Science and religion 4m(2)

SuMMARIZING THE OPTIONS There was a time when it seemed that religion might just dis- appear. Throughout the modern period secularism continued to grow. It appeared that the religions of humankind would be superseded by science and left behind as historical artifacts, like Egyptian temples, the Greek gods, and many Christian churches in Northern Europe today. Certainly the hope of a world with- out religion continues to motivate some thinkers. Richard Daw- kins’ ‘Beyond Belief ’ movement and advertising campaigns in Britain and Canada have precisely this outcome as their goal.

And yet at present the outcome they strive for appears unlikely. If anything, there has been a resurgence of religious commitment in many cultures. Any decline in religion in Europe and North America has been more than compensated for by the rapid growth of Pentecostal and charismatic movements in churches around the world. Even non-religious thinkers, such as Jürgen Habermas, one of Germany’s leading philosophers, now speak of moving – contrary to their and others’ expectations – into a ‘post-secular society.’1

Religion, then, it appears, is not going away. I take it as obvi- ous that science is not going away either (if only because most

9

THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

170 THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

people love their electronic toys too much). That means we have to find some way to deal with the relationship between these two great cultural forces. What are the possible outcomes? I con- sider five; perhaps you will be able to formulate others.

(1) It could be that religion is just evil, so that, no matter how long it stays around, it should be opposed. On this view, religion is like racism or sexism or abusing children: no matter how inev- itable it is, we should oppose it whenever and wherever it arises. Something like this seems to be the position of Christopher Hitchens, who titled his book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Hitchens liked the subtitle so much that he repeated it a few pages into the book:

Religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct them- selves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow. . . . People of faith are in their different ways plan- ning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard- won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything.2

(2) Or perhaps modern science is just wrong. Perhaps one of the religions actually has the true answer, not only about God or the religious ultimate, but also about how the natural world functions. (It seems clear that not all the religions can be right, since they say different things about the ultimate nature of reality.)

(3) The religions (or major movements within them) may evolve in directions that become increasingly hostile to science. The scenario might look something like this. Suppose the lib- eral, progressive, or ‘mainline’ groups within Judaism, Christian- ity, and the other traditions continue to develop an openness to scientific methods and conclusions, as they are currently doing. But imagine that the result – say, an integration of Christianity and modern science – fails to provide that sense of meaning- fulness and significance that is the primary function of religion. Imagine that too many people become disillusioned with liberal religion – either because it’s too distant from the traditions as they were once taught and practiced, or because it is not distinct

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

171THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

enough from the surrounding secular culture, or because in other ways it fails to hold people’s religious interest. (Some com- mentators are saying that this is already happening in Europe and North America. Scholars of India and Asian cultures sometimes write similar things about the declining credibility of traditional religions in those countries as well.)

If this happens, liberal religion wouldn’t just disappear, but it would become increasingly marginalized. Modernist or pro- gressive religious people would either move on to some sort of generic spirituality, one decreasingly linked to the histori- cal religions, or give up on religious concerns altogether. Both responses actually amount to the same thing; after all, ‘spiritual but not religious’ means, in practice, post-religious. (As we saw, even the greatest opponents of religion today, such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, are happy to say that they are at heart deeply spiritual people.)

Such a shift would leave the conservative and anti-scientific positions as the only significant religious voices in Western soci- ety. That outcome would certainly produce a sustained, bitter warfare-to-the-death between science and religion. Conser- vative religious people might increasingly pull their children out of public schools where standard science is taught, either home-schooling them or placing them in religious schools, yeshivas, and madrasahs. They might be inclined to vote against public funding for basic science research. In the United States, slashing funding for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Academy of Sci- ence would further weaken the place of the United States in the world scientific community, with possibly disastrous effects for the American economy. In response, the rhetoric of scientifically interested people toward religion would become increasingly harsh, and the number of religious people in the sciences would presumably decline.

(4) On a more positive level, one can also imagine establish- ing a (more or less) permanent truce between these two systems of thought. Imagine that scientists and philosophers of science came to agree that religion is concerned about a separate realm altogether.3 Let us say they were able to precisely specify the domains in which scientific knowledge can be gained, happily

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

172 THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

leaving the remaining realms to art, literature, philosophy, and religion. One could even imagine that the chief spokespersons for science in our society would in this case even have positive things to say about the arts and humanities, including religious studies – as long as they remained distinct from the sciences and did not make claims to scientific knowledge.

