Needed Monday night

Religion and Science

Introduction

In Rome on June 22, 1633, an elderly man was found guilty by the Catholic Inquisition of rendering himself “vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having held and believed a doctrine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture.” The doctrine in question was that “the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, that the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture.” The guilty man was the 70-year-old Florentine philosopher Galileo Galilei, who was sentenced to imprisonment and instructed to recite the seven penitential Psalms once a week for the next three years as a “salutary penance.” That included a weekly recitation of the particularly apt line addressed to God in Psalm 102: “In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” Kneeling before the Inquisitors-General, Galileo accepted his sentence, swore complete obedience to the Holy Catholic Church, and declared that he cursed and detested the “errors and heresies” of which he had been suspected—namely, belief in a sun-centered cosmos and in the movement of the earth.

It is hardly surprising that this humiliation of the most celebrated scientific thinker of his day by the Catholic Inquisition on the grounds of his beliefs about astronomy and their contradiction of the Bible should have been interpreted by some as evidence of an inevitable conflict between religion and science. The modern encounter between evolutionists and creationists has also seemed to reveal an ongoing antagonism, although this time with science, rather than the church, in the ascendancy. The Victorian agnostic Thomas Huxley expressed this idea vividly in his review of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859). “Extinguished theologians,” Huxley wrote, “lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the field, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain.” The image of conflict has also been attractive to some religious believers, who use it to portray themselves as members of an embattled but righteous minority struggling heroically to protect their faith against the oppressive and intolerant forces of science and materialism.

Although the idea of warfare between religion and science remains widespread and popular, recent academic writing on the subject has been devoted primarily to undermining the notion of an inevitable conflict. There are good historical reasons for rejecting simple conflict stories. From Galileo’s trial in 17th century Rome to modern American struggles over the latest form of anti-evolutionism, known as “Intelligent Design,” there has been more to the relationship between religion and science than meets the eye, and certainly more than just conflict. Pioneers of early modern science such as Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle saw their work as part of a religious enterprise devoted to understanding God’s creation. The goal of a constructive and collaborative dialogue between religion and science has been endorsed by many Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the modern world. The idea that scientific and religious views are inevitably in tension is also contradicted by the large number of religious scientists who continue to see their research as a complement rather than a challenge to their faith, including the theoretical physicist John Polkinghorne, the former director of the Human Genome Project Francis S. Collins, and the astronomer Owen Gingerich, to name just a few.

Does that mean that conflict needs to be written out of the story altogether? Certainly not. The only thing to avoid is too narrow an idea of the kinds of conflicts one might expect to find between religion and science. The story is not always one of a heroic and open-minded scientist clashing with a reactionary and bigoted religion. The bigotry, like the open-mindedness, is shared around on all sides—as are the quest for understanding and the love of truth. The leading historian of religion and science, John Hedley Brooke, writes that serious historical study has “revealed so extraordinarily rich and complex a relationship between science and religion in the past that general theses are difficult to sustain.” There has certainly not been a single and unchanging relationship between the two entities called “religion” and “science.” There are, nonetheless, some central philosophical questions that have frequently recurred in this context: What is the most fundamental reality? What are the most authoritative sources of knowledge? Can either nature or scriptures serve as a reliable guide to truth?

Ultimately, however, debates about religion and science are about the compatibility or incompatibility of some particular religious belief with some particular aspect of scientific knowledge. Do religious creation stories conflict with current accounts of the Big Bang origin of the universe? Is belief in the divine design of life incompatible with believing that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor? Does belief in life after death conflict with the findings of modern brain science? Does belief in miracles conflict with the strictly law-governed world revealed by the physical sciences? And so on. It is often argued that religion and science are interested in completely different kinds of questions. Science, it is often said, asks “how” questions, while religion asks “why.” Though it is certainly true that science is focused on understanding the way that the natural world works while religion is deeply concern with meaning, the types of questions just raised also make it clear that both religion and science make factual claims about the nature of reality, and it is precisely at these overlapping claims that the modern religion-science debate is directed.

