the pinnacle of creation. It seems to me that this challenge is much deeper and far more damaging to religious creed than the mere denial of God’s existence.

And it is not just evolution, but also astronomy that has bumbled the view of our place within creation. We now know, as we didn’t centuries ago, that our earth is a minor planet, and our sun is a minor star in a vast universe of uncountable planets and stars. With such a view, astronomy has also removed us from center stage of the universe, and presumably center stage of divine interest.

This example, it seems to me, demonstrates our need for cooperation between science and religion. Science can show us how we have long been mistaken about the place of human beings, not only as creatures on earth, but also in the universe as a whole. We are not as special within nature as we thought we were. But science cannot take this observation any further. It is up to religion and philosophy to find how we can make that scientific observation meaningful. It must take the reality science hand us, and then shape it into something that makes life worth living.

Religion has an important place in human development, as important as science, really. It is our way of making personal sense out of the life we experience, searching for purpose in our own lives, and finding transcendent values to live by. The work is made more effective when science and religion work side by side, tilling their own property of truth, but sharing the results with each other.

Science and religion need one another. The ultimate mysteries are, in the end, personal ones. The physicist Max Planck put it this way:

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And it is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of the mystery we are trying to solve.”

Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind. Science and religion need each other, just as human beings need each other. We live in a world of interdependence and it is gradually becoming, I think, a world where science and religion can work in harmony to build a better world.