Science, Religion and Faith
[Some things to think about and question]

The Problem Speaking of A. N. Whitehead, whose interests ranged far from his accomplishments as a mathematician, Jacques Barzun says:

       This applies to all of us who are neither scientists nor theologians, and the operative phrase is: uses his intellect. Note that Barzun does not use intelligence, but intellect – there is a difference. Intellect is the mechanism of mind that provides the organism the ability to see clearly, should they choose, what is before them, and intelligence is that vague noun that supposedly defines one’s capabilities to solve physical and knowledge problems. Those who might challenge the truth of scientific or religious propositions can use their intellect, if they have the desire for truth, to seek out what is available in the way of evidence. I believe it is easier than most suppose; it takes interest, some discipline and patience. But such enterprises of exploring these propositions demands above all, that the mind is held open, and that openness is perhaps the sine qua non of the intellect.

      Today we see the conflict between science and religion rising up n the United States– though it never really left us -- and consuming popular attention that might be better devoted to the truly serious problems of the day. But for those who are challenging, for example, the theory of Darwinian evolution, the issue is believed worthy of concern because that theory runs head long into their religious faith. After 1860 and the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, and after the appearance of the Bohr theory of quantum physics and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, the introduction of chance as a, or the, critical feature of nature not only shattered the idea of a Newtonian mechanistic universe, it disturbed the idea of God-guided deterministic or predestined one. Even Einstein, displaying his initial aversion to quantum theory, exclaimed: “God does not play dice with the universe.”

      To many religious minds [especially Christian] the idea of chance as a factor in how they, or any organism, came about is wrong since according the Christian Bible in Genesis it is quite explicit that God made all living creatures, including man. Even those who are less accepting of this orthodoxy, find it difficult to accept chance as a determinant in how they and other organisms came about. Such people see the world teleologically, not a process that runs helter-skelter with no guidance from a transcendent managing agent. The recently invented euphemism for creationism, intelligent design, is an attempt to convince the marginally religious and agnostics that organic life is far too complex to have come about simply from chance genetic mutations and natural selection, the key tenets of Darwinian evolution. [True believers require no convincing.] This position has great appeal, since it simplifies the issue by not having to offer and explain any science behind the concept of intelligent design. The intellect does not have to be exercised; the mind can rest easy over the matter. For those people, “There but for the grace of God go I,” can never be replaced with: “There but for the whim of chance, go I.”

     On a broader scope of the matter of science and religion, there is a schism between the two that is not only about evolution. The term layman today usually refers to one who knows little or no science, while heretofore it applied to those not of a religious order or clerical position in the church. The layman may have only a smidgen of an idea as to what the “scientific method” is. Science may provide the fundamental ingredients needed by clever technologists to produce things like cell phones and computers, but few care much for knowing what those fundamental ingredients are, and far more interest and attention is given to the end product technology because it is in hand and has utility for work and play. Thus it might be claimed that the scientist is more and more removed from the interest and curiosity of the layman, but not distal in the sense of God, rather in the sense of lack of interest. The person browsing in the magazine rack, picking up a magazine that popularizes science, such as Scientific American, Discovery and Popular Science may show some passing interest in the discovery of a new planet or the possibilities ripe within the emerging world of nano-technology, but that interest is more likely to be little more than a: Wow, how fascinating! And further exploration and study is not undertaken. Science is for scientists; technology is for us to use. But religion, which is based on faith, not exploration and analysis, is a different matter altogether.

     Why is it that the science behind cell phones and computers, both of which are fast becoming an integral and ubiquitous part of our modern milieu, is viewed with little fear, while the science behind the theory of evolution is seen as threatening and is to be challenged? Isn’t science for one field the same as science for any other in terms of methodology? But the scientific method that produces insights into viral infections, tectonic plate movements and supernovas is not different in kind from the scientific method that produces theories about evolution. To challenge the current theory of evolution is to challenge the method that brought it about, and to challenge that method is to challenge all such methods – and they are all of the same cloth: observation, hypothesis, experimentation, testing, verification.. The layman cannot be expected to verify the science that leads to his useful technologies, but if he challenges any one science he is intellectually obligated to show cause for such challenge and offer rational reasons for doing so.