The Methods of Religion and Science

At the core of the debate between religion and science is the way these two domains of inquiry gain knowledge and support their truth claims. Religion and science use different methods to explain and understand the world and our place in it. At the heart of all the disagreements is the big question concerning knowledge: How do we know what is true? Is faith a valid argument when it comes to truth-claims? Is it necessary to have strong evidence in order to believe something as true? Are facts located in old scriptures or can they only be deduced in a laboratory? Debates about science and religion virtually always involve disagreements about the relative authority of different sources of knowledge. Naturalists use science as their primary standard for what humans know, whereas theists defend other ways of knowing, distinct from science.

So what are the specific methods for gaining knowledge in the domain of religion? The first method by which religions claim to acquire knowledge, and beyond doubt the most important method, is revelation. Revelation is a theological word that literally means “unveiling.” Revelation is the idea that God has spoken to human beings in some way, and in doing so, has given us knowledge about the world that we would never have known or discovered on our own. Revealed knowledge is produced by a supernatural uncovering of the truth—either through the medium of scripture or by a direct revelation of God to the individual believer. In addition to information about the world, revelation is said to reveal God’s plan for his people and the legal and moral basis according to which they should live. Jews, Christian, Muslims, and almost all other religious communities insist that their primary beliefs about the world come from God and do not merely arise from inquiring human minds as the teachings of science do. Also, because they come directly from God, these beliefs should be independently accurate, not reliant on developments in science or any other source of human inquiry.

A second important source of knowledge within the domain of religion is authority. Authority refers to acquiring and holding knowledge not directly from a divine source like God but from lesser, though still trusted and respected figures. In other words, your beliefs are given to you by whatever religious leaders and traditions you have grown up in or have chosen to follow. In this case, the beliefs you hold and the truths you defend come from sources like theologians, or pastors, or established doctrines. Authority is the final arbiter of truth. In fact, untruth—or in religious terms, “blasphemy” and “heresy”—are defined as deviations from the knowledge determined by authority.

A third crucial source of support for religious belief is faith. And here we get to the very core of the matter when it comes to the debate between religion and science. Both revelation and authority are very important, but it is clear that of all the methods used by religion, faith is the most controversial source of belief. Many people who are scientifically inclined respond disdainfully to appeals to faith, rebuking those who believe things that are irrational or unsubstantiated. Faith, some people argue, is precisely that which operates when reason fails. In religion, however, faith is the greatest of virtues.

While elements of what we today call “science” were already being done by the Greeks, what we understand as modern science didn’t come into full swing until the beginning of the Scientific Revolution in the sixteenth century. At this time we see a sea change, or what might better be called a “paradigm shift,” in the way people thought about questions of truth and knowledge.

First, people began to seriously question the role of revelation, authority, and faith when it came to trying to discern facts about the world. Second, they began to develop a powerful new way to discover truth. Francis Bacon was perhaps the forefather of this new way of discovery. He advocated the idea that the way to understand the natural world is to collect data, conduct experiments, take observations, and use these as test beds through which to evaluate proposed explanations for what’s going on. Hence, what is known today as “the scientific method” was born. This method has been refined and made more powerful over the centuries. It still remains the principle way that science arrives at knowledge about the natural world.

The scientific method involves a series of steps to arrive at answers to questions about the world. The first step of science is observation. The proper starting point of science is careful observation because it leads us to ask questions about the things and events we observe around us. Once observation has led to questions, this is followed by the attempt to explain the observations. The next step in explanation is formulating a hypothesis. A crucial part of formulating a hypothesis is incorporating predictions that would either confirm or disconfirmation the explanation being offered. Prediction is a key part of the scientific process because if explanations can’t be verified, then it is impossible to demonstrate whether a particular idea is true or not. Accurate predictions help to confirm that the hypothesis is true and leads on to increasingly better comprehension of the thing being studied. Now that a question has been raised and a proposed first explanation worked out, including some predictions that would demonstrate that it was at least partly right, it is time to go ahead and test the hypothesis. This entails experimentation, which is the core methodology of science. Once the relevant data has been obtained, it is time to analyze the findings. The final step in the scientific method is repetition. Experiments that only work once, or that produce results that cannot be replicated, are not taken seriously.

