God Vs. Science: Reflections on Reconciling the Two
The following is my reflections on the November 13 cover story of TIME magazine, an article entitled “God vs. Science”. The feature is “a spirited debate between atheist biologist Richard Dawkins and Christian geneticist Francis Collins.”
Perhaps the solution to the God vs. Science debate boils down to two things: Humility and personal experience.
First, humility. A lot of the discord when science and religion tangle is the result of a natural lack of humility. No one wants to admit he or she is wrong, yet both the believer and the atheist must put aside pride for faith and science to reconcile. It’s as simple—and as difficult—as this: when a believer encounters scientific discoveries that seem to contradict his current religious understanding, he should reevaluate his current understanding. This does not mean abandoning faith completely or even in part. In fact, it’s the complete opposite. The humble response is: “Wow, obviously I thought I had God figured out, but clearly I don’t because here’s this scientific finding that contradicts what I thought I knew.” Unfortunately, the faithful are often far too certain of their understanding of God, of Scripture, of religious Truth to reconsider long-revered beliefs, so they insist that “No, the Bible says that the earth is the center of the universe” finally relenting long after everyone else has accepted the new scientific finding. Today even the most fundamentalist of believers have no problem seeing that the Bible does NOT say that the sun revolves the earth and easily read texts that suggest otherwise as being either metaphorical or representing the knowledge of the Biblical writer at the time.
This problem is particularly evident when certain religious “truths” aren’t even shared by all religions. For example, the TIME article says: “Brain imaging illustrates the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of the glands and gristle.” Well, the thing is, not all religions teach that the soul is independent of the glands and gristle. In fact, not even all Christian faiths teach this doctrine. My church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, for example, believes that the Bible teaches that there is no division between body and spirit. We believe that most other Christians are mistaken in their understanding of what scripture teaches about the soul. So such scientific discoveries cause barely a ripple in our understanding of our faith, and if anything confirm our belief. However, I can promise you there are many Christians who will resist tooth and nail such a “radical” concept as the non-existance of “the immortal soul”, rather than re-evaluate it, and think perhaps they’ve read the Bible wrong.
The problem is not that God has failed to match the scientific evidence. The problem is that our understanding of God has failed to match the scientific evidence. Dawkins says that a true scientist says “We’re working on it. We’re struggling to understand.” I think the faithful would do well to say the same thing more often.
Arrogance born out of a need for certainty, an insecurity about being “unsure” is a human trait, and is not limited solely to the believer. The atheist has essentially the same problem. The atheist when encountering something of a religious or “supernatural” nature will automatically dismiss the possibility of God. Wouldn’t it be reasonable—and humble-- to conclude that God MIGHT exist in the realm of science that we do not yet understand. One of the first things Dawkins says is: “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that is a scientific question.” But here’s the thing: It’s NOT a scientific question. By its very definition, science can not address the supernatural. Science is, at its core, about the “natural”—that which can be observed, measured, tested and retested, that which can be assessed with the senses. The supernatural, by definition, exists outside of the realm of what can be observed, measured, tested and retested, it is “the evidence of things not seen”, and thus science cannot address it. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m certain that all spiritual or supernatural things actually have a rational, scientific explanation, but those things, which, FOR NOW, science can’t explain, science does not have the authority to dismiss. At the present time, science is ill-equipped to answer the “why” questions. Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Why do good things happen to bad people and vice versa? Or as Collins asks: “Do humans have more moral significance than cows?” Here is where faith speaks to morality. Many atheists make the mistake of thinking that religious people need God to tell them what’s right and what’s wrong. I don’t think it’s so much that as it is that faith provides a PURPOSE in morality. Dawkins raised a fascinating implication about altruism when viewed from a materialistic, non-spiritual point of view. He says that “altruism is rooted in our prehistoric past, we would have lived in extended families , surrounded by kin whose interests we might have wanted to promote because they shared our genes. Now we live in big cities. We are not among kin nor people who will ever reciprocate our good deeds. . .it doesn’t cross our mind that the reason for do-gooding is based on the fact that our primitive ancestors lived in small groups.” It would seem that Dawkins is implying that altruism is the moral equivalent of the appendix. An evolutionary left-over, now useless. Which, if you’re a materialist, raises the question of whether altruism will eventually disappear from the human species since it is no longer necessary.