     The hue and cry against embryonic stem cell research is a case in point here. While there is no challenge to the science or the efficacy of the procedures involved, there is serious and passionate challenge to engaging in such research – even when it is acknowledged that such research may eventually produce cures for terrible diseases. Is there a connection between resistance to such research and the challenges to Darwin’s theories? Of course; it is the belief in God as the sole creator of life. In the case of evolution versus intelligent design, or more accurately, creationism, a counter theory is proposed that has no scientific evidence for support; in the case of stem cell research the counter “theory” – more aptly called belief – is that only God should create life and to use even the few cells of the blastocyst for research is tantamount to murder. [Curiously, many who persist in this position regarding the taking of life, seldom resist the idea of capital punishment or going to war, often for obscure or inexplicable reasons.] To date, the only counter is that the complexity observed in life form cannot possibly have arrived via random mutations and natural selection – there must have been another agent responsible. Yet, complexity is an abstract concept of the human mind; a hurricane or tornado is also complex.

     It seems that the upshot of the position of those of religious faith – mainly Christians – is to pick and choose the proper and acceptable domain of science and scientific intentions. Science is not necessarily seen as a monolithic and dehumanizing aspect of our lives that knows no bounds as to intention or results, however some scientific applications are seen as amoral at best and immoral at worst. What can possibly be done, if anything, to remedy this impasse? Is the issue squarely and only on the shoulders of the religious faithful to find compromise?

 Axiomatic Basis
The scientist’s belief system is axiomatically based. There are inviolable rules that attend all scientific endeavors, not the least being those that deal with mathematics. Any scientist, who disavows the axioms of mathematics, thus disavowing the entire body and utility of that discipline, is in real trouble when it comes to establishing, elucidating and proving important aspects of their research and its results. How are the scientist and mathematician to defend their belief system, especially since it is based on what is called self evident? To the religious faithful, their belief may also be self evident – who is right and who can and should be challenged? What could or should be the bases and tools of such challenges?

     We have then, two belief systems, both of which depend on either what are called self evident axioms or faith in religious dogma – which to many is also self evident. The philosophical view of the world as naturalistic, beginning with the ancient Greeks, predates organized religion as we know it today. The views and ideas of Pythagoras, Aristotle and Hippocrates of Kos, though they may have to some degree accepted the existence of the gods, saw the processes of organic life, the health of the body, the behavior of the physical world, as externalized and objective, occurring independently of some divine force. At the same time, however, Pythagoras and Plato suggested that there were truths that existed beyond our sensory experience and were thus transcendental in nature. For these men, there were universals, certain irrevocable and irrefutable truths and facts that exist in the cosmos independently from the human mind. Such beliefs remain alive today in many thinkers, including some scientists; Roger Penrose believes that number and mathematical formulations have ontic existence, and are in fact “God given.”. Kant echoes the same kind of belief, though secular in nature, in his concept of synthetic a prioris. Newton’s laws of the physical world were considered immutable and beyond questioning for a long while and still serve us in good stead.

     Science, at least prior to around 1860, was based in large part on a dependence on transcendental truths and processes that, while perhaps not self evident, were accepted as gospel. Along with this position were the geometric axioms of Euclid, and later the mathematical axioms of Peano, and those were considered as self evident, their only basis for an apodictic status being their apparent obviousness to our cognitive system. Today, no one will challenge these axioms. Even though Kurt Gödel successfully challenged the axiomatic basis as complete and perfect in dealing with the propositions of integer mathematics, this in no way has altered the utility of mathematics in general – the axioms still stand as the fundamental basis for all mathematics. Today, science is a combination of these two sets of concepts: the existence of transcendental truths and the self evidence of certain axioms. I include the acceptance of transcendental truths for one simple reason: the scientist believes that there is such a thing as truth and factual goings on in the universe, that lie in wait to be discovered. Like it or not, this is a Platonic position. Should we call this a kind of faith? I believe we should. Does that make it religious in nature? Perhaps – depending on how one chooses to define religion.