In addition to the scientific method itself, which is the way that science goes about the work of gathering knowledge about the world, there are a number of other principles that are meant to help insure that the knowledge gathered is truly factual and accurate. These guiding principles are just as much a part of science as the scientific method itself. The first guiding principle, and what is arguably the essential and distinctive ingredient of science, is evidence. The sine qua non of science is empirical facts that can be inspected and judged by any trained and rational observer. In science, evidence is the method for separating truth from untruth. It weighs ideas that best fit with the evidence. Another guiding principle in science is falsification. Falsifiability is an essential element of finding truth. For a theory or fact to be seen as correct, there must be ways of showing that something is wrong, and those ways must have been tried and have failed. A claim that can’t be shown to be wrong can never be shown to be right.

Because of these very different ways of acquiring knowledge about the world, the dominant message in our culture today is that religion and science stand in deep tension. Nowhere is this message clearer than in the debate between naturalism and theism. Naturalism is the view that all that exists are natural objects within the universe—the combinations of physical mass and energy that make up planets and states, oceans and mountains, microbes and humans. In normal usages, naturalism usually implies the claim that real knowledge of these natural objects comes through, or is at least controlled by, the results of scientific inquiry. Cognate terms are materialism and physicalism. The former traditionally means “all is matter”; the latter technically means reducible to the laws, particles, and forms of energy that physicists study.

Theism is the belief in the existence of God, an ultimate reality that transcends the universe as a whole. Passing over a few exceptions, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus are theists. When the term is used broadly, it includes pantheists, panentheists, and polytheists—hence most of the native African religions and the world’s indigenous or tribal religions. Typically God is described as a personal being, often with the qualities of omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolence (all-good). Based on the sacred scriptures of their particular tradition, theists often ascribe other qualities to God, such as consciousness, love, justice, and righteousness.

Theists usually defend specific ways of knowing, distinct from science, through which humans are able to know something of God and God’s nature. Traditionally, they have believed that God created the world, providentially guides it, and reveals God’s self in it. This means that God does things in the world, carrying out actions that are either consistent with natural law or that involve setting natural regularities aside (miracles).

At first blush, theism and naturalism appear to be incompatible positions. Naturalists affirm that all that exists is the universe and the objects within it, whereas theists claim that something transcends the universe. Naturalists generally use science as their primary standard for what humans know, whereas theists defend other ways of knowing as well, such as intuition or religious experience.

So, given these diverse ways of thinking and trying to make sense of the world, are the two positions of naturalism (science) and theism (religion) incompatible? Or, when one probes deeper, can one detect any deeper compatibilities? One way to find out is to arrange a debate between a knowledgeable representative from each side and then to see what emerges. Good debates between naturalists and theists are hard to find in real life; they often deteriorate into name-calling and shouting matches. Instead, let’s imagine one instead where leveled-headed responses might be offered for consideration.

A Naturalist and a Theist in Debate

Host: The definitions of your positions have already been presented. So let me ask each of you to give a basic defense of your position. Let us start with the theist.

Theist: Religion is one of the oldest and most notable features of humanity. Some of the greatest wisdom and some of the most ennobling ethical ideals are contained in the world’s religious traditions. These ideals are intrinsically linked to metaphysical beliefs, beliefs about the nature of ultimate reality. In my particular case, for example, I believe that an infinite personal being exists, one who is the creator and ultimate ground of all finite things.

Naturalist: I don’t dispute the role that religions played in the childhood and youth of our species. Indeed, although much evil has been done in the name of religion, I concede that it has sometimes also brought some good. But humanity in its maturity has invented science and begun to guide its decision-making by scientific results. If religion is to play any positive role today—and at least some of my naturalist friends believe it still can—it must function in whatever spaces are left over by the results of the various sciences.