The atheist scientist simply says there is no why, there is no “purpose”—beyond reproducing your species--and ends the discussion there. Science cannot address it, so it must not be real, it must not exist. But humanity seems to show little sign of being able to live without contemplating the whys and as long as we do, faith will continue to thrive. Like Collins most of us ARE interested in the “whys”.
The second key to reconciling faith and science has to do with accepting something that neither believer or unbeliever wants to deal with: the reality, as I see it, is that whether we choose to believe or not has very much to do with the subjective, with personal experience, with what we want to believe. This stings our pride, insults our sense that we’re able to be objective, to see ourselves as “we really are” But nonetheless it is this subjective experience that helps us decide what is most plausible, what is reasonable to accept. This was particularly evident in the exchange between Dawkins and Collins, as both scientists traded accusations of implausibility:
Collins: “When you look at the evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. But if you’re willing to consider the possibility of a designer this becomes a rather plausible explanation for what is other wise an exceedingly improbable event.”
“I actually find the argument of the existence of a God who did the planning more compelling.”
Dawkins: “But that God himself would be even more improbable [than a universe that came into being by chance]”
“What I can’t understand is why you invoke improbability and you will not admit that you’re shooting yourself in the foot by postulating something just as improbable, magicking into existence the word God.”
Here we have two learned men, incredibly brilliant and talented scientists, looking at the same evidence and yet they cannot agree which is more implausible: A Creator God or a random universe. So what is the difference? What causes one man to swing one way, the other to conclude the opposite?
The answer is personal experience. And again both sides seem loathe to admit the impact this has, both on their own thinking and on that of their opponents. Collins lets the cat out of the bag when he replies to Dawkin’s challenge from the quote above: “My God is not improbable to me.” That says it all. “My God”. . .”to me”. This is a man who has a personal experience with God. It is his sense of God speaking to his heart, guiding in his life, providing him with a richer and fuller experience than he’s ever known, that causes him to see a Creator as the far more plausible explanation. And that personal experience has all the more weight for him because he wasn’t always a believer. He can’t write it off as “having been socialized by a religious family” or “just kidding myself into believing stuff I’d been taught.” No, there was a time when he didn’t believe--until God cracked into his world, and became real to him. I find life-long atheists really have a hard time understanding the experience of believers on this point. They apply their own perspective on faith to believers. “How can you believe in some book written by a bunch of dead people 2000 years ago?” “How can you believe in some magic Guy in the Sky.” They have no concept of how intense, how personal, how REAL the relationship of a believer to his or her God (or gods, or spiritual energy etc) is. When a believer is asked to dismiss the idea of a Creator as implausible you’re also asking him or her to dismiss their own experience as implausible as well, and not many people are that devoted to that level “objectivity” outside of the lab.
Atheists on the other hand do not have any personal experience with God. Perhaps at one point they did—if they were once believers, but at some point the well dried up. The prayers just seemed to bounce off the ceiling. No one answered. What they saw was a lot of people manipulating religion and spirituality. But God was nowhere to be found. So for the atheist, a random universe is infinitely more probable than a Creator that has failed to show up in their personal lives When an atheist is asked to accept the idea of a Creator as plausible you’re also asking him or her to dismiss their own experience as implausible, and not many people are that devoted to that level “objectivity” outside of the lab.
The two men come close to common ground, before dancing away again, when TIME asked:
“Could the answer be God?” [In reference to the inexplicable or unknowable]
Dawkins: “There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.”
Collins: “That’s God.”
I’ve yet to find an atheist who really wants to believe in God, but can’t nor a believer who really doesn’t want to believe, yet must. None of us can claim complete objectivity. All of us are bound to some degree but what we have or have not subjectively experienced.
I’d like to conclude my reflections with my favorite quote from the article, which ironically was by Dawkins, the atheist: “If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.”
