A perennial claim made by the moderately religious and religious apologists alike is that religion and science are somehow compatible, and that religion need not be an impediment to the advancement of human knowledge and the welfare of mankind. However, try as we might to reach this accommodation, we find that faith and reason are ― now more than ever ― anything but best friends.
In their desperate effort to imply that religion has the same intellectual status as reason and science, believers like to quote Albert Einstein (1879-1955), who said offhandedly, “God does not play dice with the universe.” Apparently, the rest of us are to accept this as proof that Einstein (a smart person and a scientist) believed in God.
That statement, in fact, had nothing at all to do with religion. It was a metaphorical expression of Einstein’s preference for his mathematically ordered universe over the theory of quantum mechanics (and its postulation of the random behavior of subatomic particles). Having been quoted out of context, Einstein later went to some length to refute the idea that he was a believer. For example, in 1954 he wrote:
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
I could end this column here by rightly noting that our practical day-to-day existence (whether we’re religious or not) is governed by the examination of evidence and the application of reason. And I could add that religion draws its conclusions about the world ― and how we should behave ― from unsubstantiated belief and dogma. For these reasons, science and religion are diametrically incompatible. Unfortunately, this dichotomy is much more nuanced than that.
Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) — paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and writer of numerous popular science articles — made many contributions to the advancement of human knowledge and science. His doctrine of nonoverlapping magisteria, however, was not one of them.
In his 1999 book Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, Gould claimed that science and religion address two mutually exclusive questions — those regarding facts and those regarding values — and that these two areas of intellectual authority do not overlap. In doing so, Gould inexplicably ignored the fact that religion makes testable empirical claims, voluntarily landing it in the realm of science and reason.
Reason can expose inconsistencies in the moral precepts of the Bible (let us count the ways!). And science can inform our decisions about real-world ethical questions — such as at what point in its growth a human fetus develops a nervous system, thereby making it susceptible to feeling pain (thus influencing the abortion debate), or when the life of a terminally ill patient should be ended by euthanasia. The theory of evolution also enlightens us as to the connection between species — sentient creatures such as apes, whales and our pets, for example — and how we should treat them.
Being a pragmatic scientist whose work largely depended on public funding, Gould also pointed out that 80 to 90 percent of Americans were religious — and that his doctrine of nonoverlapping magisteria was, ironically, necessary for the advancement of science. Also in the interest of self-preservation in a hostile political-religious climate, the National Academy of Sciences explained:
Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation.
Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist. (My italics.)
Although somewhat accommodating to religionist sensibilities, this statement comes closer to the point in question by acknowledging that religion does consider empirical evidence ― but, paradoxically, that religious dogma isn’t necessarily informed by the facts.
Unfortunately, this apparent reconciliation isn’t the end of the story. The religiously inspired backlash against science and intellectualism in America has broadened that abyss. (This anti-intellectualism is called misology: a hatred of argument, reason or enlightenment.)
Further, this sentiment has cleaved religious moderates, who can deal realistically with the world and who care about the future of their children, from religious fundamentalists, who cannot and do not. And it has bestowed upon America a vice president who thinks Jesus will return any day now, a secretary of the interior who denies climate change, the gutting of the Environmental Protection Agency, a secretary of education who thinks creationism should be taught in science class, and an adviser to the president on medical issues who is anti-vaccine.
Martin Luther rightly stated that reason is the enemy of faith. I’d like to add that faith ― as practiced by the current leaders of the most powerful nation in the world ― is the enemy of mankind.
Richard E. Wackrow is author of the book Beginner’s Guide to Blasphemy.