Analogy between Science and Religion - Literature review Example

The basis for the dominance that science gained compared to religion was the power of reason and the support of empirical data that science commanded. Realizing this, theologians have always tried to prove that religion was as scientific as science is. From this attempt, grew an effort to correlate scientific models with religious myths. The ambiguities that still remained in the field of science were cited by these scholars to prove that science also depends on analogies and metaphors as religion does. This crucial attempt of analogy between science and religion, though commanding not much significance in modern times, has of course made the cohabitation of science and religion an easier exercise. The question of whether science or religion is more dependable for humans to go forward in life has been a million dollar question since the end of middle ages. The truth of religion became a lesser truth, as science evaded the intellect of humans with a full fledged armoury of reason. From this crisis, emerged several attempts to prove that there is no contradiction between both. These attempts were both in the field of content as well as the methods of scientific investigation. One of the scholars who came in defence of religion was Alister McGrath (1999) who has argued that models and analogies are used by humans to describe complex entities (p.144) in a similar way in religion and science. These entities can be an atom or a molecule in science. They can also be god in religion. Thinkers and scholars like McGrath since then have always tried to draw parallels between these two major schools of thought that exist in human mind. Natural sciences use certain models to describe some aspects of such a complex systems. Primarily, a simple structure of the model is created and tested for accuracy and then it is developed to include hitherto ignored and more complicated features of a complex system. McGrath (1999) has cited the kinetic theory of gases as an example for such scientific models (p.145). In science, when the pressure, volume and temperature of gases were changed, the behaviour of all gases was found to be according to certain laws irrespective of their chemical identity. Boyles’ law and Charles’ law were the major among these laws. Combining these two laws, a perfect gas equation was derived, according to which, gas particles are visualised as invisibly small balls which are in constant collision with the walls of the container. So the pressure on the walls can be calculated from the rate of change of momentum of the particles. But this model is only a model with the basics as it ignores the more complex features of gases. For example, this model considers the volume occupied by the gas particles as negligible so that when calculating the pressure, it is neglected. But this can lead to wrong calculations under high pressure conditions. Intermolecular collisions and attractive forces are also neglected while using the formulae derived from the kinetic theory of gases. This can also cause wrong calculation under higher pressure levels. But this model can be further developed to include these complexities and hence the matter of primary importance is to establish a model as far as science is concerned. So, in science, models help to visualize complex and abstract concepts in a simple way. Hence, models are considered as the mediators between all complex phenomena and human mind. They are virtual representations of a complex reality. The idea behind a model is the belief that there are certain common factors existing between the model and the complex reality so that the model can be a tool to understand the reality. But it has to be remembered that the model is not the same as the reality that it depicts. Because of this, said McGrath (1999), not all, but only the relevant aspects of a model can be compared with the reality that it stands for (p.149). When it comes to religion and theology, there is an analogy to be found to the scientific model. Here, the inefficiency of human language to express certain experiences and emotions is cited to establish that only speaking in analogies and metaphors can be a way out to express god in words. It was the famous theologian Thomas Aquinas who founded this school of thought. He has theorised that there is an analogy of being between this world and god resulting from his having created the world. So it is plausible to regard natural phenomena as analogies for god. This idea can be further stated as nature is an entity identical to god but not same as god. So nature can be considered as an analogy of god. Nature represents certain divine laws of god but all aspects of nature cannot be attributed to the god that it represents. The notion that god created man in his resemblance (Genesis 1: 26) can be theoretically traced forward to this concept of analogy. But this argument is partly flawed because of its arbitrary nature. There can be contradictory explanations for the analogies employed while comparing god with nature. On the other side, the super symmetry visible in nature provides a very strong case for the orderliness of the universe and the power of analogy. Aquinas has analyzed the statement ‘god is our father’ and stated that this is an analogy to a human father. This statement tells us that god loves, protects and controls humans as a father does to his son. Also god is the