The Bible says essentially the same thing. “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard. . .” “My ways are not your ways, My thoughts are not your thoughts. . .”
At this place, I think both science and faith can rest.
Perhaps the solution to the God vs. Science debate boils down to two things: Humility and personal experience.
First, humility. A lot of the discord when science and religion tangle is the result of a natural lack of humility. No one wants to admit he or she is wrong, yet both the believer and the atheist must put aside pride for faith and science to reconcile. It’s as simple—and as difficult—as this: when a believer encounters scientific discoveries that seem to contradict his current religious understanding, he should reevaluate his current understanding. This does not mean abandoning faith completely or even in part. In fact, it’s the complete opposite. The humble response is: “Wow, obviously I thought I had God figured out, but clearly I don’t because here’s this scientific finding that contradicts what I thought I knew.” Unfortunately, the faithful are often far too certain of their understanding of God, of Scripture, of religious Truth to reconsider long-revered beliefs, so they insist that “No, the Bible says that the earth is the center of the universe” finally relenting long after everyone else has accepted the new scientific finding. Today even the most fundamentalist of believers have no problem seeing that the Bible does NOT say that the sun revolves the earth and easily read texts that suggest otherwise as being either metaphorical or representing the knowledge of the Biblical writer at the time.
This problem is particularly evident when certain religious “truths” aren’t even shared by all religions. For example, the TIME article says: “Brain imaging illustrates the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of the glands and gristle.” Well, the thing is, not all religions teach that the soul is independent of the glands and gristle. In fact, not even all Christian faiths teach this doctrine. My church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, for example, believes that the Bible teaches that there is no division between body and spirit. We believe that most other Christians are mistaken in their understanding of what scripture teaches about the soul. So such scientific discoveries cause barely a ripple in our understanding of our faith, and if anything confirm our belief. However, I can promise you there are many Christians who will resist tooth and nail such a “radical” concept as the non-existance of “the immortal soul”, rather than re-evaluate it, and think perhaps they’ve read the Bible wrong.
The problem is not that God has failed to match the scientific evidence. The problem is that our understanding of God has failed to match the scientific evidence. Dawkins says that a true scientist says “We’re working on it. We’re struggling to understand.” I think the faithful would do well to say the same thing more often.
Arrogance born out of a need for certainty, an insecurity about being “unsure” is a human trait, and is not limited solely to the believer. The atheist has essentially the same problem. The atheist when encountering something of a religious or “supernatural” nature will automatically dismiss the possibility of God. Wouldn’t it be reasonable—and humble-- to conclude that God MIGHT exist in the realm of science that we do not yet understand. One of the first things Dawkins says is: “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that is a scientific question.” But here’s the thing: It’s NOT a scientific question. By its very definition, science can not address the supernatural. Science is, at its core, about the “natural”—that which can be observed, measured, tested and retested, that which can be assessed with the senses. The supernatural, by definition, exists outside of the realm of what can be observed, measured, tested and retested, it is “the evidence of things not seen”, and thus science cannot address it. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m certain that all spiritual or supernatural things actually have a rational, scientific explanation, but those things, which, FOR NOW, science can’t explain, science does not have the authority to dismiss. At the present time, science is ill-equipped to answer the “why” questions. Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Why do good things happen to bad people and vice versa? Or as Collins asks: “Do humans have more moral significance than cows?” Here is where faith speaks to morality. Many atheists make the mistake of thinking that religious people need God to tell them what’s right and what’s wrong. I don’t think it’s so much that as it is that faith provides a PURPOSE in morality. Dawkins raised a fascinating implication about altruism when viewed from a materialistic, non-spiritual point of view. He says that “altruism is rooted in our prehistoric past, we would have lived in extended families , surrounded by kin whose interests we might have wanted to promote because they shared our genes. Now we live in big cities. We are not among kin nor people who will ever reciprocate our good deeds. . .it doesn’t cross our mind that the reason for do-gooding is based on the fact that our primitive ancestors lived in small groups.” It would seem that Dawkins is implying that altruism is the moral equivalent of the appendix. An evolutionary left-over, now useless. Which, if you’re a materialist, raises the question of whether altruism will eventually disappear from the human species since it is no longer necessary.