     If it can be called religion, then consider this: here, on the one hand is a three pound mass, called the brain, that uses symbols to express belief A; and here is another three pound mass, called another brain that uses the same kinds of symbols to express belief B, and it may be that these beliefs are in conflict. If they are in conflict, how is to be determined which one is right? Of course this presupposes that indeed one is right, and that there is such a thing as absolute “rightness.” What if neither is right? What if, in the end, both are right? What is required in another three pound mass that would objectively produce, through some dialectic process, the answer for these questions? Or, put another way: who or what is to be the final arbiter of this situation?

Utility and Success.
Consider the observable utilities that may grow out of belief A and B. Which, if either, when applied and used in the world produce what are unquestionably useful and benign products related to man’s various requirements of living? In other words, which of the belief systems can point to success? If both systems can be judged according to the presuppositions and methodologies that created them, what should that judging consist of? Must the two judgmental approaches be the same?

     Few can doubt the utility of science; can the utility of religious faith also boast of success? Undoubtedly, one’s faith may see them through tough times, provide succor and a grounding for morality, and of course these things have great utility -- we are frail, often skeptical and fearful animals that require protection against the tribulations of life. [One might ask here to what source of such protection the agnostic or atheistic scientist goes when life’s travails arrive in their world.] But succor and moral guidance aside, it would be hard to convince the faithful that prayer is not an effective device in dealing with all kinds of problems, tragedies and ill fortune, and yet the statistics on prayer would undoubtedly show that as a general rule it does very little in the way of brining about what is prayed for. i. e. it is rarely a success. Have thousands of years of developed church dogma provided guarantees for a successful human community? No; yet, in the face of the lack of successes, religious faith and the use of prayer prevails. Karen Armstrong mentions prayer among some of the Jewish holocaust victims:

     This sounds like a peculiarly Jewish perspective on God – He can ignore or be passive in the face of horrific cruelties, and yet He does exist and must be acknowledged, appealed to and worshipped in the only way open to us – by prayer and meditative exercises.

Revelation
It is customary to treat religion as revelation, since much of what is in the Christian bible, as well as the Koran, came out of revelations. While some may challenge the value of revelations, it should not be forgotten that much in science can be considered revelation; a midnight awareness, some epiphany, dealing with the propagation of light might have informed Einstein – is this not of the same cognitive genus as a religious revelation? The scientist might answer with: No, it is not the same because Einstein’s revelations, fantasies or dreams were informed by his grounding in mathematics and physics and would have occurred within the framework of those disciplines. In addition, Rene Descartes claimed that the Angel of Truth visited him and prompted him to invent analytical geometry and formulate metaphysical dualism. In this we might speculate that he was grounded in Plato’s version of metaphysical dualism. Should we not also claim that the revelations of Moses, producing the Decalogue, were informed by his life long experience in dealing with people, and that the proscriptions of those commandments were basically ones that would aid in the management of a community? That is, revelations do not appear ex nihilo – they stem cognitively from something prior.

     Seen in this light, it is hard to argue against religion simply because it does not use the same axiomatic basis for its belief as the scientists do. The religious minded have faith, never mind whence it comes, and the scientist also has faith – faith in the reasonableness of the fundamental principles of science and faith in the inductive and deductive uses of those principles. Are there two different kinds of faith involved here?

Rational Arguments?
While many disputations occur within various religions, the core belief system is not disputed, and no fruitful argumentation can expected to occur between religions and surely not between religions and science. While scientists certainly argue among themselves about various aspects of their science specialty, they, not unlike theologians, do not argue over their basic precepts either – such things as the fundamental “laws” or the axioms that attend those laws. It is left to disinterested philosophers and epistemologists to discuss and analyze the relationships within and among all religions and science as broad aspects of the human animal. But those of either religious or scientific faith pay such thinkers little mind; the man on the street who goes to church on Sunday and believes that God created all organic and inorganic matter will seldom read any text that in any way challenges his faith or presents philosophical or psychological ideas on the whys and wherefores of religion. As an example, I recently loaned two books to a practicing Catholic, who happens to be a science teacher and a brother-in-law. The books were Karen Armstrong’s A History of God, and Kai Nielsen’s Ethics Without God. A few months later, he returned them and confessed that he really could not “get into them,” meaning they were neither interesting nor supportive of his faith. Anything that smacks of a challenge to one’s faith is ignored – not because one is stupid or lazy, but because they choose not to use their intellect to explore some area that may run counter to a core belief system. What was strange in the case I mention here is that the Armstrong book is simply a fine historical survey of the three great religions of the world, with no intention on her part of denigrating or supporting any of the three. Perhaps any disinterested approach to analyzing religion is automatically suspect!