Then imagine that religious thinkers and practitioners accepted a similar distinction, though in their case for religious reasons. They might argue, ‘Religion was never intended to be a science of the natural world. It makes metaphysical claims about the nature of ultimate reality, claims about how the natu- ral universe might have arisen, and claims about its final destiny. Revelations and sacred scriptures are about these matters, and about how we should live in the world and with others in light of these beliefs about ultimate reality. But none of these beliefs needs to conflict with science.’

Attempts to include religious beliefs about creation in science textbooks or science classes would immediately disappear. Reli- gious persons might begin to say, ‘You know, my belief in God increases my interest in studying the natural world, and that’s why I’m becoming an evolutionary biologist or neuroscientist.’ Non-religious scientists would be free to pursue their philo- sophical interests as well – outside of the lab, of course. You can imagine them saying,

Some people interpret scientific conclusions from their religious worldview, and others (such as myself ) interpret them in a completely naturalistic or atheistic way. We both agree that such interpretations are completely independent of the science itself. Sometimes I like to debate about theism and atheism with religious people, but I recog- nize that these are philosophical debates. Science will never settle the matter one way or the other.

A religious consensus would gradually emerge that passages in the various scriptures and commentaries – passages that many believers today interpret as scientific and historical claims – are actually better interpreted metaphorically or theologically. Phrases such as ‘Hindu science’ or ‘Islamic science’ would cease to be used. Presumably theologians would find their own ways to

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

173THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

interpret scientific activity from the standpoint of their religious tradition and texts. But these interpretations would always be offered in such a way that the science itself was left untouched.

Similarly, scientists would become very clear about whether they were reporting actual scientific results, possible scientific results, philosophical interpretations of those results, or religious debates about what those results do or do not imply for the various world religions. Of course, maintaining the truce would require some discipline on the parts of both parties, but it cer- tainly seems possible in principle.

(5) On the other hand, maybe the boundaries won’t turn out to be so sharp after all. Let us also assume that, as the years go by, only a small number of religious extremists will want to stand in oppo- sition to well-attested scientific results. Imagine that religiously interested thinkers and scientists increasingly become partners in exploring the intriguing borderlands between their fields.

Philosophers and scientifically informed theologians would be invited to join research groups that explore areas of over- lap: the neural correlates of consciousness, the co-evolution of biology and culture, the biological foundations of the evolution of religion, and similar topics. As these interdisciplinary groups bring clarity on the key terms and broader speculative questions, they may even help scientists to formulate testable hypotheses about their areas of research. The philosophers and theologians, for their part, would gain new ideas for their fields as they learn more about scientific methods and practices. The discussions would clarify where there are clear scientific results, where there is potential for results, and where questions arise that empiri- cal science cannot resolve. With these results in hand, the phi- losophers and theologians could formulate their religious (or non-religious) conclusions and understand their own traditions in new ways.

One need not assume that all religious believers would con- verge upon a single system of belief (though I suppose one cannot rule out this outcome). But one can imagine that peo- ple could come to hold a variety of religious interpretations of the world in ways that are compatible with and respectful of the spirit of science. We return later to a few of the positive results that would accrue from this sort of integration.

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

174 THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

How can you make up your mind which of these five out- comes is the most plausible? Is there a sixth possibility that is more likely? More importantly, how can you decide which answer would be the most rational, that is, which would corre- spond to the actual features of science and religion and to the similarities and differences between them? As I hope the earlier chapters in this book have shown, the greater one’s knowledge of the sciences and the religions in question, the further one can get. It takes some serious study and dialogue to come up with informed judgments. Discussion with actual scientists and reli- gious people, especially those whose views are not identical to one’s own, plays an essential role.

Sadly, it is more typical today to fire rhetorical salvos in the direction of the opposing camp. The disadvantage of that strat- egy is that it makes it impossible to know whether the other side actually possesses any good arguments for their views, thus leav- ing the rational person with some uncertainties about whether her own position is the best or only possible answer. The warfare model makes it impossible to find out whether any compro- mises or mediating positions are possible. When you hear each member of a couple saying, ‘It’s all his fault’ or ‘It’s all her fault,’ you generally assume some shortcomings on both sides. The impasse has caused them to dig in and toss all blame toward the other, even though the truth lies somewhere in the middle. One cannot help but suspect that something similar is occurring in the impasses that dominate religion-science discussions in our culture today.

Debates will continue as to which of the five options is actu- ally the best or most likely outcome. Progress is more likely if the participants have some training in questions of religion and science and understand the various options. The author hopes that those who have worked through this book and its questions will now be in a better position to engage in such debates – whichever positions they finally decide to defend.