The atheist scientist simply says there is no why, there is no “purpose”—beyond reproducing your species--and ends the discussion there. Science cannot address it, so it must not be real, it must not exist. But humanity seems to show little sign of being able to live without contemplating the whys and as long as we do, faith will continue to thrive. Like Collins most of us ARE interested in the “whys”.
The second key to reconciling faith and science has to do with accepting something that neither believer or unbeliever wants to deal with: the reality, as I see it, is that whether we choose to believe or not has very much to do with the subjective, with personal experience, with what we want to believe. This stings our pride, insults our sense that we’re able to be objective, to see ourselves as “we really are” But nonetheless it is this subjective experience that helps us decide what is most plausible, what is reasonable to accept. This was particularly evident in the exchange between Dawkins and Collins, as both scientists traded accusations of implausibility:
Collins: “When you look at the evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. But if you’re willing to consider the possibility of a designer this becomes a rather plausible explanation for what is other wise an exceedingly improbable event.”
“I actually find the argument of the existence of a God who did the planning more compelling.”
Dawkins: “But that God himself would be even more improbable [than a universe that came into being by chance]”
“What I can’t understand is why you invoke improbability and you will not admit that you’re shooting yourself in the foot by postulating something just as improbable, magicking into existence the word God.”
Here we have two learned men, incredibly brilliant and talented scientists, looking at the same evidence and yet they cannot agree which is more implausible: A Creator God or a random universe. So what is the difference? What causes one man to swing one way, the other to conclude the opposite?
The answer is personal experience. And again both sides seem loathe to admit the impact this has, both on their own thinking and on that of their opponents. Collins lets the cat out of the bag when he replies to Dawkin’s challenge from the quote above: “My God is not improbable to me.” That says it all. “My God”. . .”to me”. This is a man who has a personal experience with God. It is his sense of God speaking to his heart, guiding in his life, providing him with a richer and fuller experience than he’s ever known, that causes him to see a Creator as the far more plausible explanation. And that personal experience has all the more weight for him because he wasn’t always a believer. He can’t write it off as “having been socialized by a religious family” or “just kidding myself into believing stuff I’d been taught.” No, there was a time when he didn’t believe--until God cracked into his world, and became real to him. I find life-long atheists really have a hard time understanding the experience of believers on this point. They apply their own perspective on faith to believers. “How can you believe in some book written by a bunch of dead people 2000 years ago?” “How can you believe in some magic Guy in the Sky.” They have no concept of how intense, how personal, how REAL the relationship of a believer to his or her God (or gods, or spiritual energy etc) is. When a believer is asked to dismiss the idea of a Creator as implausible you’re also asking him or her to dismiss their own experience as implausible as well, and not many people are that devoted to that level “objectivity” outside of the lab.
Atheists on the other hand do not have any personal experience with God. Perhaps at one point they did—if they were once believers, but at some point the well dried up. The prayers just seemed to bounce off the ceiling. No one answered. What they saw was a lot of people manipulating religion and spirituality. But God was nowhere to be found. So for the atheist, a random universe is infinitely more probable than a Creator that has failed to show up in their personal lives When an atheist is asked to accept the idea of a Creator as plausible you’re also asking him or her to dismiss their own experience as implausible, and not many people are that devoted to that level “objectivity” outside of the lab.
The two men come close to common ground, before dancing away again, when TIME asked:
“Could the answer be God?” [In reference to the inexplicable or unknowable]
Dawkins: “There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.”
Collins: “That’s God.”
I’ve yet to find an atheist who really wants to believe in God, but can’t nor a believer who really doesn’t want to believe, yet must. None of us can claim complete objectivity. All of us are bound to some degree but what we have or have not subjectively experienced.
I’d like to conclude my reflections with my favorite quote from the article, which ironically was by Dawkins, the atheist: “If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.”
The Bible says essentially the same thing. “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard. . .” “My ways are not your ways, My thoughts are not your thoughts. . .”
At this place, I think both science and faith can rest.
posted by Sean at 1:44 AM
2 comments