    Needless to say, I do not discuss religion with my brother-in-law, for two reasons: it would be fruitless, and I have no desire to insult his religious beliefs by insinuating I know better, or that he is not fully using his intellect. But I must ask: is there any place, any forum that provides the space for the commingling of ideas that touch on the important issues confronting mankind today – such things as the limits to our freedom, curing disease, dealing with the environment, preventing war, caring for the poor and elderly, mutual respect and toleration among all? These all have religious and scientific dimensions and require that all minds be open to possible solutions.

     The rational argument for stem cell research seems clear enough. The potential for curing terrible disease is surely a sound and compassionate reason for supporting such research, and the potential utility could not be more clear or persuasive. However, those whose fundamental religious precepts include the belief that human life begins at conception, the defense of such a position is equally clear: destroying a few undifferentiated cells in a Petri dish is murder. No amount of rational argumentation will sway those of this position.

[Christians who take the time to read history and the history of the Christian faith, will see that the fierce argumentation among the Catholic hierarchy in the fourth century A. D. during the reign of Constantine, concerned whether or not Jesus had been a mortal human, especially blessed by God with his mission of salvation, or was himself divine and was, in fact, God. Today the phrase Our Lord Jesus Christ, confirming which argument won out, owes its existence to the Nicene Creed, eventually agreed to, to some degree, by the gathered bishops. It was a human decision, and could very well have gone the other way. Even well after this Creed came about, the church leaders still argued among themselves as to its verity. Those Christians who pray to their Lord Jesus Christ might pause to reflect on the fact that their honored orthodoxy came about through argumentation and was never “the word of God” as put forth in the scriptures, but simply the decision of man.]

Faith

I have been speaking in the broadest terms of the religiously faithful, without making any distinction between those who are merely convinced in the reality and presence of a deity, and those who have a profound, virtually Abrahamic faith to the extent they value that belief over their own lives. Many of the 160,000,000 Americans of the Christian faith become aroused enough to go beyond a mere Sunday observance of their faith when something comes along that does or seems to challenge that faith. While most of the time their faith is quietly secure, if they suspect that a critical underpinning of that faith runs counter to the large force of science [or perhaps some undesirable judicial ruling], and the scientific community, the natural reaction is to resist the force – usually not to attempt to understand it. The first reaction is to hold fast on the faith – it is easier than trying to understand the nature of the threat in any detail.

     As for the scientist, there are no challenges to his or her faith in the scientific method and principles, or challenges to the veracity of experimental results such that the foundations of science are cast into any doubt. Scientists are seldom challenged by those of religious faith to the point of serious distraction and angst. Clearly it is not a two way street of challenges; science is not seriously challenged by religion, but the reverse is true, and it is a matter of one kind of faith being up against another kind; one being threatened and even afraid; the other feeling no threat or fear at all. When it was discovered that subatomic particles, such as electrons behave like particles and like waves, no faith was shaken, but merely the need for further theorizing and experimentation within the general disciples of subatomic physics. Instead of bemoaning the apparent impossibility of something being one thing and another thing at the same time as an infallible dictum of the physical world, physicists saw a new vista of possibilities open up.

[Would it be possible, considering the possibility of science creating life in the laboratory, for those of religious faith to also see a new vista of possibilities open up for the shape and perhaps even an enriched aspect of their faith? If indeed such a thing were to happen, it would prove that it is not only by the grace of God that life can be made, but also through the abilities of science. The likelihood of such a “conversion” is not strong.]

