The Science and Religion Relationship
"The BioLogos Forum" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by Peter Doumit. Peter Doumit is a consulting geologist with a background in education, a licensed Professional Geologist for the state of Wyoming, and author of A Unification of Science and Religion (2010). A former high school science teacher and junior college geology and astronomy professor, Mr. Doumit has experienced first-hand the questions that surround the roles that science and religion play in the lives of many people. He holds a B.S. in Natural Science with a Geology emphasis from the University of Puget Sound, and an M.A. in Earth Science with a Geology emphasis from the University of Northern Colorado. He resides in western Colorado with his wife and three children.
So what is the real relationship between science and religion? Bitter rivals or teammates? Adversaries or advocates? The truth and the lie? The media would have you believe that there is an immense chasm between science and religion, with no possibility of overlap or complementarity. As would others who are polarized about the topic, like atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and fundamentalists Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. But this line of thinking comes from a basic misunderstanding of both God and reason.
The clearest and most direct formal expression of the relationship between faith and science that I have found is expounded upon in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 159:
Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth contradict truth […] Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."
Divine revelation comes in two forms: the Word of God (including both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) and the Work of God (including the natural, physical world and the laws that govern it). Both are equally valid forms of truth, as they stem from the same Source. And since truth can never contradict truth, a truth revealed in one cannot ever be in conflict with a truth revealed in the other. Once this is fundamentally understood, fear about science overthrowing religion becomes obsolete, and science has a moral compass guiding discovery and innovation.
In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus says "Is a lamp brought in to be placed under a bushel basket or under a bed, and not to be placed on a lampstand? For there is nothing hidden except to be made visible; nothing is secret except to come to light. Anyone who has ears to hear ought to hear." (Mark 4:21-23). What does Jesus mean in this passage?
For me, as a scientist, this passage has always had a special meaning. Science is all about bringing what is hidden in the natural world (the natural laws) into the light of human knowledge and reason. In effect, it is a lamp that shines its light and reveals the Work of God. So what does Jesus say about such lamps, then? Not to place them in places where their light won't shine. Science reveals His creation. He wants it exposed.
The same holds true, of course, to that which shines its light and reveals the Word of God: His Church. It is the Church that provides important guidance as to the meaning of Scripture, objective truths unknowable by reason alone (like the mystery of the Trinity, for example), and moral certitude despite winds of change in cultural attitude and behavior.
Both science and the Church are equally aided by the gift of reason. Rational arguments are just as necessary in theological questions as in scientific ones. And it is reason that leads us to the conclusion that we need both science (for our physical concerns) and religion (for our spiritual concerns) in our life tool belts to deal with the problems that arise from being creatures consisting of mind, soul, and matter.
Putting this all together, then, we can see that science and religion are never really completely divorced from one another, but rather serve complementary roles. Science, guided in the moral spirit of the Church, provides us with answers to "how?" questions: How does gravity work? How does a baby progress from a zygote to a fetus? How can we better improve the quality of human life? As noted in one of the Spiderman movies, "With great power comes great responsibility." Such is the case especially with science. Science is an incredibly powerful tool, but if that power is left to its own devices without a moral compass, it is an evil, fatal, and disastrous weapon that advances the most horrific violations to human dignity and worth (see modern China, eugenics, Nazi Germany, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung for a few examples).
Religion, on the other hand, aided by scientific and historical evidence, is able to provide us with the answers to our existential "why?" questions: Why am I here? Why is there something rather than nothing? Like science, religion without a rational basis can also be an extremely dangerous weapon primed for atrocities (see 9/11, David Koresh, and the Heaven’s Gate cult, for example).
Used in their appropriate roles, science and religion give us the complete set of tools for understanding and interpreting the Work and Word of God. If we accept science, yet neglect religion, we miss out on a full volume of God's two-part revelation (including the person of Jesus Christ)! We are brains without a heart. If we accept religion, and reject science, then we likewise miss out on a full volume of God's revelation, and are hearts without a brain. Both scenarios are equally despicable.
God gave us reason, and God gave us faith. Both are gifts. Both are to be used in their maximum capacity. Thank God for science and religion, so that we can have our heart and brain working in unison in comprehending His revelation in the fullest way that we can, at least on this side of heaven!
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
October 3rd 2010
“I clearly specified eternality as a characteristic of God.”
You could have instead specified eternality as a characteristic of the universe. At least we know that exists, but instead choose to ignore the fact that not everything has a cause as far as we can tell.
“A God who exists outside of the natural laws would still be involved in the bringing into existence of such laws as the laws that govern quantum theory, “
You are still missing that this is not necessarily required. You speak of something outside the universe, yet you (nor anyone else) has any idea what that means. You are trying to use intuition (must be contingent, first cause, first mover) where intuition does not work (quantum scale, Planck scale).
