SCIENCE AND RELIGION: OVERLAPPING DOMAINS

Twenty years ago, the late paleontologist and science historian Stephen Jay Gould argued that science and religion pursue separate and legitimate realms of inquiry and that they can coexist, so long as they each keep to their own realm. “Science,” he said, “tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve.”

I disagree.  And I’m not alone.  The realms of inquiry that science and religion purport to address do conflict and, from my point of view, the fault, both historically and currently, rests with religion rather than with science.

Here I would broaden the definition of science to include any inquiry about the nature of the world that employs objective evidence and rational analysis.  Importantly, science discounts subjective evidence or evidence based solely on statements by an authority not supported by objective evidence.  This definition of science would include such subjects as the astronomical history of the cosmos, the geological history of the earth, the biological history of life on earth, and the archeological history of civilizations.

I would limit the definition of religion to include belief in a deity who not only is responsible for the creation of the universe but who has an interest in humans and intervenes in human affairs (performs miracles).  I realize this definition is relatively narrow, but if one posits a deistic, noninterventionist god, questions relating to such matters as ultimate meaning or human values become indistinguishable from more secular philosophical inquiries.

Personally speaking, following is a sampling of the “facts” taught to me at the church and parochial school that I attended when growing up:

1. God created heaven and earth, along with all the kinds of plants and animals, including humans, some 6,000 years ago.

2. Later, because he was disappointed with how humans had turned out, God caused a great flood that covered the entire earth and only those animals and humans that were aboard an ark survived to repopulate the earth.

3. God intervenes (performs miracles) to protect or to punish humans.  Such miracles were a common occurrence in biblical times but nowadays can still happen when God recognizes a need to intervene or in answer to prayer.

4. God knows everything that is going to happen in the future and he has shared some of this knowledge with selected humans, called prophets, who in turn have shared it with us.

I could go on and on.

When I was growing up these propositions were not presented as metaphors, or as matters of faith, or as statements to be tested against evidence and rational analysis.  Rather, they were presented as irrefutable facts.  They were taught with the same certitude as the fact that water freezes at 32 degrees.  They were taught as being true because that is what scripture said or because that is what the church doctrines maintained was true.  I can still get upset thinking about this.

Each of these “facts” is a statement about the nature of the world or the history of the world.  As such, they are legitimate subjects for scientific investigation.  To argue otherwise would be to declare that some statements of fact are off limits to scientific investigation or questioning.  That was the problem that Galileo ran into in the 1600s when he questioned the Church’s geocentric version of the solar system.  We all know how that turned out.

But the truth is that science has shown that in case after case statements of fact asserted by religion either are clearly not true or are simply empty statements supported solely by writings of men who lived two to three thousand years ago.  As to the examples listed above:

1. Heaven and earth are more than 6,000 years old.  In fact, the universe is 13.8 billion years old.  The earth formed out of cosmic debris approximately 4.5 billion years ago.  Life has existed here for at least 3.5 billion years.  And present-day humans evolved from earlier hominids over a period of several million years.  These are not matters of serious dispute.

2. There is zero objective evidence for a world-wide flood.  Such a flood would be a physical impossibility, given the earth’s volume of water and its geographical configuration.  The geological formations cited by new earth creationists as being the result of the flood are actually the result in many cases of hundreds of millions of years of geological activity and erosion.

3. There is no credible evidence for the occurrence of any miracles, ever.  By definition, miracles represent a violation of the laws of nature.  A fundamental assumption in science is that every event can ultimately be explained as the result of the operation of a universal set of physical laws.  Science has never had to abandon that assumption.  Prayers for healing or for safety from harm have never been shown to be effective, that is, to cause a disruption in the operation of the laws of nature.  Miracles were commonplace in biblical times, but the history of storytelling is filled with unsubstantiated magic and myths.

4. Generally, scriptural prophecies can be characterized as so vague or ambiguous as to be true no matter what happens (think astrological prognostications or Nostradamus) or in fact were made after rather than before the event supposedly prophesied.  Modern-day religious prophesies have a probability of success of just about chance, or perhaps a little worse.

These were all cases of religion not “staying in its lane.”  In fact, a summary of the relationship between science and religion over the past several hundred years is that religion has traditionally attempted to provide answers to questions that are properly in the domain of science.  Science, in turn, has (properly) addressed—and answered—more and more of those questions, resulting in the continued shrinkage of the domain of religion.

It’s virtually a case of a battle between two opponents, one continuing to use iron age weaponry, while the other employs weapons designed to take advantage of the latest technology.  The ultimate outcome should be obvious to everyone.

What does that leave for religion?  I believe religion can still provide community and consolation.  But it needs to stay away from proffering statements about the nature of the world.

© 2019 John M. Phillips