MAKING THE CASE FOR PARTNERSHIPS In closing, let us consider a completely different approach to the question about the future of science and religion. Let us assume

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

175THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

for the moment that religion can serve some positive functions in society. Indeed, many people are able to agree when religion is performing a positive role, even if they don’t agree about the truth claims of the religions in question. If so, a society might be motivated to encourage constructive partnerships with and between the various religions – and to convince religious people themselves also to develop such partnerships. And if that’s true, the urgent question becomes: What two-way partnerships might be possible, in principle, between religion and science? Consider (and evaluate) these four:

Values from science, values from religion It is hard to deny that science teaches and exemplifies some par- ticular values. During World War II the famous philosopher of science Karl Popper argued that science stands on the side of ‘the open society’ and hence against totalitarianism, Marxism, and (his third nemesis) psychoanalysis.4 Similarly, Jacob Bronowski derived a number of specific values from the practice of science, including dissent, respect, freedom, tolerance, independence, rea- son, and justice.5 The well-known new atheist Sam Harris writes in a similar vein when he argues in The Moral Landscape that science provides all the values that one needs.6

Many people will argue, however, that some value commit- ments go beyond what science itself can determine. Beyond the horizon of science one seems to discover some universal philo- sophical principles. A commonly cited example is Kant’s categor- ical imperative: ‘Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law’ or, in its easier form, we should treat persons as ‘ends in themselves and not as means only.’ One also seems to find universal (or virtu- ally universal) religious principles, such as the call to compassion – perhaps religion’s highest principle – and the Golden Rule, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’

All this suggests an attractive form of partnership. Science pro- vides reliable data about the world, and a reliable understanding of the world in turn represents the indispensable starting point for effective decision-making. Universal principles of fairness and justice play a different role; they provide a first (and certainly

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

176 THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

indispensable) context for decision-making. If that’s right, no spe- cific culture or religion can ignore the basic requirement that persons are always ends in themselves and never merely a means for someone else’s happiness or success.

Let’s assume for the moment that facts about the natural world and some foundational principles set the overall context for thought and action. Beyond this basic framework, however, various kinds of more specific guidance are provided by spe- cific religious traditions, each of which is characterized by its own specific beliefs and priorities. One does not have to endorse all the truth claims of a given tradition to recognize the spe- cific strengths that it brings to the table. Sometimes there will be strong agreement across traditions, as we have seen; at other times one specific tradition may supply insights and emphases that no other tradition offers in quite the same way.

Consider a few examples of distinctive contributions from the various traditions. Buddhists emphasize the interdependence of all things, as well as the importance of ‘mindfulness’ – presence in, with, and to the moment just as it is and for its own sake. Hindu thought has a beautiful ability to recognize the innate value in all individual living things at the same time that it emphasizes their grounding in a single ultimate source and reality. It encourages religious practices that are satisfying and effective in their own right, at the same time that they point beyond themselves to a fundamental spiritual orientation to the world. The Jains are, I think, the greatest proponents, in thought and action, of the principle of ahimsa, non-violence to all living things. It is inspir- ing to watch members of the Jain community work out the implications of radical non-violence and to attempt to live these out in their everyday lives. In other religious traditions one finds admiration for the Jain concern to preserve all life forms and to avoid inflicting suffering in any way.

Taoism is a beautiful religion of harmony, balance, and coop- eration. For Taoist philosophers, whenever one part of soci- ety loses sight of its dependence on other parts and begins to dominate, the balance of the Tao is lost, and one should again seek the middle way. Taoism also offers a deep understanding of right action with the concept of wu wei or ‘without action.’ Great results can be achieved without effort (wei wu wei: ‘action

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

177THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

without action’ or ‘effortless doing’) if one retains the balance of the Tao.

Jewish observance draws attention to the importance of con- sistent practice in the midst of, or perhaps because of, the com- plexity and ambiguity of human intentions and attitudes. It also places a strong emphasis on the importance of justice and the contribution that people must make to bringing about justice in the world – not despite their religious convictions but because of them. Orthodox Jewish thinkers have also emphasized the vast difference between G-d and human beings, hence the unknowability of G-d, and hence the importance of humility about whatever are one’s own beliefs and convictions.