Reply to this commentOctober 3rd 2010
“Do you not agree that the laws of physics as we know them break down before this? And isn’t nature, isn’t science defined by what we see as a result of these laws? So if these laws are not in place at, say, 10 -38 sec, then isn’t what is happening at that point in time by definition supernatural?”
Yes the laws of physics break down before this. No nature is not defined by what we see as a result of known laws. What is known about nature is defined by those laws. Prior to quantum theory, quantum phenomena were not known by description, but were certainly still a part of nature.
“The trouble is you’ve restricted your truth-seeking toolbag to science, and do not even allow for the possibility of finding truth in religion.”
Science, math, and philosophy are my toolbag…although I make no claim to be a master craftsman with any of them! Religion has not offered any truth, just given speculation and assertion and violent resistance to truth when it is uncovered (or even sought) with my toolbag. For every ‘truth’ your religion has offered, there are several others that offer alternative ‘truths’ with as many faithful as yours claiming exclusive stranglehold on ultimate knowledge.
Reply to this commentOctober 3rd 2010
“You’re right no such model exists, because again, you are subjecting a limitless God to the limits of science.”
I am suggesting that if a god interacts signficantly with this universe and, more locally, this world, we should be able to observe those interactions so that they are noticeably different than what we should observe absent such interactions.
I’m going to skip a bunch of the other stuff because this is getting unwieldy…
“There really was a major flood in that part of the world (which would have been the “whole world” to the ancient peoples) 7600 years ago. See Ryan and Pitman’s “Noah’s Flood.””
So the flood that your god claimed would be global and destroy all life on the face of the earth, the flood to which Jesus likened his return when he said the flood destroyed all mankind, was only regional? You mean this flood? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090206-smaller-noah-flood.html
Reply to this commentOctober 3rd 2010
“Was there a real Adam and Eve? Of course there was, just as there was a first and second killer whale or any other species.”
I see, so the ancients who told the original story were talking about the first humans to evolve. That makes no sense. In any case, evolution does not seem to work the way you think it does. How do you know the first two humans weren’t both males?
“Could you explain how the Resurrection was a magic trick?”
It is impossible to bring any living organism back from the dead. That’s it. End of story. I saw David Blaine bring a bird back to life once, though.
“There is far more evidence for a Resurrection than not.”
It doesn’t matter how much circumstantial evidence or eyewitness claims there are, dead things do not live again. Clear enough?
Reply to this commentOctober 3rd 2010
” A Tower of Babel is required why? Are you saying the ancient peoples were incapable of building a large tower?”
I’m not saying anything like that. I assume you know the story around the Tower of Babel and the origin of different languages. I further assume that you are aware that various languages and scattered populations of humans existed prior to the ability and materials to build such large structures. I also assume you will claim this is a metaphor for something as well.
Reply to this commentOctober 3rd 2010
Pete D.,
“You could have instead specified eternality as a characteristic of the universe. At least we know that exists, but instead choose to ignore the fact that not everything has a cause as far as we can tell.”
But that would be false, according to modern cosmology. Therefore, eternality is not a characteristic of the universe. Again, even if the universe were eternal, how would you scientifically prove its eternality?
“You speak of something outside the universe, yet you (nor anyone else) has any idea what that means. You are trying to use intuition (must be contingent, first cause, first mover) where intuition does not work (quantum scale, Planck scale).”
You’re right that I don’t know what being outside the universe means, but saying QED is self-sufficient is also an extremely anecdotal position. Besides, it merely displaces an underlying question: how does non-intuition on the quantum scale spawn intuition on the macroscopic scale? And why would such an eternal or self-producing phenomenon produce such a disparity of comprehensibility? Why is it this way and not some other way?
Reply to this commentOctober 3rd 2010
Pete D.,
“Yes the laws of physics break down before this. No nature is not defined by what we see as a result of known laws. What is known about nature is defined by those laws. Prior to quantum theory, quantum phenomena were not known by description, but were certainly still a part of nature.”
How is nature not defined by the natural laws? Do you not agree that everything in the physical universe is a product of the working of the natural laws? How do you have nature without laws? And you’re not making sense with your previous post. If QED as we know it is self-sufficient, but QED as we know it was not in existence prior to 10 -37 sec, then either a) it is not truly self-sufficient, or b) another natural law that used to be in existence brought about QED, but is no longer present nor can be studied or verified scientifically. But that just brings in metaphysics, so how is that any different than saying God did it?