source of our existence as a human father is. But the same statement is illogical in the sense that god is not human and the logic of this idea demands that there be a divine mother also. And again to approve of this statement, god has to be thought as a male. So what Aquinas has said is that god is revealed to us in analogies to our day to day existence. But this should not also lead to reducing god to the everyday world. (p.151) Further analogies were made by theologians describing the death of Jesus as a ransom to sinners and the image of baited hook in Bible as Christ’s humanity being bait to attract humans to the divine. But the first analogy that we mentioned raises the doubt that the death of Jesus was a ransom given to the devil and the second one makes an impression that god is dragging humans to him by cheating them with a hook and causing them unreasonable pain. So, McGrath concluded that all analogies are bound to break at some point or other. And their weakness also lies in that they require being interpreted (p.153). And then there are the metaphors used in scriptures which also serve indirectly the purpose of acting as a frame of reference to god. But when we say god is wise, there arises the criticism that a human quality is attributed to god. So that metaphor is having an inner contradiction. Again, when we say, God is a lion, somebody may ask whether it is appropriate to compare god with lion and how many similarities exist between both. That is why some theologians bail out these metaphors by saying that they represent some similarities and some dissimilarity they have with god. Because of this particular nature of metaphors, some theologians prefer metaphors to analogies while they talk about god. They argued that the idea of god as father is a metaphor rather than an analogy. The second advantage of a metaphor is that it cannot be reduced to a definitive statement. Further, McGrath (1999) has argued that Charles Darwin has formulated his theory of natural selection using metaphors and analogies and this was one proof to the fact that science also employs analogies and metaphors to reach at discoveries. Darwin studied the variations in behaviour that occurred in plants and animals bred in captivity through generations and found out that these behavioural patterns can be artificially manipulated. Then he extended this process of artificial selection as an analogy to the natural process of evolution. To describe this process, the term, ‘natural selection was coined by him (p.157). So here, the characteristic of the model, which is the process of natural selection, is transferred to the complex reality, which is of course, nature itself. On the positive side, this analogy is accepted as a simple model to the complex structure of nature. But on the negative side, Darwin’s model is accused of being vulnerable in that it may transfer inappropriate elements of the model to the reality. Now McGrath compares this case study with the statement that ‘god is father’ and try to establish an analogy between scientific pursuits and religious beliefs. The gender bias of this statement is accepted by him as an accommodation to ordinary human understanding. He also points to models of god that recent writers evolved, imagining god as mother. This discussion led McGrath (1999) to the conclusion that god is supra-sexual and supra-cultural (p.162). This only means that god reveals himself through the existing culture and this need not be given much importance in the face of the divinity of his being. This argument can be summed up as given below. There are similarities and dissimilarities between a religious model and a scientific model. Three major similarities are elaborated by scholars. First is that, both scientific and religious models start to exist as analogies first, but they can be further expanded to include emerging realities. And also they have an individuality of their own. Another similarity is that, models of religion or science are symbolic representations of reality which is otherwise inaccessible to humans. In science, it is agreed that models relate to data that is observable. But in religion, they relate to subjective experiences. Still, both are thought to be similar by some scholars in the sense that both function as “organising images allowing us to structure and interpret patterns of events in our personal lives and in the world.” (McGrath, 1999, p.163) But there are also three major differences identified by supporters of this analogy between science and religion. One is that religious models are non-cognitive in nature and in this matter, they cannot be compared to science. Secondly, religious models can be successful only with a great amount of personal involvement. But scientific models do not demand such personal involvement. Thirdly, religious models influence humans more than even the doctrines derived from them but, scientific models do not possess such an authority. They exist only as subsidiaries of scientific theories. Another important thing is that a lot of selection and validation goes into the process of accepting a scientific model and if it does not pass this test of observation and comparison, it is rejected. Immense amount of such considerations went into quantum theory model before it was accepted. And also when an advanced model is validated, the existing model is replaced by it. But in religion, there is no scope for such validation and