Church interior, A labama, 1936 . (Walker Evans)

Church interior, Alabama, 1936. (Walker Evans)

Science and religion: what is their relationtoday? George F R Ellis, University of Cape Town

Introduction Science and religion are two major long term themes of human thought – indeed two dominating aspects of human culture. Their interaction is of considerable importance both for the way we think about ourselves and the way we behave, which to a large extent flows from our world-view. It underlies our understanding of humanity.

1: The past There has been major conflict between them in the past: in turn, each has dominated and claimed more than it should, and then has had to, or will have to, pull back. First, religion under the guidance of high-handed priests and bishops claimed to give total access to truth, including providing a kind of causal explanation of natural phenomena. Despite some rearguard actions, this claim then had to be retracted in the face of the progress of science and its spectacular success in providing naturalistic explanations for much of what happens in the natural world. This progress in understanding causal mechanisms has been truly amazing, encompassing almost all areas of life.

However some scientists in turn have started claiming too much for science, indeed some have claimed there is nothing science cannot explain, and in their turn some have become as arrogant as the priests once used to be. In particular some have claimed that their turf includes ethics and metaphysics, providing a `third culture.. rendering visible the deeper meaning of our lives, redefining who and what we are’ (John Brockman). This is also an unsustainable position because science per se is simply unable to deal with meaning – for there is no scientific experiment that can experimentally determine it. They are going to have to move back from that claim – it is based on exaggerated estimate of what is possible with the scientific method, combined with making metaphysical assumptions that go beyond what science can in fact claim.

2: The present There is now a growing recognition of mutuality, with an increasing science and religion dialogue taking place, and numerous books appearing on the topic. This debate recognises that major areas of concern of science and religion are separate, and in the main no conflict arises between them: science dealing with `how' and religion with `why'; science with what is, and religion with what ought to be. Indeed this view has been formalised by S J Gould into the idea of `non-overlapping magisteria' or `NOMA' , with each ruling its separate domain and not even a possibility of conflict. The Bible is not a science textbook telling you about thermodynamics or the periodic table of the elements. Chemistry books do not tell you the meaning of life. You need to go to the appropriate sources for each class of questions.

However this too is not sustainable: it is mainly but not always true. Provided religion is not treated in an emasculated way, there are indeed some areas of common concern and potential conflict. Thus there is a vibrant debate now that aims to clarify this in one way or another; some claiming there is indeed still a real conflict, with science dominant; others that there is a possibility of peaceful coexistence; and still others that some kind of integration is possible to give a unified world-view that accommodates both, without diluting either. The latter is my own position. E O Wilson’s book Consilience (1998) also expresses such a hope, but from a completely different metaphysical position, which subordinates religion to science. Areas that used to be sites of conflict, but are no longer considered so by those in the vanguard of the movement, are related to the mechanism of creation and design.

2.1 Origins and the universe: The mechanism of evolution of the universe and the large-scale structures in it - cosmology and the physical big bang. The universe started in a smooth hot state with only elementary particles in equilibrium. It rapidly expanded and cooled, with structures such as galaxies and stars forming spontaneously through the action of gravity. Was there a start to the universe or not?? Is it eternal? This does not in fact make a difference to issues of fundamental causation: only deals with mechanism. Issue of why existence, and why it has this specificnature, remains

2.2 Origins of life: The mechanism of evolution of animals and humans - Darwinian evolution processes - is seen by science as a replacement of special design . It has the capacity to create complex organisation with a purposeful character by the process of random changes over a long time period leading to animals more fitted to survive in their environment.. Laws of physics, and consequent laws of chemistry, are such that spontaneous self-structuring takes place, andthen Darwinian evolution leads to apparent design. This also makes no fundamental difference: God designs these amazing laws rather than individual animals.

However the deeper underlying issues remain unresolved, so there are domains where there remains potential conflict, with debate and a striving for resolution taking place 2.3 The issue of existence: - the metaphysics and ontology of cosmology. This is the issue of design and creation returning at a higher level: what underlies existence and its nature? This is in relation to both space-time, matter, and the laws of physics themselves. • Why is there an ordered universe? • Why any laws of physics at all? • Why these particular ones?