Reply to this commentOctober 3rd 2010
Pete D.,
“Religion has not offered any truth, just given speculation and assertion and violent resistance to truth when it is uncovered (or even sought) with my toolbag.”
If this is true then how is it that many of the greatest scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers have also been theists, and more specifically Christians? Or are you willing to say that Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Aquinas, Augustine, and the like were deluding themselves with their religious beliefs?
“For every ‘truth’ your religion has offered, there are several others that offer alternative ‘truths’ with as many faithful as yours claiming exclusive stranglehold on ultimate knowledge.”
Yes, but Occam’s razor, agreement with scientific findings and knowledge, and reason can readily get us to the most logical possibility for a “true” religion. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because there are many false religions out there does not mean there isn’t a true one.
Reply to this commentOctober 3rd 2010
Pete D.,
“I am suggesting that if a god interacts signficantly with this universe and, more locally, this world, we should be able to observe those interactions so that they are noticeably different than what we should observe absent such interactions.”
We can and do observe those interactions: on the physical level, they are called miracles. A perfect God would make perfect natural laws so they wouldn’t need modification, hence you wouldn’t see His interaction on a scientific level. An omnipotent God would be able to temporarily suspend or supercede such laws on occasion, however, resulting in what we observe as miraculous events. However, as miracles are by definition infrequent, the interaction we largely see from God is through the moral sense, which can not be quantified in the same sense as physical laws.
“I’m going to skip a bunch of the other stuff because this is getting unwieldy…”
Unwieldy or difficult to answer? No worries, I understand that one can’t explain or get the answer to everything on a blog post. That’s why there is still a need for books.
Reply to this commentOctober 3rd 2010
Pete D.,
“So the flood that your god claimed would be global and destroy all life on the face of the earth, the flood to which Jesus likened his return when he said the flood destroyed all mankind, was only regional? You mean this flood? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090206-smaller-noah-flood.html”
Yes, it was a regional flood, but again that “region” was the entire world for the ancient peoples. And the article you link is hardly conclusive from a geological point of view. They neglect the evidence for a major flood (buried ancient shorelines, dunes, salt flats, etc.) and instead cite a finding of pristine fossils in one location of the region. Surely some areas would have been less effected than others. Besides, even if it was a “smaller” flood, would it not still be catastrophic if your city was permanently inundated by 30 foot waters?
“In any case, evolution does not seem to work the way you think it does. How do you know the first two humans weren’t both males?”
Well, because then the human species wouldn’t have gotten very far then, would it have? I’m afraid you don’t have the grasp of evolution that you think you do if you’re questioning this point.
Reply to this commentOctober 3rd 2010
Pete D.,
“It is impossible to bring any living organism back from the dead. That’s it. End of story.”
And what if hypothetically speaking science were able to find a way to do just that in the future. Would it still be impossible? Besides, if Jesus really were the omnipotent God that He claimed to be, how would that be an impossibility for Him?
“It doesn’t matter how much circumstantial evidence or eyewitness claims there are, dead things do not live again. Clear enough?”
So it can’t happen just because YOU didn’t see it. I see. So if the person you trust most in this world (beside yourself) told you something “impossible” that happened to them, would you believe them? God is not subject to the laws He made. Miracles would be a validation that Jesus was who He claimed to be.
“I assume you know the story around the Tower of Babel and the origin of different languages.”
There is nothing in the Tower of Babel story that is illogical. Like Adam and Eve and Noah’s Flood, it is most likely a non-literal story about a historical event. It is not appropriate to take a story such as this and judge it by modern historical standards if the author’s intent was primarily a theological, not historical one.
Reply to this commentOctober 3rd 2010
Thanks to all for the stimulating discussions. Till the next article!
Cheers,
Peter E. Doumit
Reply to this commentFebruary 9th 2012
Pete D says - “Science is an incredibly powerful tool, but if that power is left to its own devices without a moral compass, it is an evil, fatal, and disastrous weapon that advances the most horrific violations to human dignity and worth (see modern China, eugenics, Nazi Germany, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung for a few examples).”
I am in complete agreement with Pete D and many others who find a complimentary balance in religion and science.
As Pope Benedict has wisely stated (and totally misunderstood by media who look for divisiveness in all things) it must be “Evolution and Creation”, not “Evolution or Creation”.
But the above passage by Pete D. projects immense negativity, perhaps unintentional, toward the scientific discipline. All of the despair and atrocities eluded to should be attributed to people, not to science.
Making a laundry list of historical atrocities and ascribing them to science is no more fair or sensible than if I were to list the Inquisition, the Crusades, and modern pedophilic priests, and then conclude that christianity is evil.
Reply to this commentBryce S.