Christianity lays great stress on the internal religious life. This religion always asks not only, ‘What did you do?’ but at the same time, ‘What was your inner attitude when you did it?’ It is also a religion that places great stress on love. Its founder, Jesus, said that the two greatest commandments were, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

Islam continues to emphasize the sovereignty of God and the absolute responsibility of humans before their Maker. The five pillars of Islam set high standards for human devotion to God, reminding the believer constantly that all things come from God and will return to God, so that God really is the final judge and determiner of all that exists and occurs. Yet alongside Islam’s high standards for obedience are profound mystical writings of devotion to and even unity with the One and Ultimate.

Nor are the contributions limited to the normal list of the ‘world religions.’ The indigenous religions are the fundamental ecosystems out of which later cultures and complex civiliza- tions have grown. Invariably they teach the close bonds between human beings and their specific environment, as well as the interdependence of humans and other animals. No one should romanticize existence in tribal cultures; their relations to animals were often brutal, since life was a matter of ‘eat or be eaten.’ Yet the interdependence of humans and other animals was under- stood in a deeply spiritual way. For example, the hunter might shoot and kill a specific animal, but he would often give thanks to the animal in awareness of his dependence on it. Many groups,

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

178 THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

such as the First Americans who inhabited the wide prairies of North America, developed sophisticated theologies of the sky god, with remarkable similarities to the Abrahamic traditions. Deep commonalities run through the African tribal religions, most particularly in the notion of ubuntu, or the interconnect- edness of all life. The Liberian peace activist Leymah Gbowee translates ubuntu as ‘I am what I am because of who we all are.’7

Many today argue that humanism should also be understood as one of the human religions. (Other humanists recoil from the idea of treating humanism as a religion.) It is not a theistic religion, but it places great emphasis on improving human living conditions and educational opportunities and fighting for justice for all.

Finally, one can also appreciate specific beliefs and practices within specific traditions even while greeting other aspects of the tradition with more skepticism. Thus some evangelicals con- done the emphasis on the family in Mormon belief and practice, as well as some Mormon political beliefs, even while disagreeing strongly with their theologies.

Knowledge, as feminist authors such as Donna Haraway have argued, is always ‘situated.’ If so, the Enlightenment ideal – that a few universal principles will guide all human beings in their most intimate ethical decisions – is bankrupt. Instead of pro- claiming complete relativism and individualism following the demise of Enlightenment rationalism, however, one can also welcome those traditions of belief and practice that are able to provide a meaningful framework for decisions about life-and- death issues. Can some of the value systems that we have just surveyed, either individually or in conjunction, provide such a framework?

The religious traditions and the scientific method Religions are often associated more with blind belief than with reasoned reflection, but there are aspects in the various traditions that encourage the pursuit of rational discussion and the scien- tific study of the world. Fostering these connections would be essential for any partnerships with science.

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

179THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

The Abrahamic traditions begin with the creation story in the Book of Genesis. Here humans are given the task of nam- ing the animals and tending and cultivating the earth. This man- date requires that humans understand the world – not only as a creation of God, but also in its own right, as an objective reality and hence an object of study and knowledge. The world has value as a creation of God, and believers acknowledge that reality by knowing and understanding its principles and laws. Pursuing scientific knowledge is a natural outgrowth of this responsibil- ity. Historically, this theological justification played an important role in the birth and growth of modern science.

The same shared texts of the Hebrew Bible emphasize that God can be known in and through the natural order, which pro- vides yet another theological basis for studying and knowing the world. Each religion nuances that mandate somewhat differently. The Jewish tradition has emphasized the tasks of studying and gaining knowledge. The call to study began with the Torah and commentary, but it gradually generalized to a major emphasis on studying the world in all its features. In the medieval period, Islamic philosophers played a major role in the development of the new ‘natural philosophy,’ which eventually gave birth to modern science. There are many Qur’anic texts that stress the order and regularities in the natural world and call Muslims to appreciate and understand that world. Christian theologians developed in particular a strong theology of the image of God (imago Dei). In the beginning this concept focused primarily on human beings, but over time it was generalized to recognizing the image of God in all creation.

Other religious traditions were not directly implicated in the founding of modern Western science, but they also gave rise to traditions of study. We have already seen how early traditions of medicine were developed by Hindu thinkers (ayurveda) and Tao- ist practitioners (traditional Chinese medicine, including herbal remedies and acupuncture). Indian philosophers developed advanced mathematics, Egyptian and Chinese philosophers developed predictive astronomy, and tribal religions developed a deep understanding of the natural rhythms of nature and of animals, including migratory patterns.

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

180 THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Throughout the modern scientific period, religious authors have written theologies that support the pursuit of science and the scientific method – contributions that have often gone unnoticed by scientists and the broader public. In an age when scientific conclusions and the value of science itself are being challenged in many cultures, the religious supporters of science represent important allies. By seeking them out and forming collaborations for the public understanding of science, scientists could do much to deepen the reception of their work within these religious communities.

Compassion and justice The primary thing that we associate with religion may also be, in the end, its most valuable contribution. Critics of religion point out the hypocrisy of people who say they serve the God of peace, unity, and love while at the same time treating their oppo- nents, members of other religions, and even their co- religionists in such unloving ways. Note that the criticism itself acknowl- edges how deeply rooted is the call to compassion in most of the religious traditions.

Think of the ways in which this call to compassion could have positive effects in the various applications of science and technology. It is true that there are strong market forces to max- imize profits. Short cuts on safety contributed to the Union Carbide release of toxic gases in Bhopal, India, in 1984, which killed more than 2,200 people and (according to one govern- ment estimate) injured more than half a million people, and the massive release of oil by British Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, which produced the world’s worst natural oil spill. It is also true that there are political pressures to develop military responses in the face of what one country perceives as threats to its security from another – violent responses that one would hardly describe as compassionate. And it is true, finally, that financial pressures lead hospitals to reduce nursing care, doctors to increase their caseloads, technology firms to outsource customer assistance to other countries, and phar- maceutical companies to rush into marketing before thorough clinical testing has been completed.

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

181THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

In each of these cases, informed and knowledgeable religious persons can play an important role. Imagine religious persons working constructively in the various systems and in dialogue with scientific, medical, and business leaders. Of course, to be taken seriously they have to understand how scientific research works and how technology is implemented, including the pres- sures that operate on these industries and their leaders. When informed individuals then make the call to compassion out of the heart of their particular religious traditions, their voices can be remarkably effective. Imagine these voices spread across soci- ety, speaking effectively to many of the different areas where pragmatism and the profit motive tend to drown out all other concerns. If this happened, religious people would surely have the capacity to be a positive social force and to have a balancing effect across the various sectors of society.

Similar partnerships are possible in the pursuit of justice. Imagine that representatives of the major religions were to agree in their condemnation of the unjust treatment of individuals, races, or genders. Imagine that it became one of their major roles in society to call nations back to the message of justice that is contained in some of the founding political documents, such as the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence.

Non-religious people will rightly respond that it is not the task of the religious traditions alone to exercise compassion or call for justice. One does not have to believe in God to think that it is good to act in a loving manner toward one’s fellow citizens or the people in one’s neighborhood. This is surely true; religions don’t have a corner on the compassion market. Still, non-religious groups that work to mitigate suffering or to bring about more equitable treatment for the disadvantaged will wel- come religious groups that wish to become their allies in this endeavor. Surely such involvement is a step up from religious groups that seem interested in only protecting their own rights or debating the sexual habits of their clergy.

Some will dismiss these as idealistic speculations. I admit that there is some justification for their skeptical response; whether religions can really carry out these positive functions in soci- ety remains to be seen. Still, recall that in this section we are envisioning what positive relations between science and religion

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

182 THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

might look like, even in principle. Surely it cannot be misguided to imagine that religious groups might function to call attention to the values that are basic to their own traditions! And in many of the religious traditions, the call to compassion and justice lies right at the center of their scriptures and founding documents. The individuals whom they venerate as saints and mahatmas (‘great souls’), as gurus and enlightened ones, as great rabbis and bodhisattvas, as prophets and reformers, are those who stand for and live by these core principles. If we imagine partnerships in the future where both science and religion are as great as they can be, should we not put compassionate action and the call to justice right at the center of the stage?

The environmental crisis We close with perhaps the most important example of all. There is overwhelmingly strong scientific evidence that human activ- ities, such as the release of greenhouse gases, are fundamentally changing weather patterns on this planet. People in Europe and North America are only beginning to notice the shifts; and some American leaders, even those in high positions of political power, are denying the frightening changes that are taking place before their very eyes. By contrast, on island nations and in the Global South, the tragedies of anthropogenic climate change are impossible to deny. It is estimated that there will soon be a mil- lion deaths a year in Africa due to the direct and indirect results of climate change.