2.4The anthropic issue: - why the universe is such as to allow any process of evolution whatever. Why does it allow life to exist? There are specific relations amongst fundamental forces and particles that allow us to exist, as well as in the nature of the universe itself, governed by initial conditions before the hot big bang (M J Rees: Just Six Numbers, Our Cosmic Habitat) These specific relations to allow life to exist: why?? The design issue is where these fine-tuned physical laws come from. Ascientific proposal is multiverses. But this is not is fact a scientific theory: It is a metaphysical proposal, and belief that it is true is a faith, not a scientifically provable or testable theory. And it just postpones the problem.

2.5 The issue of being human - what is our essential nature in the light of modern biology and in particular of molecular biology and neuroscience. This concerns particularly the related issues of free will and the nature of the soul, and what is the nature of being human - with important correlates in the area of health. Overall: the issue is, What is the quality of humanity? The underlying major theme is that of reductionism in the light of modern science: what is its true nature and implications? This leads on to vital issues in ethics and medicine.

“In behaviourism, there was no such thing as a talent or and ability. Watson had banned them from psychology, together with the contents of the mind, such as ideas, beliefs, desires, and feelings. To a behaviourist, the only legitimate topic for psychology is overt behaviour and how it is controlled by the past and present environment… Behaviourists believed that behaviour could be understood independently of the rest of biology, without attention to the genetic makeup of the animal or the evolutionary history of the species. ..” Pinker, The Blank Slate, p. 19

“In The Behaviour of Organisms [Skinner], the only organisms are rats and pigeons ….”“Watson wrote an influential child-rearing manual recommending that parents establish rigid feeding schedules for their children and give them a minimum of attention and love” Pinker, The Blank Slate, p. 20/21

“Hardliners, led by a vanguard of rather voluble philosophers, believe not merely that consciousness is limited, as experimentalists have been saying for years, but that it plays no significant role in human cognition. They believe that we think, speak, and remember entirely outside its influence. Moreover, the use of the term `consciousness’ is viewed as pernicious because (note the theological undertones) it leads us into error … They support the downgrading of consciousness to the status of an epiphenomenon .. A secondary byproduct of the brain’s activity, a superficial manifestation of mental activity that plays no role in cognition” Merlin Donald, A Mind so Rare, pages 29, 36.

“Dennett is actually denying the biological reality of the self. Selves, he says, hence self-consciousness, are cultural inventions. … the initiation and execution of mental activity is always outside conscious control… Consciousness is an illusion and we do not exist in any meaningful sense. But, they apologize at great length, this daunting fact Does Not Matter. Life will go on as always, meaningless algorithm after meaningless algorithm, and we can all return to our lives as if Nothing Has Happened. This is rather like telling you your real parents were not the ones you grew to know and love but Jack the Ripper and Elsa, She-Wolf of the SS. But not to worry”. Merlin Donald, A Mind so Rare, pages 31, 45.

The devastating effect of dehumanising psychological/ philosophical views: “The practical consequences of this deterministic crusade are terrible indeed. There is no sound biological or ideological basis for selfhood, willpower, freedom, or responsibility. The notion of the conscious life as a vacuum leaves us with an idea of the self that is arbitrary, relative, and much worse, totally empty because it is not really a conscious self, at least not in any important way” Merlin Donald, A Mind so Rare, page 31.

3. The boundaries of science Firstly, by its very nature, science cannot deal with major issues of great importance. Firstly,Ethics Their is a tendency to mistakenly believe that science can handle such issues, either by evolutionary psychology (the imperative of survival) or by sociology (the force of culture), but they are in fact by their very nature beyond the scope of science (and indeed the proponents of these two views often do not even agree amongst themselves). As an example, one can ask those who claim that science can handle ethics, what is the scientific prescription for handing what is currently happening in Iran? Of course there is none.

By its very nature, science cannot deal with · Ethics • Aesthetics · Metaphysics · Meaning The attempt to deal with these issues on a scientific basis is not only misleading, it is positively dangerous: see the Social Darwinism movement and its consequences. It is crucial that they be recognised in their own right over and against science, with scientific factors in their development but their own logic and nature justified in their own terms.

4. The relation of knowledge and existence 4.1 What is the appropriate nature of epistemology in this broad-ranging context: what kinds of evidence should we include in our considerations? How do we test it for validity? How do we relate it to the testing of the nature of reality in broad inclusive explanatory schemes? What is the nature of ontology: what kinds of existence should we assign to entities in the world ? Is there only a material physical world, or are there Platonic worlds we have inevitably to take into account additionally? Indeed the relation of epistemology to ontology is one of the key issues at stake, with most of errors we have made over the centuries, from logical positivism on the one hand to extreme relativism on the other, arising because we continually confuse epistemology with ontology.

4.2 The issue of religious experience: - the interpretation of ethical and spiritual data. Is it all delusion/self constructed, or does some of it relate to reality? Here we encounter the issue of discernment: how to tell true religious/ethical experience from false. This is the key issue in trying to get a religious approach that is compatible with science: to drop dogma and subject theories to testing. This is analogous to the way that science tests the truth-value of theories: religion has a similar need. But by definition these are faith issues where sufficient evidence for proof will never be available.- so we encounter the tension between rationality and faith, and the paradox of justified faith and reasonable hope.

4.3 Ultimate uncertainty: The central point to make, then, in the light of our present day understanding of science and epistemology, is that certainty cannot be attained in these areas – metaphysical doubt remains. Anyone from either side claiming certainty in these issues is either deluded or dishonest; so beware the pedlar of certainty, whether priest or scientist. The outcome is unclear - hence the need for faith and hope on theone hand, and for dialogue and in particular for clarifying what potential conflicts and consistency checks or tests of consilience there may be between the two areas.

4.4 On being Human: faith and hope Essential features of a full human life are faith and hope, driven by the need to make life choices in the face of uncertainty and adversity (and we note here that even atheism is a faith). Rationality, based on impartial analysis of repeated experience and carefully collected evidence, is what gives us our ability to plan sensibly and successfully in the face of reality and its inherent limitations, but hope is often needed in order to continue surviving and functioning in the face of desperate situations – to fight against the odds. Indeed that has been abundantly clear in the recent history of South Africa– there were many times when the rational thing would have been to give up in despair. But the miracle of the political transition happened without the country descending into wholesale bloodshed, because of the political and moral leadership provided by Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu.

Part of the point is that the non-rational clinging to hope is itself part of the transformational process. It is an active factor in changing the context in which we live, and hence the outcomes of our choices and actions. This process has an element of faith – faith in what might happen if hope is pursued. But faith is needed anyhow to provide a basis for thought, values, and action, for a number of reasons, even though it is itself guided by thoughts and values. Faith is needed when the evidence is incomplete; hope when the evidence is against you. Both can be claimed to relate to meaning [Frankl]. First, metaphysical uncertainty is inevitable in terms of ascertaining the underlying nature of reality, as pointed out by Immanuel Kant, and so in order to have some philosophical position to live by, we need to make choices concerning our metaphysical worldviews that cannot be proven to be right (we may be totally persuaded they are true, but that is not a logical proof).

Second, ethical stances also cannot be proven to be right or wrong, but we have to make choices here too, as they guide all our other choices (and making no consciously thought-out choice is itself a choice, in this context). Third, in everyday choices we are always proceeding on the basis of inadequate information, and have to make decisions on the faith and hope that our judgements are right (in choosing business partners, life companions, what career to pursue, and so on). We have to trust some people, thereby accepting that we are not in full control of what happens. Indeed this applies even in science: setting up a scientific project is an exercise in hope [Physics World: March 2004, 18] Finally, we are inevitably concerned about the future - where this is all going to end. Faith and hope naturally arise in this context. These are crucial elements in our exercise of volition.

Thus there are important roles for both rationality and hope in human life, but there is an ongoing tension between them, for rationality is based on logic and proof, but faith functions where there can be no proof. We cannot live without it. Thus in many ways the concept of a purely rational, securely evidence-based approach to life is an illusion. Life is much richer than that. However there is a crucial final point. It is not true that all exercises of faith and hope are equal. Like all our abilities, they too can be used rightly or wrongly. This is where the exercise of discernment is essential. Some faiths, and in particular fundamentalist faiths, are destructive and to be avoided; some hopes are evil. Thus faith and hope, like our actions, have to be guided by ethics - value choices of what are acceptable goalsfor each of us.

