Science has been Proved but Religion is Only a Belief - Essay Example

Extended essay: Explain why the claim that “science has been proved but religion is only a belief” indicates a limited understanding of the issues. This essay begins by describing science and religion and identifying the two distinct areas of their influence. A brief foray into science and Islam is followed by the Draper-White conflict theory, and its elucidation by modern historians. Examples of churchmen in science disprove the assumed irreconcilable antagonism between the two domains. A reference to the human need for belief and certainty leads on to the Big Bang theory which overturned scientific ‘facts’ of the time. New definitions of science follow from postmodernism. How the narrative and social constructionist theories in psychology influence our views of science and religion is outlined. (100 words) The essay topic requires us to understand the differences between science and religion and the relationship between the two domains in their historical context. Both these terms ‘science’ and ‘religion’, although often used as convenient labels, encompass a vast range of human experience and achievements falling within their respective ambit. Our purpose here is to tease out what is generally regarded as science and compare and contrast it with what is universally recognised as established religion. Some characteristics can be attributed from the essay topic itself where science is associated with ‘proof’ and religion is associated with ‘belief’, although it is made clear that this way of separating the two domains would ‘limit (our) understanding of the issues’. It would therefore be helpful to first try to define and explain what science is and repeat the process with religion. Indeed, since religion antedates science as a historical phenomenon, it may be advisable to start with an explanation of what we understand by the term religion. One simple description or explanation of religion is the following: A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience... Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion). Morality, ethics and spirituality are the province of religion while science confines itself to exploring the material world. Science is broadly defined as: (T)he investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation. Science makes use of the scientific method which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Scido). A more descriptive explanation of science is given below: The scientific method gains knowledge by testing hypotheses to develop theories through elucidation of facts or evaluation by experiments and thus only answers cosmological questions about the physical universe. It develops theories of the world which best fit physically observed evidence. Scientific theories that have an overwhelming preponderance of favourable evidence are often treated as facts (such as the theories of gravity and evolution) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion). In antiquity, philosophy encompassed all knowledge. Knowledge was acquired through language via the trivium of logic, grammar and rhetoric. Then religion or belief systems aligned with and endorsed by the state, became the ultimate arbiter of reality, both sacred and profane. A popular view is that science has since replaced religion as the repository of all knowledge, although the interactions between language (mathematics), religion and science are very complex and partly to be explored below. For the purposes of this essay we shall confine ourselves to the Abrahamic, monotheistic religions originating in the Middle East, namely Christianity, Islam and to a lesser extent Judaism. These religions are practised by 53.5% of the world's population, the majority living in the industrially advanced West (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2005). Science reportedly is derived within the Western world from the pioneering work of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein and has now spread to every corner of the earth. The challenges to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church from the newly burgeoning science advanced by Copernicus and Galileo followed by the more benevolent certainties of the Newtonian universe in Protestant England have been extensively and sometimes controversially chronicled. By the time Einstein appeared on the scene, the state identified itself with science and it was religion that became sidelined. Although according to a 1996 survey 'about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in ... a god. .. (A)mong leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationhip_between_religion_and_science). However, there was a period in history antedating Copernicus when another Abrahamic religion, Islam, produced scientific scholars who may be identified as among the forebears of modern science. One of the first in a line of mathematicians, physicists, metallurgists, astronomers was Alkindus (AD 800 - 873). Then there was Alhazen (965 - 1040) who developed expertise in physics, optics and mathematics. Avicenna (980 - 1037) is well-known in the West as a pioneer of modern medicine. A contributor to philosophy, law, astronomy and theology was Averroes (1128 - 1198). Islam is said to have atrophied with the development of the 'sharia' (religious law) and the 'sunnah' (way of the prophet) 'when the "thinking" age of Islam came to an end ... The Muslim mindset has (since) been imprisoned in the ruins of a dead golden age' (Majeed: The Sunday Times 28/10/2007). The popular view of antagonism between religion and science as inevitable is questionable, to say the least. Religion per se therefore is not antithetical to scientific exploration of the material world. It is the imposition of earthly power in the advocacy of untested dogma and the mass adherence to such beliefs which is at the heart of the adversarial stance between science and religion. Most historians now discard the conflict thesis prevalent during the 19th century advocated by John William Draper (1874) and Andrew Dickson White (1896) when they insisted on the constant 'warfare' between science and religion, positing them as contending powers. A more balanced view is expressed by Ferngren (2002). While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exception rather than the rule (Ferngren 2002; Introduction p. ix). It is astonishing that such a thesis had been advanced in the first place