Religion vs. Science

I have been involved for the past few days in a discussion with mostly atheists and some agnostics on the value of religion. The discussion has helped me formulate my own thoughts so I decided to transfer excerpts to my blog (sorry for such a long post!).  Check it out if you have any interest and let me know what you think.  If you are interested in this type of thing, check out this 2006 debate between two evolutionary biologists: Francis Collins (a Christian, and Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute) and Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion.)  I also highly recommend Francis Collins book The Language of God.

SAM:  Religion responds to the 'why?' questions in life. Why are we here? What is our purpose on earth.  Where do we find answers to these questions outside of religion?  CS Lewis describes it in this manner ( from Mere Christianity):

"Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such -and such a temperature and it did so-and-so.' Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science--and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes--something of a different kind-this is not a scientific question. If there is 'Something Behind,' then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, 'Why is there a universe?' 'Why does it go on as it does?' 'Has it any meaning?' would remain just as they were?"

VANESSA:  Okay, so you say the question is "what is our purpose on earth?" That could be answered simply enough, in evolutionary terms. Our purpose is to survive long enough to pass our genetic material to the next generation. If the question is widened to include all humanity, then it could be answered that our purpose as a species is to survive and perhaps evolve in such a way that we stave off extinction for as long as possible.

If the question is, specifically, "What is our spiritual purpose on earth?" then you have to define spirit and spiritual and explain why you think these things exist and why they demand a purpose if they do.

If the question is "How can I as an individual find a satisfying purpose for my individual life?" then the answer could be any of a wide range of possibilities. It could come through work or through relationships with others or art or music or religion. But it couldn't be a universal answer, because different people can be shown to find meaning and purpose in different ways.

If you have chosen the middle option then we would have to first agree that there is something which could be described as spirit or spiritual before we answer. So describe what that thing is and why it's not a matter of brain chemistry and evolutionary or cultural pressures on the particular animal we call human.


SAM:  [On the first question] all you are saying here is that the purpose of life is to perpetuate more life. So we are right back to square one. Why do humans exist at all?

[On the question, "What is our spiritual purpose on earth"] I'm not sure I would draw such a strong distinction between the spiritual and material. If there is a spiritual realm, it is apparently integrated with the material and it seems unlikely that the two spheres of existence have completely separate purposes.

I think my question is better expressed in the following ways: Is there a purpose for the existence of humanity (besides just perpetuating more humanity)? Do we share a common destiny? Is there existence beyond this earth life? If so, do our individual actions determine our place in the eternities? If my actions do matter, how am I to act? Did I exist in some manner before I was born?

These are the types of questions that lead people to religious inquiry. Many on this board apparently don't care. That's fine...I don't suggest that people have to ask these questions. But many of us do. In fact, the history of humanity suggests that most of us do. And it is ignorant to suggest that only the deluded and irrational ask these questions. There are countless examples of brilliant thinkers who were also deeply religious.

VANESSA: If the question is posed in a fair way I think it would have to be "Is there a (greater, spiritual, etc) purpose behind the universe and our existence?" Asked in that way, the Atheist can simple answer, "No." If you ask instead "What is the purpose?" or "Why are we here and no fair answering with how we came about through evolution?" that is a rigged question. It presupposes that you can't simply answer that there was an evolutionary reason for religions forming or that something in the human brains pattern recognition systems tends to recognize patterns and intentionality even where none exist.

There aren't any questions that can't be answered by beliefs in things like brain chemistry and evolutionary pressure. This does not mean that those are the true answers, just that I insist that it be recognized that some people find them perfectly acceptable and explanatory.

I tend to think that there is something to the totality of lived experience, morality, beauty, consciousness, that is better explained by spiritual answers than by science. However I don't see any reason to privilege one religion over any of the others unless it happens to be the religion you were brought up into.