Theist: There is no reason to think that the advent of science spells the death of religion. I advocate a more complex worldview in which both serve important functions. I agree that religion should not compete with science in science’s own proper domain, but many of the most important human questions lie outside the sphere of scientific competence.

Host: Thanks for those opening statements. Here’s our next question. Are there areas of human experience, outside the domain of science, where religion provides knowledge?

Theist: Science describes what is but cannot tell us how we ought to act. Hence, ethics and morality lie outside its sphere. Science can tell us about the laws of nature and can explain the motion of physical bodies in the universe, but it cannot tell us what came before the universe or why it was created. Yet for many of us the meaning of human life turns on questions like these, questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Religion provides knowledge in these spheres.

Naturalist: You wrongly set limits on science, for example, by claiming that it has no moral implications. There are values that arise in the process of doing science, and these provide good models for human interactions, for institutions, and for politics. To know what kind of animal we have evolved to be tells us something about how we should live if we are to be happy and successful. Hence science does provide some guidance for how humans ought to live. Of course, many human decisions are not dictated by physics or biology. In cases where there is great variability across cultures and moral systems, and where the beliefs in question do no damage, we can be relativists, allowing each person to choose for him or herself. Religion falls in this category. And on the meaning question, I find meaning in the pursuit of knowledge about the world, as well as in my family, friends, and hobbies. What more meaning do I need?

Host: Okay, next question. Does anything exist beyond the natural world taken as a whole?

Naturalist: I think such questions are meaningless. We can observe empirical objects; we can measure them and make predictions about their causal interactions with each other. Why would we want to make truth claims about the existence of anything else? I tend to think that all such metaphysical language is literally meaningless.

Theist: I think it’s impossible to argue against metaphysics without doing metaphysics, and therefore contradicting oneself. I also think that a number of positive arguments can be given for affirming the existence of God. I don’t actually share the view of a school called “Intelligent Design,” which claims that these arguments are scientific arguments and can win in a head-to-head competition with contemporary scientific accounts of the world. They are instead philosophical arguments. But I think they are compelling nonetheless. I affirm the classical proofs for the existence of God: the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments. They do not force belief in the existence of God, but they at least show that it’s not unreasonable to believe in God.

Naturalist: Those classic arguments are no longer persuasive in the scientific age. Some of them make assumptions about nature that we no longer hold today. For example, the teleological argument, the so-called argument from design, is no longer valid after Darwin. It argues that God exists based on the fact that animals and plants are matched to their environments; otherwise, it says, it would be impossible to explain why organisms are so perfectly suited to their surroundings. But Darwinism as a whole explains evolution and adaptation in scientific terms.

Theist: I agree that modern biology has rendered certain forms of the argument from design unconvincing. So let me give two arguments drawn from the context of modern science, which I think are still persuasive. The first is the “fine-tuning” argument. We now know that the fundamental physical variables had to fall within a very narrow range for life to be possible, and in fact they do. This suggests that we live in an “anthropic” universe—a universe designed for life, or at least the only kind of universe in which life could arise. My second argument moves from the existence of natural law to the existence of God. Natural laws are prior to the existence of physical states of affairs; they are the mathematical regularities that determine the motions of particles and specify the four fundamental forces in the universe. But if laws precede the existence of the universe, and laws are more mind-like than body-like, then something like mind is the more fundamental order of reality. This supports the idea that ultimate reality is God, not matter. Furthermore, some of the traditional arguments for the existence of God still remain valid in this age of science. One can only answer the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” if there exists an ultimate reality that contains the reason for its existence within itself. God is such a being; therefore God exists. The existence of values and of our awareness of moral obligation also proves that there must be a highest good, which is God. Finally, religious experience provides some evidence of the existence of God.