and that still today so many believe in it. One very good example of harmony or the lack of conflict, between religion and science is personified by Gregor Johann Mendel (1822-1884). Mendel, an Augustinian priest, later abbot, largely ignored during his lifetime, experimented with pea plants and, by the early 20th century was hailed as the ‘father of genetics’. Mendel’s two generalizations later became known as Mendel’s Laws of Inheritance. Meanwhile the leading English geologists of the early 19th century, William Buckland, William Daniel Conybeare, and Adam Sedgwick, along with the American Edward Hitchcock, were reportedly all clergymen. Their findings contradicted the biblical estimates of the age of the planet. Later, church leaders hypothesised that the biblical 'days' may be translated into different, much larger units of time, which made the geological eras much more acceptable. Human beings throughout their history appear to have needed the certainties and securities afforded by religious belief and faith. These extend to belief in myths and miracles which confound ordinary common sense. Human beings also appear to have a need to believe in the supernatural and in an after life (some kind of existence after death). Science ordinarily does not address such concerns. An exception can be discerned in the Big Bang theory, the scientific theory of the origin of the universe. A hundred years ago nearly all non-religious thinkers took it for granted that the universe had always existed and always would. Despite the opposition of theologians claiming a real infinite in time was logically impossible (sometime called the Kalam cosmological argument), atheists seemed quite happy with an uncreated, eternal universe. When the Big Bang model was first suggested by the Jesuit priest Georges Le Maitre it was greeted with a certain amount of scepticism and the atheist Fred Hoyle coined the phrase 'Big Bang' intending to be derogatory. ... Atheist scientists have now come to terms with the big bang and adjusted their metaphysics accordingly, much like most Christians, after some debate, accepted evolution and twiddled their theology. ... All this seems to demonstrate that when it comes to science, both sides find things they do not like and both sides argue against them until the evidence becomes impossible to deny (http://www.bede.org.uk/conflict.htm). It is a misconception to think of science as replacing religion in revealing absolute truth containing facts and certainties that has been proved. Dr Terry Halwes argues ‘…that totally correct knowledge – “truth” – is neither the goal, nor the product, nor any part of the process of scientific work’… We endlessly continue improving our ways of studying and thinking about the natural world, with no access to standards of perfect knowledge and no need for them’ (http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/terrible-truth.htm). According to Dr Halwes, concepts of truth and proof in science have changed over the years to the extent that we need to abandon ‘the notion that science is a method for discovering truth’ (op. cit.). The three component formula of ‘Careful Observation + Careful Deductive Reasoning = Completely Correct Knowledge, producing ‘infallible scientific truth had become highly suspect’ (op. cit.). On the left side of the formula, observations (facts) were being revealed as conceptual in nature, just as theoretical in their own way as the more general theories they supported. Further, deductive logic clearly depended on human judgment, in several different ways. These two developments demolished the seeming infallibility of both of the ingredients in the recipe… Our understanding of ourselves and our world, and our understanding of science itself, grew out of pre scientific beliefs and practices. One of those beliefs is the concept of truth…Knowledge, or understanding is the real goal of science, and knowledge doesn’t need to be certain in order to be useful (op. cit.). It was Anthony Giddens (1991) who pointed out that modernity privileged science as a universal project true for all time and place. In contrast, postmodernism redefines the goal of science as a guide to praxis. Praxis is the process of actively creating each individual’s specific knowledge in relation to the culture and environment. Empirical science, believed to be the only certain way to ‘truth’, is not a neutral, value-free enterprise; it is both pragmatic and political, and ‘is a polymorphous activity drawing from a range of different methods’ [Smith et al. (Eds.) 1995:2]. Religion is an important part of the ‘culture and environment’ of everyone including scientists. Language (which includes mathematics) is the medium through which our concepts of reality, truth, proof, belief, and in short our whole cosmology is represented. Today psychologists have begun to understand the importance of the dialogic nature of our lives, and ‘human intention’ religious or otherwise, is conceptualised as narrative. Kenyon and Randall (1997) summarise Jerome Bruner’s (1986, 1987 and 1990) contribution to the debate as follows: Jerome Bruner proposed … that philosophers, educators and psychologists have traditionally focused on only one mode of thinking of which humans are capable – logical or paradigmatic thought … the former which lies at the heart of scientific method, “leads to good theory, tight analysis, logical proof, sound argument, and empirical discovery guided by reasoned hypothesis”. The latter, which “deals with the vicissitudes of human intention” and lies at the heart of everyday life, “leads instead to good stories, gripping dramas, believable (though not necessarily “true”) historical accounts” (pp. 13, 17) In 1987, Bruner elaborated this distinction in an article on “Life as Narrative” in which he stressed that a “life lived is inseparable from a life as told” (p. 31); that we become the autobiographical narratives by which we ‘tell about’ our lives (p. 15). In a 1990 book, Acts of Meaning, he critiques the growing field of cognitive science (ironically a field he helped to found) for overlooking such insights by ignoring the narrative mode and by succumbing instead to the model of mind as computer. (p.13) The world (or reality) is demonstrably amenable to scientific explanation and manipulation, but science is itself a discourse that is being continuously constructed and reconstructed in a process of revision and falsification that merely gives the appearance