Unfortunately, given the nature of the systems in question (for example, the way in which glaciers and ice sheets melt), the impact will be felt gradually at first and then more and more dramatically (the so-called snowball effect). Current models sug- gest that the effects of a continuing increase in greenhouse gas emissions, especially if they move toward 600 parts per million, will have catastrophic consequences for the global environment. The models suggest that the effects of these changes could last 1,000 years or more. An entire chapter would not suffice to lay out the multiple empirical reasons that show why the proba- bility of these outcomes is so high. I personally find the case so

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

183THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

overwhelming that teaching and speaking on climate change have risen to the very top of my religion-science work.

Scientists have voiced immense frustration that governments and citizens are not responding rationally to the urgency of these data. By and large, the data are being ignored. Worse, members of the public (and some religious groups) have been inclined to challenge the science, offering counter-arguments that are uninformed or, in some cases, patently false. Scientists often ask, ‘What more can we do to motivate people to pay more atten- tion to the scientific evidence and then to act in ways that will avoid, or at least mitigate, the disaster?’

The partnership of religion and science in the effort to pull back from the impending climate catastrophe may be their most important joint effort of all. Note that here – unlike some other topics we have covered in this book – there is a natural division of labor. Religions are not in the position to predict the melting rate of the polar ice caps or to calculate how many meters the sea level will rise as a consequence. Only scientific models can work out the precise consequences for the planet of different levels of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.

By contrast, scientists are, frankly, not particularly good at motivating ordinary citizens to change their lifestyles. Science can explain empirical relationships and causes, but reciting the facts often leaves people cold (as those who work with data know only too well!). Yet science’s weakness is precisely reli- gion’s strength. For centuries, religions have played crucial roles in influencing their followers’ beliefs about right and wrong and in motivating them to live differently in the world. That is what religions do. Religious leaders know how to speak to ‘the whole person,’ how to motivate not just the head but also the emo- tions and the will. They know how to construct arguments that appeal to people’s most fundamental values and concerns. (The theologian Paul Tillich has even defined religion as whatever is of ultimate concern to a person.) There is thus a more natu- ral complementarity here than in perhaps any other area of the science-religion partnership.

Recall that the importance of the natural world and human- ity’s responsibility to care for it lies right at the heart of many

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

184 THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

of the world’s traditions. The three Abrahamic faiths go back, as we saw, to the Book of Genesis, which calls believers to cultivate and care for the earth. For Jews, Christians, and Muslims, nature is not a lifeless or mechanical thing, a mere compilation of ‘mat- ter in motion,’ but a creation of God and therefore a thing of great value. As a result, believers in God have every motivation to protect it from destruction, especially destruction at their own hands. Indeed, the doctrine of sin provides a way of conceiving what it means not to carry out this responsibility!

The Eastern religious traditions are, if anything, even more oriented to treat the surrounding world as a thing of value. Ear- lier we studied the call to compassion in Buddhism. In this tradi- tion there can be no temptation to treat the surrounding world as a mere means to human ends, since Buddhists do not single out human beings as intrinsically more valuable than other ani- mals. The central Buddhist call is a call to compassion for all sentient beings. A Buddhist environmental ethic is thus central to the entire Buddhist lifeway.

Buddhists have also warmly embraced environmental sci- ence and ecology. They argue that it is consistent with the Buddhist teaching of the interdependence of all living things, and that focusing on the welfare of ecosystems – and all the living beings within them – mirrors core Buddhist convictions and practices. Earlier I mentioned the movement known as Engaged Buddhism, which practices ecological activism based on traditional Buddhist principles. For example, Buddhist monks in Thailand have gone into forests that were marked for logging and have conducted the ceremonies of blessing there, placing the mark of blessing on the trees. No Buddhist logger, or anyone who respects the sanctity of the Buddhist practices, could cut down such trees in good conscience, since this is the mark normally placed on a person when she is blessed by the monks. Activist efforts such as these are fascinating, because they bring the resources of environmental studies and the con- cern with ecosystems together with very traditional Buddhist beliefs and practices.

We also observed that Hindus and Jains recognize a soul in all living things. The process of reincarnation for them includes

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

185THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

not only human beings but the Ātman or jiva of all living things. Thus caring for the earth and preserving the environments on which other living things depend remain at the center of these traditions. This holds even more for the African, Native American, and other indigenous religious traditions. Tribal peo- ples knew themselves to exist in an intimate balance of receiv- ing and giving with the animals and environment around them. Much more than in contemporary culture, they realized their precarious dependence on the weather and how devastating cli- mate abnormalities such as droughts and floods could be for their peoples.