Naturalist: It is quite possible to turn this discussion around the other way. In a scientific age, shouldn’t we try to learn as much as we can from the empirical study of religion? I don’t need to argue that all of your sentences are literally meaningless, but I do want to encourage you to learn everything that you can about religion by scientific means. For example, did religious beliefs and practices help humans in their various clans and tribes to survive in hostile environments? If so, how did this happen? Did religion increase group cohesion and motivate people to obey the social mores necessary for their survival? Such questions are only the start. Scientists are now studying how human biology shapes human feelings and desires. There are biological explanations for why human beings believe certain things and disbelieve others. By studying evolutionary history we can reconstruct the brain structures around which human cognition is built. If we did turn to metaphysics, however, I would side with Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. Evolution shows more complex organisms arising out of simpler states of affairs. This pattern suggests that the origin of all things was maximally simply. Theism, by contrast, begins with a maximally complex being, God, who then creates relatively simple processes. To my mind that puts theists at a disadvantage when it comes to the evidence.

Theist: I am interested in the empirical evidence as much as you are, but we interpret it very differently. If God exists, as I believe, is it surprising that our brains would be naturally wired to produce the idea of God? Wouldn’t we also expect that groups that are bonded together by their belief in God would do better on this planet than non-religious groups? Also, you should know that traditional theism affirmed the doctrine of divine simplicity. So we are not at all disturbed by Dawkins’s argument; it merely asks us for what we already affirm.

Host: Thanks for that exchange; that was very helpful. What do the two of you believe about the nature of humanity?

Theist: Everything that exists is God’s creation. We share many qualities with the animals as a result. Still, humans uniquely reflect the “image of God.” Some people read Genesis in a literal way; they believe that God created humans as a “special creation,” separate from God’s creation of the animals. But others, like me, do not read the Hebrew Bible as a literal guide to scientific matters. We are happy to say that there was just the one creation of “heaven and the earth” and that humans evolved from animals. Still, I affirm that some unique human qualities have evolved through and out of this process. They include the ability to consciously know God and God’s self-revelation, to know that we are morally responsible before others, to recognize our need for salvation and relationship with God, and to commit our lives to God’s service. There is evidence that science is now helping us to establish how unique many of the human capacities are.

Naturalist: Obviously I don’t share your views on God, but in general, I would say naturalists are more skeptical about claims for human uniqueness than you are. Evolution involves a process of many small mutations to a genome, which lead to differential survival rates of the offspring. It’s true that new abilities evolve over time: the ability to move, sexual reproduction, the emergence of a brain and central nervous system, the ability to form mental representations of one’s environment, and eventually the use of symbolic language. But it is a mistake to use any of these emergent properties as grounds for drawing an ontological divide and separating organisms into fundamentally different kinds of living beings.

Host: Next question. Is religion necessary for making life meaningful? Can religion alone produce the sense that we are “at home in the universe?”

Theism: Here I think I am on especially strong ground. Science leads to nihilism, the sense that the world is ultimately meaningless or even absurd. On the assumption of naturalism, there is no purpose to our lives, no final direction to cosmic history. Science also cannot serve as a ground for values. One might choose to be moral, but one is not really obligated to do so. By contrast, if the world is created by a personal God who is good and who cares for creation, it’s a very different picture. One gives alternate answers to the core questions of existence. Now there is meaning, purpose, directionality, and a real basis for distinguishing right from wrong.

Naturalist: Interestingly, I think I am on equally strong ground in answering our host’s question. If physics were the only science, one might well conclude that all that exists is “matter and energy in motion.” But biology studies organisms, and every organism has a least one purpose in the world: to survive and reproduce. Some things are naturally more valuable to a given organism given its biology and culture.

Theist: But that’s hardly a robust defense of values! If the fundamental value of nature is “survival of the fittest,” then the final state of man would be “nasty, brutish, and short.” You might be able to show that treating your genetic relatives is biologically good, as is doing nice things for friends in the hope that they will reciprocate, but you could never ground a universal altruism—the call to love one’s enemies, for example—on the basis of biology alone.

Naturalist: That’s right; the call to universal love can be a cultural value, but it can’t be derived from biology alone. But on the more general point, you and I disagree. Biology gives rise to culture, with its complex languages and symbol systems. The stories and the values we live by are among these cultural products. As a naturalist, I don’t have to reduce everything in the natural world to genes or to the struggle for survival alone. I love my family and friends, pursue projects for the good of society, and hope for world peace just as much as you do; my values are as deeply embedded in who I am as yours are in you. It’s just that I don’t think they need any grounding outside of the natural and cultural worlds.

Host: Do miracles exist? Are the laws of nature ever suspended?

Naturalist: That one’s easy: no! As the Scottish philosopher David Hume showed in his famous Dialogues concerning Natural Religion in the eighteenth century, the reasons against believing that a miracle has occurred, that natural laws have ben suspended, will always be massively greater than the reasons for affirming one. Not only that, but even the possibility of miracles occurring would make science, as we know it, impossible. Imagine that a scientist would have to say when she encountered an anomaly: “Well, either my data is bad, or my theories are incomplete, or perhaps God has simply set aside a few natural laws here in order to actualize some goals in the world.” No science could be done in such a context. But since there is no scientific evidence that miracles have ever occurred, I rest easy on this one.

Theist: I think things are more complex than my friend describes. God could easily be influencing the world in myriad forms without being detected by microscopes or Geiger counters. Over the eons God could have guided the course of evolution in many ways. Even for those who don’t believe that God directly brings about physical changes in the world, it is possible for God to subtly influence human thought, allowing them to carry out God’s will. For me the most important point is that God is able to work miracles in the world if and when God wishes. This possibility follows directly from God having created the finite world in the first place. The naturalist and I also disagree on the empirical question of whether miraculous things have happened. Haven’t most of us heard stories and testimonies about some pretty miraculous events happening? Isn’t it possible that they have? In the end, then, the most important thing for me is God’s ability to act in the world.

Host: Our time is running out, and we must draw to a close. For the last question, let me ask you if you think that science and religion represent two opposing worldviews, or could they offer two complementary ways of construing the one reality?

Theist: Some of my Jewish, Christian, and Muslim friends think that their theism is incompatible with science; but I disagree, as you’ve heard. It’s also true that many scientists tend to confuse the scientific data and theories themselves with their own anti-religious prejudices and secular worldview. When this occurs, they confuse science with atheism. When religious people hear scholars identifying science with atheism, is it surprising that they conclude that they have to be anti-scientific? Still, I personally am not convinced that science and religion exclude each other. Accurate scientific knowledge of the natural world does not exclude the existence of a supernatural God. In my view, supernatural explanations supplement naturalistic ones. There is no ultimate inconsistency. How could there be, if God is the creator of the heavens and the earth?

Naturalist: I too have many friends more radical than myself who affirm a complete incompatibility between science and all forms of religious belief. The media seems to love reporting on their views, and pays less attention to more moderate naturalists such as myself. I wouldn’t say that science excludes all religious beliefs whatsoever. But I do think that my theist friend here, which his robust supernaturalist claims, is going to have a harder time reconciling this theology with science than, say, a Buddhist would have. Nevertheless, the theist shouldn’t derive too much comfort from my willingness to admit a compatibility-in-principle between science and religion. When it comes to concrete knowledge claims about God, I think there simply isn’t enough empirical evidence to warrant your doctrines. If you want to affirm “ultimate mystery” or stress the importance of living a “spiritual” life, I can hardly complain. But as soon as you begin making any more concrete claims about God and how the world works, I think you step beyond the empirical evidence.

Models for Relating Religion and Science

What can we learn from this debate? First, it breaks at least one widespread stereotype: the tendency to associate all naturalists with science and all theists with an anti-scientific attitude. This is the first assumption many make in any discussion of science and religion. Many people tend to identify science with an ultimate or metaphysical naturalism; they then associate belief in God with an anti-scientific attitude. Our short debate shows that such easy identifications are too simplistic.

So how are we to understand the complex relationship between religion and science? It is not an easy matter to analyze. There are considerable variations between the different natural sciences in terms of their methods and approaches. The term “religion” is notoriously difficult to define, and there are considerable differences between and within individual religions. Any attempt to generalize about the relationship between religion and science is therefore bound to encounter serious difficulties. Nevertheless, the effort is generally regarded as worthwhile. So, are religion and science enemies, strangers, or friends?

One of the most influential categorizations of approaches to the relation of science and religion is due to Ian Barbour, regarded by many as the pioneer of studies in religion and science. Barbour’s typology of “ways of relating science and religion” first appeared in 1988, and remains the most widely used typology in the field. Barbour lists three broad types of relations: conflict, independence, and dialogue.

1. The Conflict Model — Historically, the most significant understanding of the relation between religion and science is that of “conflict,” or perhaps even “warfare.” This strongly confrontational model continues to be deeply influential at the popular level, even if its appeal has diminished considerably at a more scholarly level. This influential model was expounded in two influential works published in the later part of the 19th century by John Draper and Andrew White. Today, the best-known representative of this approach is Richard Dawkins, who argued in a speech to the American Humanist Association, “faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.” Science and religion are implacably opposed. Science represents reason, and religion superstition. Yet this model is not restricted to antireligious scientists. It is widespread within conservative religious groups within Christianity and Islam, who are often virulently hostile to the idea of biological evolution. The creationist Henry Morris published a sustained critique of modern evolutionary theory in which he invites us to image Satan inventing the idea of evolution as a mean of dethroning God.

2. The Independence Model — The Darwinian controversy caused many to distrust the “warfare” or “conflict” model. In the first place, it was seen to be historically questionable. Yet in the second, there was growing concern to prevent any alleged “conflict” from damaging either science or religion. This led many to insist that the two fields had to be regarded as completely independent of each other. This approach insists that science and religion are to be seen as separate, autonomous fields of study, each with its own distinct rules and language. Science has little to say about religious beliefs, and religion has little to say about scientific study. This approach is found in the 1981 policy statement of the National Academy of Science, which declared that “religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought.” It has been most famously developed by Stephen Jay Gould’s model of “nonoverlapping magisteria” (NOMA). For Gould, science encompasses the domain of facts about the universe while religion occupies the realm of meaning and values. They are, and need to maintain, independence, noninterference, and mutual respect. According to the old cliché, “science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven.” The independence model appeals to many scientists and theologians because it gives them freedom to believe and think what they like in their own respective fields without forcing them to relate these magisterial.

3. The Dialogue Model — The third way of understanding the relation between science and religion is to see them as engaged in a dialogue, leading to enhanced mutual understanding. This model says that science and religion are neither in conflict nor completely independent of each other but are in fact complementary. According to this perspective, science and theology each have their place and should serve to complement rather than contradict each other. The study of nature through science and the pursuit of God through faith are both genuine ways of seeking the truth about reality. The notion here is that that there are dual explanations for almost every question in life. If one explanation addresses ultimate causes, another might address mechanistic processes. They aren’t mutually exclusive; both lead to a fuller understanding of the whole. Another way this is often described is that science and religion are different but necessary “ways of knowing.” Science isn’t the only way of ferreting out nature’s truths, nor does it cover the whole of nature, especially those things that comprise the human experience. When it comes to matters of science and theology, the search for understanding typically manifests itself in different ways. Science is concerned with discovering and understanding natural phenomena: the domain of science is the natural world—the what “is”. This methodology seeks to know how things are, not so much why they are that way, nor how they should be. On the other hand, theology is concerned with the source, purpose, and meaning of everything; the domain of theology is nature’s purpose. Thus both religion and science are needed to fully describe nature and the human condition. As the late Pope John Paul II commented in 1998: “Science can purify religion rom error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.”

There are, of course, difficulties with this simple typology. The most obvious is that it is inadequate to do justice to the complexity of history. These models are useful precisely because they are so simple, yet their simplicity can also be a weakness as much as strength. Nevertheless, the framework set out by these models remains helpful as a means of approaching the debate surrounding science and religion.