In my post from last week, I mentioned two things about myself: one is that I study neuroscience, and the other is that I happen to work at Marsh Chapel. This speaks to the fact that science and religion overlap significantly in my life on campus. You are as likely to find me doing neuroscience research as you are to find me doing ministry. Spaces dedicated to science or ministry have become centers for me, places where I can ground myself and become deeply present in what I do.
It still surprises me that I’ve created a space for myself in these places, and that in them, science and religion can coexist peacefully. I remember hearing stories in high school biology class about certain school districts that would not teach evolution to their students, instead opting for alternative views such as creationism or intelligent design. From these stories, I gathered that science and religion were not very compatible ideas.
A question that I’ve pondered since then is: why? Why the conflict, why the stark dichotomy? It wasn’t until I took a biological anthropology class my sophomore year that I started to think of a coherent answer. My professor explained to us in his first few lectures that science fundamentally relies on approximation. Its guiding principles of the scientific method, of making observations, asking questions, and testing hypotheses, ultimately attempt to approximate the truth of how the world works. The theories that explain so many natural phenomena around us are models that can be revised and added to over time. They help us understand reality as we observe it, and as we can think about it.
Religion has, in my opinion, a strikingly similar goal. It attempts to help us understand something beyond us, and that something depends on the tradition you adhere to. It is a way for us to connect to and approximate (literally “come close to”) a deep truth, much in the same way that science attempts to bring us closer to a deep truth as well. The difference lies in the methods they use. Science tends to base itself on observations, which lead to hypotheses, which over time and through rigorous testing and verification can eventually form theories. Religion, on the other hand, has a different set of methods. Faith, theology, prayer, spiritual practices, meditation, scripture, and service are only a few of the methods I can think of that people use to create and maintain a relationship with the Divine.
When you think about it in terms of the methods they use, I think the conflict between them makes more sense. Tensions tend to arise when one masquerades as the other, and tries using the other’s methods. I personally think it would be inappropriate to go into a school and teach children scripture while calling it science. I would equally call it inappropriate to give a lecture on human brain anatomy or perform an experiment in a place of worship and call that religion (although, to be fair, the second part has happened before–and by that I mean an experiment in a place of worship. Not the masquerading as religion part). These examples may sound extreme and perhaps absurd, but that’s precisely my point. I think it is wholly possible to acknowledge science and religion, and to have them coexist peacefully. But I do think it is also necessary to acknowledge what they are based on, in order to appreciate the wisdom and insight each one provides.
I realize I have probably said at least a few controversial things in the past three paragraphs. If you completely disagree with what I’ve just said, that’s okay. I acknowledge that there are many different perspectives on the relationship between science and religion. If you come away from this reflection with utter disbelief that I even tried breaching the subject, I can understand that, too. If either of these are the case, though, I have one question: If thorny issues such as the one I’ve described are never discussed publicly, then how can one expect the tension surrounding them to ever abate? I think it’s unreasonable to expect conflict, especially among ideas, to disappear if we either refuse to acknowledge it or throw our hands up in the air and say tackling it is impossible. I think religion and science is a subject that is inherently charged and often personal. And I will also acknowledge that perhaps the issue will never be completely resolved.
I have hope that it will, though–at least for myself, if no one else. That hope rests on something that is a part of both religion and science. If you have read any of my previous blog posts, you may have noticed that I tend to ask questions. A lot. I can assure you that they aren’t just a rhetorical device. Questions are one way for me to frame things that I think about. They help me frame and deepen my views of science, and they also help me deepen my views of religion, and everything that comes with both of these ideas. You may not believe a word of what I’ve written in this reflection–in other words, you question it. And that, simply put, is the beauty of questioning. Whether we believe something to be true because we have evidence of it, or because we have convictions for it, we retain that ability to question, an ability that allows us to grow spiritually and intellectually. And if this post has left you with nothing else, then may it leave you with a few questions of your own to guide you and your beliefs.