    Kierkegaard says, of faith “….faith begins precisely where thinking leaves off.” Of course this was written [in Fear and Trembling] in a spiritual or religious context and the comment follows a long discussion on Abraham and his terrible decision dealing with his faith in God. But I see little difference in religious faith and scientific faith – both are defined as belief not based on proof. Neither can the axioms of Peano nor the existence of God be proven, though many early attempts were made in the latter case and Gödel proved the inadequacy of an axiomatic system to be entirely without flaw. But if one has faith in something, a system or a source or a god, while there cannot be proof – by definition – there can be evidence as to the value and efficacy that results from that faith. In the case of religion, I imagine that the value would be seen by most to be the establishment of immutable and unchallengeable moral certitude. In the case of the faith of the scientist or mathematician, the value would be seen in the products that can come about as a result of the faith, not to mention the understanding gained as to the make up and processes of the cosmos.

     Thus, if this is the case, the value of scientifically based products is put up against the value of a moral code. But it is quite easy to demonstrate that both of these values are contingent, relative and subjective. The value of any product [not the monetary value] resides in its purpose to serve society, and society is composed of many who have different needs and desires. The value of a moral code depends on how the individual interprets whatever specific moral code is seen to be manifest in their particular religion. This suggests that whatever seeming value results from the application of one’s faith, is ultimately personal in both cases – the religious and the scientific.

Are we then at a dead end? Is it all a matter of subjectivity? In discussing the mind-set of the faithful following the Protestant reformation, Barzun says:

     Perhaps here is the secret to this matter: truth by consensus as a protective membrane that holds a group together -- scientists as one group and the religious faithful as another. The core of this is the nature of the truth involved in both cases, and truth we know is an abstraction often as philosophically vague as beauty and meaning. If truth comes about through consensus, then only when disparate faiths can merge into a single faith can disharmony among them vanish and a new truth and faith emerge. The scientist and the religious faithful alike will no doubt argue against such a confluence, but we can only conjecture that lacking this, the hapless condition we find today will continue. It makes one strive to believe in some meta-faith that encompasses all others – perhaps a “religion” of the future. It will require that all camps of belief use their intellect as a guide in the great regions outside their profession, and outside their faiths.

A Personal View

              The true delight is in the finding out, rather than in the knowing.
               -- Isaac Asimov

Many scientists, those who study the cosmos and the micro-cosmos, believe that there is a Theory of Everything [TOE] that explains all the workings of the universe. This is a kind of Holy Grail for these scientists, and they share two things with those who believe in God, Allah or Jaweh: First, that there is a TOE, and second, that it might be discovered. If one replaces TOE with God, there is little difference in this belief position. There is an Arabic word, wujud, that means: “that which can be found.” I suggest that both TOE and God can be seen by many as wujud. There is no proof whatsoever that there is a TOE, but since it has been the experience of much of science that there are rational explanations for various phenomena, it is logical that there is a final explanation for all phenomena, and it will likely be expressible mathematically. [This echoes Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover] The belief in a TOE is meta-science, and metaphysical, as are all theologies. Is such a belief, as Kierkegaard says, beyond thinking, or is it merely an example of indoctrination and inductive thinking? Can the scientist who seeks the TOE claim that his or her belief system, regarding the TOE, is any different from a theology claiming that God exists, and can be found?

     Undoubtedly there are many religious people who not only believe in God, they believe there is no need for search or verification; they believe they have found Him, and that knowledge is manifest in their faith. But the scientist, in his or her quest for the TOE is also using faith – faith that the TOE exists, and faith that it can eventually be found. It was once said of the composers Gustav Mahler and Anton Bruckner, that Mahler was searching for God, but that Bruckner had found Him. Who is to say which man was more in touch with God or more spiritually devout? Is not the search as valuable as the find? Indeed, Blaise Pascal, in his Pensees, has God say: “You would not seek me if you had not already found me.”

     In closing, I ask still more questions: Even if some final and provable TOE were to be found, what would that mean? What would we do differently in our lives? Would all science come to a halt? Would religions then be silenced and their needs among troubled and unhappy minds vanish? I have the feeling that, barring some fantastic alteration of what a human animal is, little would change in the way we see and deal with life and one another on a personal level.

Wolfgang Pauli spoke wisely: