( 6 votes, average: 3.83 / 5 )
Loading ...Most people who don’t think that Richard Dawkins is God will agree that science and religion are compatible. The standard compatibility argument is that science describes the physical world and religion describes the spiritual world, so as long as they each stick to their own playground no one will get hurt. While intuitively appealing, I think this is a fundamentally wrong-headed way of looking at the relationship between science and religion. Underlying this argument is the assumption that science and religion are coherent and static bodies of knowledge.
I don’t think this assumption is true. Science and religion are both methods of understanding the world. Scientific knowledge is always in flux, but its methods are always the same: identify independent variables, control for extraneous influences, and explain empirical causality. This method of discovery is necessarily limited to physical reality because science just can’t deal with anything that is not observable.
All religions, too, are characterized by the same method of discovery: interpretation. Religion provides us with the points of reference and framework for interpreting spiritual reality through hermeneutics – a system for discovering meanings by looking at the same thing through several points of view. The interpretive methods of religion help us to make sense of reality that transcends the simply physical. Religion also provides standards, boundaries, and premises of interpretation: humans are fundamentally spiritual, we worship God, life is valuable, etc.
If we look at science and religion in this way, we can transcend a lot of silly and jealous debates. For instance, the debate about intelligent design is premised on two sides arguing about whether science or religion should have the last word on unexplained (or unexplainable) phenomena. But why treat science or religion as exclusive or final revelations of insight about the world? Scientists used to think that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones. Christians used to think that the Africans were morally inferior to Europeans. Previously considered authoritative knowledge, these beliefs have been overturned by further inquiry. But revising these positions has not invalidated scientific and religious methods of inquiry, it has just shown that human understanding evolves.
If we rely on science and religion for the genius of their methods rather than the fallible and limited products of these methods, we’ll all understand the world much better. Moreover, it will give us the humility to realize that we are ever striving to understand the world in ways that are necessarily incomplete.
Scientific knowledge evolves. Religious knowledge evolves. What more is there to say? Quit squabbling and get on with it.
“Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism.” (‘Abdu’l-Baha)
Bookmark: 
I like the fact that you try to refute the idea–supported by Stephen Jay Gould–that religion and science should just stay out of each other’s business.
One thing I think isn’t clear in your argument here is that ’spiritual reality’, which religion gives us a method for investigating, includes some elements of material reality, while the reverse is not true. I don’t mean to imply that science is therefore inferior to religion, but to point out that its scope is limited to the material world, while that of religion is not limited to the non-material world (whatever that might mean).
It strikes me as a crucial distinction that isn’t evident throughout the post.
That said, I don’t think I could put the idea much better than this: “If we rely on science and religion for the genius of their methods rather than the fallible and limited products of these methods, we’ll all understand the world much better.”
Well done, Odysseus.