In my meanderings the other day I happened upon a list of Muslim scientists, which--at first glance--might seem a bit odd. I say "odd" because there is a certain conditioning that sometimes leads us to believe not only that scientists wear the same hat in the lab 9-5 that they do after clocking out for the night, but that they should do so. In short, the argument goes, the mode of thinking required by scientific inquiry should intrude on all aspects of a scientist's thinking. And thus being a [insert any religion] scientist would seem like some sort of contradiction. But it's a five o'clock world and scientists are allowed to realize that there are indeed unscientific things in this world (like fashion or the appeal of reality TV).
The people in that wiki list might be Muslim and scientists or they may well be Muslim scientists. To be done well, in the least biased way possible, natural science has to rely only on what we can observe--no miracles, nothing outside that which we can very-nearly-but-not-quite-literally hold in our hands. A deus ex machina won't get you even partial credit for a physics question you're unable to answer (or, as Laplace succinctly stated the philosophy when asked where God fit into his model of planetary orbits, "I had no need of that hypothesis.") But it doesn't follow that just because this is the way we have to do science, that this is the way we have to view the universe. A scientific perspective of the universe does not necessarily imply an atheistic view. Science says we can only deal with the tangible; it doesn't say the tangible is all that is or all that can ever be. That's not to say that this sort of world view (sometimes called metaphysical naturalism) isn't popular among some scientific types--including, for a long time, myself--but only that it doesn't follow logically from scientific thinking.
Though some are loath to admit it--lest the romantic picture of a struggle between science and religion for the intellectual soul of humanity be shattered--science owes a tremendous debt to religion. Priests, monks, and otherwise religiously-minded participants are responsible for some of the great advances of science; many people don't realize that the big bang theory of cosmology was invented by a Catholic priest in the 1920s, while a trio of atheist astronomers developed and pushed the competing steady state theory until long after the idea had worn out its welcome. But the debt I speak of reaches much further than mere personalities, men and women who happened to embrace both religion and science. It is a creed shared by both the most atheistic of scientists and the most starry-eyed of religious believers. It is the simple belief that the universe has a mind and we can read it.
Einstein is famously quoted as saying "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is at all comprehensible." To the religious-minded, the universe makes such perfect, coherent sense and possesses an underlying order because an intelligence lies behind it all. Indeed, some religious adherents have pointed to the mere fact that science can exist at all as evidence of a higher power . To the atheistic scientist, the fact that science can exist--that an underlying simplicity and order hold sway and we can lay down with mathematical precision a series of rules that seem to govern the entire universe--is both exhilarating and deeply puzzling. Physical science implicitly embraces a "God-as-lawgiver" conception of the universe, regardless of whether it explicitly endorses the "God" bit (though I think it would be a grave mistake to limit ourselves to considering only the Judeo-Christian conception of a deity in thinking through this).
A decade ago, Stephen Jay Gould advanced the notion that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria, meaning they cover entirely different domains of inquiry and thus do not--cannot--conflict. The empirical and spiritual are not competing for the same scraps. Regardless of whether that's true--and it has been debated--science and religion do overlap in at least one fundamental way: they're both driven by the same forces. Furthermore, both are after a deeper understanding of reality and, I dare say, they want to glean some bona fide meaning from whatever picture of reality emerges (every equation invites interpretation). Physics pursues that understanding by seeking a single unifying law from which all else follows, religion goes a step further by looking for the source from which such a principle would arise. So it is indeed possible to have Muslim scientists or Christian scientists or scientists who pursue a spiritual fulfillment far from the organized religions*. The same human factors--confusion, uncertainty, terror--push people toward science and religion but neither discipline by itself can assuage our anxieties. As long as human beings retain the essentials of their humanity, neither science nor religion is going away.
*I tend to think of "religion" in terms of an abstract mode of thought rather than a concrete social institution like an organized religion. So, while grievances could be lodged against specific organized religions, "religion" as I've tried to use the word in this post is a bit apart from that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
Another quote from Einstein, which I think is also applicable. Religion and science, as Stanek points out, are not incompatible in their aims. However, I feel that the largest obstacle standing in the way of science and religion truly coexisting is institutional religion. Oftentimes, belonging to a particular religion--the Roman Catholic Church fro example-- dictates what an individual may or may not believe in. Unfortunately, these institutions often serve as places for people to shrug off the responsibility of decision. Instead, these institutions should be sources of information and one of many sources of education on which to base ones decisions, not an all knowing center of answers.