Ethics Faith, Hope Rationality Emotion Instincts Each of Rationality, Emotions, Ethics, Faith and Hope are influenced by each of the other, with reason being the key player trying to bring the others into harmony. The instinctive brain underlies this as does the unconscious [not depicted].

4.5 The issue of ethics Openness too has it limits, and the growing interfaith movement is at present liable to be too understanding - to place all faiths and cultures on an equal footing, rather than claiming some are unacceptable. There are good historical and social reasons for this fully open position. Nevertheless it is my view that the long term success of this interfaith movement, particularly in relation to the science and religion dialogue, is going to depend on the establishment of standards of acceptability - and hence criteria of rejection - in the religious and ethical areas as well as in science, where they are the well-established key to success. Indeed the criterion of religious acceptability will have an essential ethical core.

Thus in order to be successful, this movement will take science seriously (testing understanding with data, and rejecting extreme relativism) and have acceptable ethical standards (rejecting religious authoritarianism, and in particular those faith communities with unacceptable ethical behaviour). Here I claim that at a deep level, there is a universal ethic agreed on by all religions – namely kenosis (giving up and self-sacrifice). Much religious practice however contradicts that inspiring ethic, and indeed has a horrific historical record which is rightly rejected by humanitarians, scientists, and the broader public. We have to have standards of acceptability in this regard in order to dissociate ourselves from the unacceptable.

There is an equal need for recognition that as well as providing many positive services, there have been major baleful effects of science, not merely in terms of enabling major environmental destruction and horrific weapons of war, but also in terms of promoting a dehumanising view of humanity This has caused as much evil as any other aspect of human existence when codified in the social Darwinism movement. The fact that one can make that statement is itself a proof that ethical judgements are independent of such scientifically based theories. What is needed is a sound approach to ethics in relation to science, technology, and development, informed by science but also informed by values that cannot come from science.

4.6 The issue of fundamentalism Fundamentalism is the claim that a partial truth is the whole truth. This tendency to claim that a partial truth (of course the one that the proclaimer happens to be expert in) is the whole truth, is one of the dominant ways that humanity goes astray intellectually. It derives its power from the fact that the partial truth being proclaimed is indeed true, or at least is experienced as true by the believer. It derives its destructive power from the refusal to acknowledge all the other significant factors in the causal nexus influencing events, either denying that they exist, or at least denying their effectiveness. It makes the implicit or explicit claim that the proclaimer is the person with sole access to truth, who others should therefore defer to, while also closing the minds of the proclaimer to seeing any larger reality that may exist.

Some religion is fundamentalist, but much is not. Fundamentalist religion is bad religion, and is also incompatible with good science. However open-minded non-dogmatic religion can be compatible with science. There is a large and sophisticated literature on this It is crucial to note that fundamentalism occurs not only in religion, but also in all the sciences - natural and human - and indeed even in the humanities. Scientific fundamentalism is bad philosophy, and will usually lead to bad science. Atheism is a religion just as much as say Christianity, as it is an unprovable belief system claming to clarify the meaning of life. It can be or dogmatic or open minded: fundamentalist or non-fundamentalist.

Scientism – the claim that science is the sole and perfect access to all truth - is a fundamentalist atheist religion, complete with a creed : "Science is the sole route to true, complete, and perfect knowledge" (Peter Atkins, Galileo's Finger, page 237) and a relic of a saint [the morbid relic of Galileo's finger itself]. It makes its claims by declamation (“it has to be so”) rather than legitimate argumentation, for as I discuss below neither science nor philosophy can establish its main philosophical claims; but it is as dogmatic and closed a belief system as any religion has ever been. It occurs in physics and chemistry, in biology and the social sciences; and proceeds by proscribing what can be legitimately considered the target of enquiry, the methods used, the data allowed, and the kinds of explanation entertained.