I've always found my vague sense of something greater, my appreciation of art and music and nature, and my occasional doubts and tendencies towards atheistic explanations are very fulfilling and don't leave me with a sense of lacking anything either morally or in any other way. I also know that many atheists are perfectly happy explaining everything this through brain chemistry and evolutionary pressures and seem to feel they're not missing out on anything. They may feel the same awe I do on a mountaintop or under the night sky and enjoy it thoroughly without needing to find anything more than interesting neuro-chemistry behind it.

Now, a question for those believers who feel more strongly that atheists are wrong and/or their own religion is the right one:

If it's true that there are atheists (or believers in other religions) who have an internally consistent system of beliefs and live their lives in a way which is moral and find themselves as happy and satisfied in their lives as much as anyone, do you feel that this would somehow conflict with your own beliefs in some way? Does it make God less likely to be real?

Now I think of it, the question can be posed just as easily to the more vehement atheists. So:

If there are believers who have thought things through and arrived at a consistent set of beliefs which accord with science, and who are happy and moral etc, does this somehow threaten your own beliefs or your world view? Would it make god more likely to be real if other people persist in believing in spite of hearing all your arguments?


SAM:  Vanessa, thanks for a very insightful comment and great questions. As to your restructuring of the "Why?" question I posed, I think I see your point, but I don't think it gets us anywhere. If, in response to your question "Is there a (greater, spiritual, etc) purpose behind the universe and our existence?" an atheist answers, "No", the question is simply extended "How do you know there is no (greater, spiritual, etc.) purpose behind the universe and our existence?" It seems that the atheist has no answer other than to say, "that's my opinion." If this is the case, the best an atheist can claim is to be agnostic. All they are saying is that for some reason they don't care about asking the "Why?" questions.

[In response to your question to the believers,] it should be noted that the question is loaded with certain conditions that would certainly never come to pass. An astute believer would probably probe the atheist until they found holes in their supposedly "internally consistent belief system." The gaps in logic that the believer found would undoubtedly be challenged by the atheist, and an argument would ensue that would have no resolution. In fact, I think it is fair to say that this is the current state of affairs on the very question you are posing: an ongoing argument. Also, the whole idea of persons being "as happy and satisfied in their lives as much as anyone" presupposes that there is some objective measure of happiness agreeable by all. I can't imagine such a universally accepted happiness meter existing.


[In response to your question to the atheists,] once again, I think the question is posed with certain conditions that are unimaginable. Religious belief presupposes that certain premises are taken on faith. How could science ever prove (for example) that Christ truly atoned for the sins of mankind, or that His resurrection ensures the resurrection of humanity? Every religion has these type of faith-based features. These are the features that make them 'religions'. A 'person of faith' who's belief system accords fully with science has necessarily ditched certain faith-based beliefs and is no longer a 'person of faith'.

VANESSA:  Well, as you say Sam an atheist can always find things he feels to be inconsistent or ridiculous in the believer's system, and a believer can always say that a simple "no" answer to the question "Is there a larger/greater/spiritual purpose behind the universe" is not good enough. When I say "consistent" I mean, there's no question you can pose to this hypothetical atheist that they can't answer in a way they find satisfying enough for themselves, with the converse true for the believer.

What I intended was just to exclude cases where the believer insists on things are completely opposed to all scientific evidence (young earth creationism comes to mind). And also exclude cases where the atheist insists on things which can be proven factually inaccurate- like those who claim that religion is a consistent force for evil and is at the root of all wars and killing or whatever.

I'm not sure, but you sound like you might be saying that an atheist who considers themselves happy and moral and satisfied with their life isn't really any of those things, by your measurement of those things, and that yours is right and their own is wrong. Is this what you believe- that they don't know what they're missing?

SAM:  If that is what is meant by your question, then I think the answer is obvious in both instances (the question to the atheist and believer) for that is the situation in which we find ourselves. Atheists and believers are convinced of the internal consistency of their belief systems. If they recognized (and admitted) an inconsistency how could they possibly be 'happy' in their belief system? They would be forced to reevaluate their system of belief to find contentedness.