I believe that it is necessary to draw from both religious beliefs as well as the broad field of scientific fact in order to form one's world view. Though parts of religious belief and science disagree, it is not impossible to obtain a balance between the two, but it is nonetheless difficult to reconcile some differences.
Do you feel that there's some contradiction between what your (organized) religion teaches and science? I imagine the vast majority of people view the Bible as more metaphorical than literal, in which case it isn't really trying to "explain" any physical phenomena.
There's the old "god of the gaps" argument that basically says religion exists to fill in gaps in our scientific knowledge and, as scientific progress fills in those gaps, the domain over which religion holds sway steadily shrinks. People invoked gods to explain why it rained before the water cycle was understood, etc. Then you extrapolate that out to say that if the potential for scientific advancement is truly boundless (i.e. we could in principle--if we had enough time--learn just about everything), then in the long-run there is no need for god. Thus even here and now when we have imperfect knowledge god is an extraneous and intellectually bankrupt concept.
Now I don't buy that for various reasons, not least of which is that I don't believe science is a tool of unlimited power; its limitations are inherent to its nature and cannot--even in principle--be overcome. But do you think there is some sort of "god of the gaps" analog going on that leads to your particular church trying to put the reins on science or knowledge?
I'm not sure if you're talking to me or not, but if you are, I think I presented the blog post erroneously! I didn't mean to insinuate that science could replace religion, but that it, rather, could not. There will always be a tiny bit of unknown. Like...what's the name...Zeno's paradox, I think it's called, with the tortoise and the runner. If science could explain everything in the universe, literally everything, then theoretically one might could prove why the universe exists, which then puts it into the bounds of religion. If that proof is, oh, "Because a God exists and He willed it into being," then there you go. Science and religion have mashed together.
The beginning of the post is me thinking through opposing views. Originally religion had dominion over all parts of life, the supernatural and the natural. But I don't think it could ever deal with the supernatural, because it deals with what you can see and measure, as I think you said.
If not, er, nevermind.
-Teshale
So.... the blog decided not to post my long response to Stanek's secondary post which I wrote out last night. Here is a somewhat abbreviated version:
I do not really think that my organized religion is attempting to reign in the expansion of science or the pursuit of knowledge. Rather, I think that it is struggling to adapt to the world that it must exist in. God is not the only thing that makes religion. The code of morals that religion gives is, I believe the most important part of any religion.
As I said before, religion should inform an individuals perception and decisions concerning big problems. In past times, people did use god as a way to explain natural phenomena. However, our current world is steeped more in moral conundrums than physical oddities. Thus, organized religion must adapt to serve the purpose of illuminating these moral issues.
For example, the Roman Catholic Church, and perhaps most forms of Christianity, teach that life begins at conception and not at any point afterwards. Thus, abortion is ending a human life, and thereby a sin. As a Catholic, I believe that life does begin at conception, but, I feel that abortion is acceptable in only the most extreme situations. Ultimately, I believe it is the woman's choice.
At any rate, this and several other situations should not (and I would argue, cannot) be decided by a church which issues an universal answer for all circumstances (in abortion's case, a resounding NO). In response to the "god of the gaps" question, I fully understand the theory, though I find it uneducated and even a bit immature. The human race has forever turned to something, ANYTHING to explain the inexplicable and give us hope when there appears to be none. Religion does serve this purpose, though some organized religions struggle in doing so, failing to recognize the new role that they must play: to inform us, not solve our issues for us.
Sorry, Teshale, that was directed at Bradan. But your point is well taken.
Bradan, the sort of thing you're talking about is what Gould was getting at with the idea of non-overlapping magisteria: science tells us how the universe works, but religion deals with issues of moral significance, etc. Science, obviously, can never cover that sort of thing but somebody has to. Speaking of morality, that's the subject we've turned to in our latest exchange. Check the front page.
Post a Comment