selection. The validity of a model remains rather constant. No variants are allowed. In quantum theory, two seemingly contradictory theories, namely, the particle theory and wave theory of light are used in different situations to describe the properties of light. This method is described as the principle of complimentarity. Theologians extend this argument to establish that science and religion can also exist in such complimentary positions and also the contradicting statements inside religion. It is in this context that the interpretation of myths by Mircea Eliade becomes relevant as religious models and gets connected to this concept of scientific models. According to Eliade, myths are analogies to the super reality that caused the origin of everything in this world. The basic structure of myths, especially, cosmogonic myths, was found by Eliade (1963), to be the same in different civilisations. They all spoke of the “destruction of the world, followed by a new creation and the establishment of the golden age.” (p.5). Eliade has deducted from his elaborate study of myths that they relate the history of a distant and fabulous past. The actors in myths are not the inhabitants of the everyday world, but hail from a space and time that is sacred. Eliade has further tried to define myths as a narrative of how all reality that we see around us came into existence. So, like any scientific model, a myth also depicts an unknown reality. Both can be expanded to include new realities also. An example of this was given by Eliade (1963), in his book, Myth and Reality narrating the Australian totemic myths, the myths of Cuna Indians, and the rice myth of Timor (p.6). All of them, in one way or another describe the birth of a real phenomenon. In science, what we call truth is here correlated with what we call, ‘reality’ in religion. Hence, the purpose of a scientific model as well as a religious myth is to depict this unknown phenomenon, whether we call it truth or reality. Both scientific models and religious myths have a stand alone quality. Even without knowing the elaborate theories and beliefs that lie behind them, we can understand the logic of such a model to some extent. So, both can be used in defining certain phenomena in this universe. The element of symbolism is also a common feature of both. This symbolic representation of reality is used to simplify hitherto inaccessible knowledge into a legible form. Both religious myths and scientific models function to bring in some amount of orderliness and pattern to the otherwise chaotic state of events. For example, in science, when light is modelled as having the qualities of particles, it became easy to explain quantum phenomenon. It was easy to imagine the behaviour of light as concrete particles. Similarly, the actions of humans spelled out by religious myths made it worthwhile for humans to carry out their moral obligations. They could thus correlate between their actions and a supreme reality. The function of scientific models is to make human life better by understanding the surroundings in which humans live. Myths also provide the psychological foundation for a community to exist in harmony and consent. Here also, we can see an analogy between the two. But it should be remembered that the harmony created by myths is limited to a particular community or society. There also can be seen some basic differences between scientific models and religious myths if we examine them very closely. The myths are always non-cognitive. There is no element of reason in them. Eliade (1963) has said that, “this history is considered to be absolutely true ( because it is concerned with realities) and sacred ( because it is the work of the supernaturals)” (p.15). So myths are important only to the culture in which they exist. They have no universal locus standi. But scientific models are bound to be cognitive. Their importance lies in that they address a common reason owned by all humans irrespective of their religion, culture or creed. It is unavoidable that a person might be personally very much involved if he or she has to make a coherent sense of a myth. So, there is always the risk that a myth is interpreted subjectively. The meaning, thus, becomes arbitrary. But a scientific model does not demand personal involvement from the person who is dealing with it. Religious myths sometimes are elated to a level to which not even the doctrines derived from them are put to. This is how we find certain rituals enacted by certain societies without even remembering the story behind them. But scientific models are always subversive to the theories which support them. These models can also be rejected when advanced models of the same theory emerge. This has happened to the theory of evolution, when the theory of mutation was further developed. To conclude, we will have to say that there is more dissimilarity between the scientific model and religious myths than similarities. But still, until and unless science finds all answers related to the universe, analogies and metaphors will continue to find their place in science. And myths will continue to hold command over humans as long as science fails to provide all the answers. References Eliade, Mircea ( 1963), Chapter 1, 2, Myth and Reality, Trans. Willard. R.Trask, New York, Harper & Row, 1963. Genesis 1: 26 McGrath, Alister. E (1999), Chapter 1, Science and Religion: An Introduction, Blackwell Publishing. Read More