of a cumulative advance in spite of its multi-faceted and non-linear nature. Social constructionism also emphasizes the performative character of language as revealed in the following extract. Both science and religion are subject to the negotiated ‘communicative activity’ of social beings. In social constructionism, both the assumption of a hidden order behind appearances and the paradigm of the individual subject coming to know a separate objective world are abandoned. They are replaced by the assumption that we in fact live in a vague, only partially specified, unstable developing world, open to further specification as a result of human communicative activity; that is, it is not monologic calculation that structures our behaviour so much as our (negotiated and struggled over) dialogic use of words. … So, although it may seem undeniable in our individual experience that our words do in fact quite often seem to refer to ‘things’ (either mental states within us, or to ‘objects’ in our circumstances), social constructionists would say that this can only be so from within forms of social life already constituted or non-referential, rhetorical-responsive use of such words. As a result of … concerns with a ‘reality’ beyond the everyday, our ordinary, disorderly conversational or dialogical activities were ignored and left in the background … and we sought to replace this flawed, mundane, humdrum activity with the correct, perfect forms of life awaiting discovery by science. But, social constructionists maintain, it is from within this not wholly orderly flow of communicative, relational, background activities and practices that all our significant dimensions of interaction – with each other, and with our ‘reality’ – originate and are constructed. [Shotter in Smith et al (Eds.) 1995; p.164]. Today, globalization highlights cultural relativism, and conflicting moral schemes in the form of organized religions and belief systems contend against a multiplicity of moral codes along with marked tendencies towards secularization. In this context, it is asserted by some, that science and religion are two fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and that they can co-exist when confined to their separate domains. Stephen Jay Gould (1999) was an exponent of this view when he postulated the concept of ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ (NOMA). There is also the ecumenical movement which seeks to build a consensus for a global ethic that takes into account the need to accommodate the scientific standpoint. They believe that religion is humankind’s search for meaning, values and answers to ultimate questions that science does not address. Without faith and belief, scientific ‘truth’ is arid, isolated and in danger of hubris and Mephistophelian self-destruction. Our polluted world is a case in point. In this essay we have come to the position of not agreeing with the statement that ‘science has been proved’, since it is a process which can never attain certainty. Many ‘beliefs’ in the unquestioned supremacy of science have been exploded. Faith, belief, truth, certainty and security are all too human goals and expectations which religion aims to provide. That religion is an all too human enterprise has also been examined and accepted. There may have been conflict at times, but there is also dialogue and mutual accommodation between science and religion. Belief in the processes and outcomes of science is necessary for scientists to carry out their work, but paradigms of science have changed dramatically during its history. As Thomas Kuhn (1962) says, ‘scientific revolutions are … those non-cumulative developmental episodes in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one… It is hard to see how new theories could arise without these destructive changes in beliefs about nature.’ The pejorative use of the term belief in the phrase, ‘religion is only a belief’ is patently not justified in the light of the previous discussion. Kuhn touches on a possible interface between science and religion in the following comments. (S)ince no paradigm ever solves all the problems it defines and since no two paradigms leave all the same problems unsolved, paradigm debates always involve the question: Which problems is it more significant to have solved? Like the issue of competing standards, that question of values can be answered only in terms of criteria that lie outside of normal science altogether, and it is that recourse to external criteria that most obviously makes paradigm debates revolutionary (Kuhn 1962; my emphasis). That is where religion, broadly defined as the repository of human values come into play. There is a case for ecumenical activity in this age of globalization to try and bring the best of world religions under one roof, as it were. For example, Buddhism advocates a world view that is highly compatible with scientific endeavour. ‘Buddhism’s investigation of Dharma precludes the use of numerous non-systematic methods and sources, including authority, common sense, opinions, tradition, and scripture’ (Kalama Sutta) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science). There is another, more modern religion the Baha’i Faith where the ‘harmony of science and religion is a central tenet. The principle states that truth is one, and therefore true science and true religion must be in harmony, thus rejecting the view that science and religion are in conflict … Science and religion, in Baha’i writings, are compared to the two wings of a bird upon which a person’s intelligence can increase, and upon which a person’s soul can progress. Furthermore, the Baha’i writings state that science without religion would lead to a person becoming totally materialistic, and religion without science would lead to a person falling into superstitious practices’ (op. cit.). The issues at the heart of science and religion as discussed in this essay are drawn from easily accessible literature both from the Internet and general reading material. The conclusion is inescapable that neither has science been proved conclusively to be the ‘truth’ nor that religion is based on irrational belief not grounded on human concerns. There are indications that science is much more modest in its claim to be the privileged path to knowledge and religion is enriched by its openness to ideas from an ever shrinking but sophisticated universe not quite yet in danger of total secularization. *** (3246 words) Read More