Science vs Religion

(An Excerpt from part 2 of my new upcoming book – The Real Human Evolution.)

The Conflict Thesis by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White has become a go-to resource for researchers and individuals alike looking to explore the possible incongruity between science and religion. It maintains that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between both fields, which leads to hostility. But are science and religion truly in conflict with each other?  Well, most historians disagree with the idea of a conflict thesis and have settled for a rather more subjective label of a “complex” thesis.  However, whichever way we choose to tag it, it's no secret that there is a form of conflict between both parties in our time. For example, most scientists today tend to side with the idea of a self-sustaining universe not needing a creator or mediator as opposed to one.

Moreover, according to EuroNews.com, a large percentage of the European population do not have a faith base or religious affiliation. Arguably, this comes as no surprise as their penchant for more scientific engagement and innovation has increased over the years. The United States, on the other hand, is still very religious, the most of any country in the Western world with 94% of Americans professing that there is a God, a higher power or deity. American scientists, however, are divided on the subject of religion, with only 51% saying they believe in God or some form of higher power, based on data from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009. This data shares close similarities with results from polls and survey conducted in 1914 by Swiss American psychologist James Leuba which indicated that over 42% of American scientists revealed they did not believe in a personal God.

Although many of the most influential scientists in the earlier centuries were openly devout believers such as 16th-century scientist Nicolaus Copernicus who championed the heliocentric ideology, or 20th-century catholic priest/scientist Georges Lemaître who developed the concept of the Big Bang, we see less of that today, or if it does happen, it is mostly concealed. Scientists who choose to make their faith public knowledge risk the ire and mockery of their colleagues in the scientific community. While similarly, faith leaders who are scientists receive similar or even sterner treatments if they try to marry both ideologies. A clergyman who believes in evolution for example, may be seen as an outlier or heretic. 

As a scientist and engineer, I cannot completely discount the role of science because I have seen the evidence of science in my day-to-day work, while at the same time, I cannot disregard the power of faith or be ashamed of it because I have had some experiences in life that I simply cannot ignorantly attribute to sheer luck or chance. Some misconceptions and notions that get in the way of the peaceful coexistence of these subjects may include rigid opinions that are linked to evidence-based ideologies.

Consequently, scientists may view 4 billion people around the world as being misguided or misled by their beliefs in a Supreme Being because there is no scientific evidence for God, and at the same time, religious leaders may conclude that certain scientific facts, anchored on carefully crafted foundational principles, are completely irrational because they don’t align with their faith, respectively. So here I am, as a scientist and evangelist preacher, in the middle of this tussle. I ask myself sometimes: how do I hold on to both subject areas so that I  do not negate myself or reduce my influence in both circles?

Rain clouds - Humans have able to predict rainfall events very accurately based on cloud forecasts.

Jesus of Nazareth in the scriptures in Luke 12:54-57 made the following statement around 10 BC:   

“54 And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is. 55 And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass. 56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time? 57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? “ 

Clearly, from these words, He was a proponent of science, although He was the most influential religious or spiritual leader of all time. He did not discount science but essentially used it to make a case for Himself. In these statements, He was referring both to the Jews and the Greeks. The Greeks at that time had been able to understand the science of winds, precipitation, seasons, etc. Greek philosopher Aristotle, for example, had already achieved one of the earliest scientific breakthroughs in weather prediction around 300-350 B.C.

His work Meteorologica, from which we derive the word meteorology (the science of the study of the atmosphere), described the Earth's hydrologic cycle. Theophrastus, who was his pupil, then went on to write a book called The Book of Signs, which, in tandem with the work of Aristotle, became a springboard of weather forecasting for the next 2000 years. The text contained information regarding solar and lunar halos and how they acted as forecast signs.  So, Jesus here acknowledged what was on the ground, i.e., the existing theories and scientific status quo on weather prediction. The next sentence He then made was sort of unexpected.  He said, “Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?” 

This sentence could be adjudged to be one with a tone of active reproval, especially by the use of a phrase like “you hypocrites” in an attempt to castigate them for their dedication to one field, which here is just enhancing their scientific perspicacity and not on spending time on another subject in a separatist manner. In plain English, for example, that could mean: why do you spend all your time on task A, and completely ignore task B, which may or may not be connected to task A? Or was He trying to say something else? Was He possibly hinting that both should be well-connected and that mastering one should help the other cause? For example, based on the previous illustration, if you can perform task A expertly, then why can you not carry out task B proficiently?  If that was what He was asking rhetorically, that means both subjects may be subsets of the other, denoting an indiscriminate interconnection between them?

Before we make that conclusion, let’s define a few words. The word discern in that verse comes from the Greek word dokimazō from the Strong’s Lexicon G1384, which means to test literally or figuratively, examine, or try. The word time also comes from the original Greek word kahee-ros' which, according to Strong’s Lexicon, means an occasion, set or proper time, or opportunity. Signifying the present reality. The verse (Luke 12:56) can then be interpreted as saying, Why can't an individual extend their scientific intellectual ability to test an opportunity, reality, or encounter? To give more context to this, wisemen (i.e., those who were highly intelligent especially in the field of science) were often called in to interpret dreams for kings and nobles in ancient times. A dream in of itself is a psychological phenomenon that can contain important emotional, philosophical, and religious allusions. It is composed of intricate and convoluted mental imageries which could be trivial or point to a vital spiritual basis.

Despite the super importance of these dreams and visions in ancient times, only wisemen or those of high intellectual ability were given the coveted task of interpreting them. That sounds kind of ironic if you ask any clergyman nowadays. Can you imagine having a person who knows nothing about spirituality or religion being called in to explain a dream that has possibly high spiritual implications, using only sound logical reasoning? But that exactly was the case in the ancient world, where you had wisemen interpreting dreams and visions for nobles and lay people. All they had in their locker room was a good understanding of existing scholarship and the times, and being able to apply them to solve complex issues (societal and/or spiritual).

This reinforces the idea of a connection, whether big or small, between intellectual ability and spirituality/religion. In the case of the wisemen, their intellectualism led them down the path of finding spiritual answers. The same thing can be said for us now; peak intellectualism should lead us toward a state of devotion and awe of a supernatural being, rather than the denial of it. A similar statement can be made for the converse; a sincerely pious individual should easily or potentially manifest high intellectual ability resulting in high levels of creativity. Although this has not always been the case in our society, it is a thought-provoking realization for those in either circle, revealing the endless possibilities for greatness if we apply both principles correctly with a humble and sincere attitude.