[As for the 'young creationists' as well as those who insist religion is always a force for evil,] I think individuals that fall into either camp are not even worth having a conversation with.

What I meant [in regards to the happiness issue] was that both sides would most likely define happiness in such a way that excluded the possibility of happiness to the other side. The religious believer may base a large portion of their happiness on the joy they find through their faith. They may, therefore, conclude that anyone lacking that type of happiness has bought into a false and fleeting form of happiness. The atheist may conclude that a believer who is 'happy' because of their faith is deluding themselves and is actually mentally deranged. "The believer would be much happier", the atheist might say, "if he would face the truth and drop his delusions." My point was that the whole idea of an objective version of happiness could never be settled on.

DIATRIBALIST:  I suppose [Vanessa's comments about those who claim religion is a consistent force for evil] was directed partially at me. I have read much on the history of the creation of the Catholic Church and the corruption associated with it. There is nothing factually inaccurate in my assessment. The Church has a history of cruelty and corruption. And after the reformation, the Protestant religions did not do much better.
I do not believe in evil. What I do believe is that humans are animals. They have animal instincts. Religion is an attempt to quell those instincts. Instead, it gives an outlet to those instincts for the leaders and some enterprising followers. The instinct to control others. The instinct to do as little work as possible for the greatest reward. The instinct to feel superior to your fellow creatures. These instincts have lead people, using religion, using the fear of god, to start wars for economic gain. To torture and kill for the glory of god and the riches of the church. From the Crusades to the Inquisition. To Prohibition and todays modern Isalmic Jihadis, Religion has been the bane of civility for centuries. Always with the "best of intentions" and for "the glory of god", religious crusades always end in a bloody mess.

Religion was created out of human instinct. Humans are animals, so it follows religion will conduct itself with animalistic characteristics.


[And Sam,]the goal of life should be truth, not happiness. But if people are happy believing in god, then so be it. The problem I have is when religionist take their beliefs into the public square and try to influence laws, forcing their specific morality on society at large. Pray in the closet, as Jesus suggested. Don't be proud in your faith, humble yourself before the lord and respect others right to disagree and possibly anger your god. That is the essence of religious tolerance.

SAM:  [In response to Diatribalist,] although there may be nothing factually inaccurate in your assessment, it is clear that you choose to selectively exclude the tremendous good that churches do as well. You speak about the history of 'cruelty and corruption' but you fail to include the work of someone like Mother Teresa who was motivated by her faith. That is why people like you are not worth having a conversation with. You look at religion with blinders on and you refuse to look at evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions. The irony is you accuse the church of 'cruelty and corruption' yet within the same breath you express your belief that evil does not exist.

Your foundation of moral relativism provides you with no firm basis on which to judge the actions of the church. The best you can say is that the church does things that you would choose not to do. But even in this statement you would be indicating the possibility of choice (and free will) thus lending an attribute to humanity that distinguishes it from the brute animal.

'Pure religion' is not created out of human instinct. It seeks to channel human insinct into its proper bounds. Human beings are agents in that they (i) possess a capacity to choose between options and (ii) possess the power (in many instances) to act on their choices (see Oxford Companion to Philosophy). This distinguishes the human animal from the brute animal, as the brute animal is guided entirely by instinct. Human beings are prompted by instinct, but they choose whether or not to act on those instincts. Religion seeks to guide those choices. I really like the way CS Lewis describes it:

"We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct--by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires--one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of' the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, 'Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,' cannot itself be the herd instinct."

 [And Diatribilist,] on the 'enforcing morality' issue, you are deluding yourself. Laws are by definition a codification of morality. Religious participants are wise to advocate their positions in terms that are agreeable to secularists, but they are under no obligation to do so. Astute religionists are every bit as capable of defending their moral positions rationally as any secularist out there. But the fact is, we live in a democratic society, and it is (as Prez Obama said) "[a practical absurdity] to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality into public policy debates."