That’s the Way the Banana Crumbles

Science and religion have an unstable relationship. Oftentimes they are content to stay separate and do their own things. Occasionally, they clash over certain issues of public policy. However, are these two world-views actually compatible, and if not, which one is correct?

Let us look at the last part of that statement first. A favorite argument of the Young Earth Creationists and the Answers in Genesis crowd is to state that science and religion provide different worldviews– That the systems use different assumptions about our world and reality and are therefore destined to arrive at different conclusions.  Some go as far as to label science as a religion, and why shouldn’t they? Science is based on a bunch of presuppositions as is any other system of belief. So why is science a more legitimate worldview? Because it lets us get at the truth. In order to understand why science is not “just another religion”, we have to understand what science really is as well as the presuppositions upon which it is based.

Science can only reveal empirical truth, and not metaphysical truth. Some people see this as a shortcoming of science, but even if metaphysical truth existed, of what use would it be to us? Philosophy is an interesting intellectual pursuit, but even Descartes had the common sense to see that the way we view the world through philosophy fails to alter our worldviews when we leave our study and go outside afterward. Whether religious, scientific, or both, we all tend to judge the truth in the same way: By what matches our observations[1. We could introduce philosophical skepticism at this point, and begin doubting all of our senses, but where would this get us?]. The religious person still looks both ways before they cross the road, and they wash their hands before they sit down to eat dinner. From any moderate perspective, it is obvious that science and religion do not conflict in basic worldviews, as some extremists would have you think. In fact, science and religion are both dependent upon empiricism; the only main difference is that religion assumes that one can talk with god (an all-knowing supernatural entity that imparts divine wisdom).

NOMA

NOMA, or Non-Overlapping Magisteria, is a concept invented by Stephen Jay Gould. It describes science and religion as separate (non-overlapping) fields. The idea being that each could co-exist with the other by means of them answering different questions and looking for different answers. The principle states that “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, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty).”[2. Gould, Stephen Jay. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 034545040X.] Before we proceed, it should be understood that most scientists have publicly adopted similar positions; however, this is mostly done for political reasons (the less time you have to spend fighting religion, the more time you can spend doing science). Though science is firmly rooted in empiricism (and therefore diametrically opposed to a vast majority of religious beliefs), it often tends to avoid conflict except when religious ideas directly conflict with scientific investigation or science education. However, it is important that we not confuse the desire to avoid conflict with the belief that science and religion can be compatible with each other.

The fact is that science and religion are not compatible. With the exception of morality (discussed below), religion and science are really just two different ways of looking at the same problem. Religion asks the same questions as science does (how does the world work, why are we here, etc.), but takes a radically different approach to answering them. Whereas science engages in empirical inquiry; testing theories against empirical observations and subjecting them to a rigorous peer-review process, religion operates under a branch of assumptions (There is a god, God is all-knowing, God revealed his knowledge to us in book form, our religious book is the correct one, etc.).

The bottom line is that religion purports to tell us how the world works, and as such is directly in conflict with science. In fact, any theory that tries to explain a natural phenomenon in a non-scientific way is in direct conflict with science. The truth is that religion is nothing more than an outmoded form of inquiry, with sloppy methods by modern standards from a time when we simply did not know any better. Now that we have an organized and methodical way of investigating our surroundings, there is no need to rely on speculation concerning the supernatural.

Religion and Morality

The last claim of the desperate is often to point out that science is incapable of making any moral claims. Science can tell us the how and why behind morality, but it cannot tell us what we should be doing. The religious grasp upon this point, and use it to show why religion must therefore be the answer. After all, religion has a set of morals, and most of the rules seem pretty good. Surely, religion can be separate from science in this regard, right?

Well, yes and no. On the one hand, religion sets itself apart from science in that it tells us how we should behave morally. On the other hand, religion has no more of a right to do this than science does, and should probably stop. Why?

As Plato showed us thousands of years ago, morality derived from religion does not work. The parable of Euthyphro outlines the dilemma in morality-derived-from-religion, or the divine command theory of morality. The Euthyphro Dilemma asks the question (in roughly equivalent terms): “Is an action moral because god commands it, or does God command it because it is moral?” If the former is true, than morality is completely arbitrary; and we only do things because God commands us to. This might be a satisfactory explanation of morality if you behave in a moral fashion simply to avoid God’s wrath, but for most people this is not a satisfactory answer. If the latter is true, then God is superfluous to the system of morality. He might have created a book with a list of rules in it, but the rules transcend God; he merely highlights them for us. If this is the case, then God is unnecessary in order to live a moral life.

The truth is most people believe the latter to be the case. They see morality as something that is intrinsic and objective, and not something contingent upon God’s wishes. Whether or not this is the case (I am not a big fan of objective morality), it is generally agreed that while religion does teach some moral lessons, it is not the source of our morality. Religion is not necessarily even the best source of morality, as there is often a lot of bad mixed in with the good. For every rule about not murdering other people, there is a rule about stoning insolent children, or sending menstruating women out into the desert. The moral lessons taught in the Bible (and other religious texts) are often seen as archaic, and most modern believers select the rules that they like, and toss out the rest. Religion may be capable of teaching morality, but it certainly does not have the monopoly on morality that it likes to claim. There is really nothing more moral about a religious text than any other collection of fables. There is also the added implication that non-religious people are somehow amoral. As an atheist, I find it offensive when people believe I cannot act in a moral fashion because of my lack of belief in a supernatural power.

What a Wonderful World

Even if a religious person were to accept all of the above, they would still claim that religion provides something that science cannot: A sense of wonder about our world and our existence. Because there is no objective way to measure a sense of wonder, we tend to have to take people at face value when they say they have such an experience. That being said, the sense of awe that is typically associated with religious experiences can be completely divorced from God and spiritualism. In fact, I have recently blogged about a case of just such an experience being misinterpreted as something supernatural. The truth is that it is not necessary to believe in God, or the supernatural, in order to be rendered awestruck by the size and complexity of our universe. To me, the image of the Earth as a Pale Blue Dot (an image of Earth taken by Voyager 1 from approximately 4 billion miles away) creates a greater sense of reverence in me than any religious text, ceremony, or experience ever has… or (I believe) could.

It is only human to look for patterns and meaning in chaos and natural order, and the human brain excels at these things. It is precisely for this reason why we need scientific inquiry to allow us to sort out all of our sensory biases from reality.