5: The Future The debate can be expected to grow with the establishment of academic standards in this area, supported by public debate, lectures, meetings, journals, books, and societies. The debate will be international and interfaith - indeed it is an excellent meeting ground between the faiths (including atheism), and gives a sound basis for interfaith discussion, enabling consideration of important issues without a head-on clash on faith fundamentals. Indeed, from this viewpoint, despite the deep metaphysical/philosophical divide between monotheism and non-theism, the main divide in the religious world is not between the different faiths but rather between the fundamentalist and non-fundamentalists of whatever faith.

This dialogue is being promoted internationally by various groups in many countries through lectures, courses, and journals, but particularly in a major programme run by the Templeton Foundation – funding prizes, lectures, university courses, specific research programmes, and the Science and the Spiritual Quest project. This is a broad-ranging vision which has achieved much in terms of promoting this debate, despite vocal opposition to its activities from some quarters. To obtain an idea of the vibrancy and breadth of this broad interaction, see for example the magazine Science and Spirit (seehttp://www.science-spirit.com/), thenewspaper Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology of the Templeton Foundation (see http://www.templeton.org/RN_main.asp for a web version), or the `meta’-archives at http://www.meta-list.org .

6 The Need The need is for widespread recognition and support of this fundamentally important debate. What is required is a science-ethics-religion triad, because the debate is incomplete and inconclusive without including all three. Thus it must take cognisance of science – studying the mechanisms of how things work; religion – studying why, thus issues of meaning and spirituality, and ethics - what to do; making it real. These must all be approached with humility and questioning (so avoiding any of the fundamentalisms), but also with rigour (honest intellectual assessment avoiding the woolly minded, and with an ethical commitment that informs the discussion. Thus to be really worthwhile it should involve consideration of both hard science, with its high standards of rigour of proof, and hard religion, with its high standards of ethical demands.

Perhaps the discussion should move further, for example to include in addition to this triad, aesthetics, because beauty is also a fundamentally important aspect of reality with a power to move and enthuse people in a profound way. Whether these further aspects are included or not, the core of the need is for integrative studies that transcend the usual disciplinary boundaries and make links between the various issues discussed here. In particular it should be ready to tackle ethical issues raised by science and technology – cloning, GM crops, information technology, etc. It will value both science and religion, and respect both. It will try to understand the true complexity of existence in all its dimensions. This can be claimed to be true spirituality.

From Spirituality and Liberation, R McAfee Brown

“In 1967 I was a young officer in a Scottish battalion engaged in peace keeping duties in Aden town, in what is now Yemen. The situation was similar to Iraq, with people being killed every day, As always those who suffered the most were the innocent local people. Not only were we tough but we had the firepower to pretty well destroy the whole town had we wished.” “But we had a commanding officer who understood how to make peace, and he led us to do something very unusual. Not to react when we were attacked! Only if we were 100% certain that a particular person had thrown a grenade, or fired a shot at us, were we allowed to fire. During our tour of duty we had 102 grenades thrown at us, and in response the entire battalion fired the grand total of two shots, killing one grenade thrower.” “The cost to us was over 100 of our own men wounded and, (surely by the grace of God?), only one killed. When they threw rocks at us we stood fast. When they threw grenades, we hit the deck, and after the explosion we got to our feet and stood fast! We did not react in anger or indiscriminately. “

“This was not the anticipated reaction! Slowly, very slowly, the local people began to trust us and made it clear to the local “terrorists” that they were not welcome in their area. At one stage neighbouring battalions were having a torrid time with attacks. We were playing soccer with the locals! We had in fact brought peace to our area at the cost of our own blood.” “ How had this been achieved? Principally because we were led by a man whom every soldier in the battalion knew would die for him if required. Each soldier in turn came to be prepared to sacrifice himself for such a man. Many people may sneer that we were merely obeying orders. But this was not the case. The Scottish soldier has scant respect for rank, but great respect for real leaders. “ “Our commanding officer was more highly regarded by his soldiers than the general. One might almost say loved. So gradually the heart of the peacemaker began to grow in each man, and a determination to succeed whatever the cost. Probably most of the soldiers, like myself, only realised years afterward what had been achieved. “

Church interior, A labama, 1936 . (Walker Evans)