I saw this partnership in action at the World Parliament of Religions five-year meeting in Melbourne, Australia, in Decem- ber 2009. The thousands and thousands of religious leaders from around the world who convened for this summit meeting had chosen climate change and climate justice as one of their core themes. I had the privilege of organizing three large sessions on ‘Science, Spirituality, and the Global Climate Crisis’ at this event. The Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty opened the first session by listing what we know from science about the causes of climate change and the likely results if current trends are continued. Then panels of religious leaders and scholars from around the world described the grounds within their traditions for treating ecosystems as sacred and for engaging in radical action on behalf of the environment. The sense of shared partnership and com- mon cause was palpable; I had never before heard such a pow- erful cumulative case for environmental justice. Nor was I the only one; you could see in the faces of the hundreds of religious leaders who were in the audience that they were powerfully influenced by this combination of scientific facts and religious motivations.

Although all the partnerships envisioned in this section are important, the one considered in this section may be the most urgent of all. Even if all the other collaborations fall through, even if religions and sciences continue to clash over beliefs and world- views, a successful partnership in staving off a centuries-long climate catastrophe would be enough to make the entire effort worthwhile.

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

186 THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

THEY’RE YOuR quESTIONS NOW . . . In the Preface we considered some of the different interests that might draw one into discussions of science and religion. They were divided into three general groups:

1 Religion:

• Religious persons who want to show that their religious beliefs are consistent with today’s science.

• Religious persons who have concluded that their beliefs clash with science and who therefore want to be able to convince people that they should side with religion and against science.

• Religious persons who conclude that their beliefs clash with science and who don’t want to make affirmations that undercut science, but who are instead trying to determine what (if anything) they can salvage from their religious traditions.

2 Science:

• Scientists who believe that religion is deeply destructive to the quest for scientific knowledge and who want to learn enough about religion that they can demolish it more effectively.

• Scientifically inclined persons who want to find out whether religion is an opponent to science, a friend, or neutral to the scientific quest.

• Scientists who are also religious and who are therefore encouraged by the many compatibilities between scientific knowledge and their religious faith.

3 Other:

• Those who are neither scientists nor religious but who think both are important social forces in today’s world. These persons want to study the debate to find out whether there is an intrinsic conflict between these two powerful agents in the contemporary world, with the goal of making up their minds about what they should believe and do.

• Those who are interested in the topic for purely intellec- tual reasons; people who find that it raises some fascinating

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

187THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

philosophical questions and who like to reflect and debate about these issues.

• Those who believe that the battle between science and religion is unnecessary, even harmful, and who wish to find ways to decrease the antagonism between the two camps.

• Those who believe there are potential partnerships between science and religion and who want to find ways in which the two might work together more productively.

This impression of a plurality of interests was only intensified as we worked our way through the major debates in the field. We found members of religious traditions who are ready to scrap contemporary science as a whole and to offer their own ver- sions of science in its place. We observed scientists who, perhaps in response, argue the complete incompatibility of science and religion. They want nothing less than for religion to disappear altogether. In many of the topics that we examined, we found these two groups locked in their battle to the death, arguing for diametrically opposed positions on each topic.

As we delved more deeply into the issues, however, we found more and more reasons to wonder whether matters can really be reduced to a single either/or decision. The range of religious beliefs and attitudes turned out to be much broader than one might have expected. Not only are the different religious tra- ditions concerned about very different sorts of issues, but their attitudes toward scientific knowledge vary just as widely. Nor is science a single monolithic theory. The different sciences study vastly different sorts of phenomena, from quarks to kangaroos to consciousness, with each bringing its own set of theories, methods, and types of data. These differences are a part of the story, alongside the common features of scientific method shared across the natural sciences.

Perhaps the fundamental choice the reader has to make is the choice between the Separationists and the Integrationists. If one sides with the incompatibility of science and religion, the only choice left is to decide which of the two opposing sides to join. Subsequent decisions become rather obvious. Whenever a new topic comes up – stem cell research or the origins of life or med- ical ethics – one only needs to find out which response supports his side and undercuts the other side. All the rest are details.

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

188 THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Integrationists have a somewhat more complex task on our hands, since our view does not lend itself to blanket judg- ments. For each new debate we need to learn the details of the topic. We need to know which aspects of fundamental science are involved, and which parts of which religious traditions are engaged in the debate. Sometimes we recognize that these par- ticular religious beliefs are in tension with this particular science. If it turns out that the scientific results are solid, then the religious tradition will have to adapt – perhaps by revising or discard- ing some traditional beliefs, perhaps by treating those beliefs as mythical or metaphorical, or perhaps in any of a myriad other ways. Often, however, we recognize that the religious beliefs and the scientific results are compatible, perhaps even complemen- tary. It then becomes our task to show how and why one can affirm both without having to make an ultimate choice between them.

Like many philosophical questions, the questions that arise at the boundaries between the sciences and the religions are likely to be with us for as long as science and religion continue to exist. For those who love deep and perplexing questions, they offer some of the most complex and intriguing examples one could hope to find. Here the wonder and the inquiring spirit that draw people into science (and that fuel many of the great scientific discoveries) come together with the awe and wonder that religious people often talk about. Here, surely, is enough material for several lifetimes of reading, dialogue, and reflection.

The challenge of science and religion also has something to offer those who are less drawn to the speculative questions. One can be a skeptic about the truth questions and yet an enthusiastic supporter of their practical importance. People who are more practically oriented may still believe that the sorts of partner- ships outlined in this chapter are potentially of great significance for humanity and this planet.

Especially with regard to the global climate crisis, one must acknowledge the ‘opportunity cost’ of failing to work together. Those who follow science and take its conclusions seriously know that there are potentially catastrophic consequences for not changing current human patterns of consumption. I am amazed to find people willing to set aside the consensus of

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

189THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

scientific opinion or to ignore it altogether (it is not clear which of these two is worse) so that they can continue their current levels of consumption and pollution at the personal, communal, and national level. One does not have to be religious to welcome any positive role that the world’s religious traditions can play in helping to resolve this global crisis. It would be tragic if unneces- sary feuding between the scientific and religious establishments meant that the chance was lost for them to work together as powerful allies to affect human policies. That is one opportunity cost we cannot afford to pay.

quESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCuSSION 1 Which of the five possibilities for the future of science and

religion listed in this chapter seems most likely to you? Which do you think would be most rational given what you now know about science and religion? Which do you think would have the best consequences for our society?

2 Can either science or religion by itself support all the values necessary for human flourishing? If not, which kinds of values are best derived from religious ways of thinking, and which from scientific?

3 The author makes the case that each religion has a positive role to play – which means that they can work together as allies to provide wise guidance to humanity. Can you add to this partnership? Or is the author being hopelessly idealistic here . . . or just plain wrong?

4 Which of the bullet points on pages 186–187 would you use to describe yourself? Are there multiple categories that apply to you? Has your self-definition changed since you started this inquiry?

5 Although it has covered the waterfront, this book has con- sistently argued for the compatibility of science and religion. The author is an Integrationist, not a Separationist. Is he right or wrong to take this position? What questions or doubts do you have, if any? What difference does it make?

6 The growing climate disruption may be the most serious issue that humans have ever faced, since it’s the first crisis to affect the entire planet, countries are not responding quickly

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

190 THE FuTuRE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

enough, and there are no known remedies adequate to the problem. Halting climate change is therefore an urgent test case for a science-religion partnership – if the two don’t work together here, the other areas may not matter. How would you maximize the positive effects of this partnership? What new ways might religion and science work together con- structively in order to bring about global awareness of the problem and the willingness to change?

NOTES 1 Jürgen Habermas, ‘Notes on Post-Secular Society,’ New Perspectives Quarterly

25/4 (2008), 17–29. 2 Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

(New York: Twelve, 2007), 6, 13. 3 Stephen Jay Gould took a position like this in Rocks of Ages: Science and

Religion in the Fullness of Life (New York: Ballantine Books, 1999). 4 Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, 2 vols. (London: Routledge,

1945). 5 Jacob Bronowski, Science and Human Values, rev. edn. (New York: Harper &

Row, 1975). 6 Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values

(New York: Free Press, 2010). 7 Leymah Gbowee’s comment in her TED talk is quoted by Kate Torgovnick

May in ‘I am, because of you: Further reading on Ubuntu,’ the TED blog; https://blog.ted.com/further-reading-on-ubuntu/.

SuGGESTIONS FOR FuRTHER READING Barbour, Ian G., When Science Meets Religion (San Francisco, CA: Harper &

Row, 2000). Bronowski, Jacob, Science and Human Values, rev. edn. (New York: Harper &

Row, 1975). Gould, Stephen Jay, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (New

York: Ballantine Books, 1999). Harris, Sam, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values

(New York: Free Press, 2010). Hitchens, Christopher, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New

York: Twelve, 2007). Polkinghorne, John, Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Reality

(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004). Popper, Karl, The Open Society and Its Enemies, 2 vols. (London: Routledge,

1945). Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-11 13:18:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .