Darwinism and the big bang theory are at odds with religious creation stories, especially how humans came into existence. Science and religion seem to be at odds with each other. The conflict of religion and science developed over a period of several hundred years and it isn’t really new.
Religion came first. In its role as a teacher of moral values—what’s good and how we should treat one another (think of the ten commandments as a good example)—religion also taught people how the world works and how it came to be (here, think of the creation stories and the human role in the natural world). Religion became the source of both of these human understandings and, for many religious leaders and faithful, they are intrinsically connected. Religious understanding of the natural world had been for centuries important to religious moral teachings and idealism—in fact, the basis of those teachings and idealism. Consequently, for many, scientific conclusions about the natural order undermine and threaten all the teachings of religion upon which human morals are based.
In the course of history, religion developed a power base. Religious authorities told people what they should believe. They developed a doctrinal basis. Here again, that doctrine was not only about morals—how to behave—but also the natural order. One big example is that people were told to believe that the earth was the center of the universe—that the sun revolved around the earth. A lot of science was driven by these beliefs. Ptolemy even developed complex mathematical formulas to explain how the sun revolved around the earth.
Religion had a big impact on national political structures as well. European examples include Catholicism and Protestantism (back an forth for a time) in England, Lutheranism in Germany and Scandinavia, and Catholicism in Italy, Spain, and France. In European monarchies, the authoritative basis for that leadership was defined as the “divine right of kings.” Religious authority and political authority became intertwined. In fact, Queen Elizabeth II is still today regarded constitutionally as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
At the same time, human understanding and technology advanced. European cathedrals—hallmarks to the achievement of architectural technology—represent the most profound example of this advance. On the European landscape, they stood out and could not be ignored. These cathedrals housed magnificent works of visual arts including magnificent paintings and stained glass art. These works of art were designed to teach an illiterate faithful the stories of the Old Testament and Jesus’ life and teachings. In addition, they were constructed, not only to honor God and his relation to humans, but also to indicate the importance of a town or region, as they often do even today. In these cathedrals, a nexus of political influence and power, religious values and ideals, and great accomplishment through human capability was created. It was quite natural for human beings to recognize that they had achieved something magnificent and the capability of human achievement could not be ignored. The understanding of how the materials of nature—glass, stone, wood—could be arranged in such a marvelous way was impressive. It is the “how” that was the human part and could not be overlooked. These types of structures had not existed before. Humans had advanced and it was the honor they wished to give to God that propelled their creation. Science and applied mathematics had made such designs and construction possible.
These accomplishments were achieved through human reason. And human beings took other steps forward in the area of reason. The development of modern science through Newton is one outcome. The idea of thinking “outside the religious doctrinal box” led to the discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus, who concluded that the earth was not the center of the universe—the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. This discovery was contrary to the religious doctrine and religious authorities viewed these discoveries as upsetting to their doctrinal base. As teachers of truth, these new discoveries undermined the broad bases of their authority.
Then there is Descartes whose philosophy reflects a heavy reliance on human reason. He believed that humans could know truth solely through reason and that any accepted modes of the understanding the world should be subject to the tests of reason. The principal guide—the overriding guide—to truth was human reason. These ideas challenged the basic foundation of religious doctrine and authority. They challenged the ideas of truth coming from religious sources—religious authorities and the sacred books such as the Bible. Because of his ideas, the Roman Catholic Church placed Descartes’ writings on the Index of Forbidden Books. (A list that, by the way, has only formally been discontinued as recently as 1966.)
Over several hundreds of years, much human progress has emerged—a progress that has certainly accelerated in the last 150 years. By progress, what is meant is not necessarily an advancement, but simply a “moving forward” from one notion or idea to another. That can be advancement, but not necessarily. But that progress has led to a lot of change and that change has shown that earlier ideas and notions had some deficiencies and some errors. The idea of progress as advancement is a dominant belief of those rationalists that are so critical of religion and religious institutions. The implication from advancement is that the notions, values, and ideals—in this context, the religious connection to the scientific understanding of the world—actually fully displaced or usurped the previous values.
But, in addition, a change in scientific thinking also took place. Newton’s science was thought to be an uncovering the basic laws of nature and the universe. Newton’s discoveries, verified by experiments, were considered to be the laws of nature—the laws governing what happens in nature as put in place by God. His approach to science did not challenge religious institutions and doctrine. Even the fact that later experiments, based upon notions of men like Albert Einstein, which showed that Newton’s laws were deficient, did not have this impact. However, it was becoming clearer that the mathematical models used to understand nature were not absolutes but merely limited in specific application. Religious teachings were connected more to absolute truth. Challenges to the idea that truth is absolute clearly would also appear to challenge religious teachings on morality and the basis of religious faith.
And then there’s Darwin. Observations of nature led him to conclude that plants and animals and even humans were not created whole by God but that they evolved through a process of natural selection to the species they are now. Darwin’s conclusions were based on, what some would consider, loose observations and not even on the rationality of science that had been accepted when Newton was doing science. Darwin’s theories were not even close to being as rigorously demonstrable as Newton’s laws or, later, Einstein’s theories. In light of earlier scientific rigor, his conclusions were much more speculative being based upon a “possible” idea supported but not fully demonstrated by his observations. Examining the differences between the characteristics of animal and plant species in different places were the bases of his theory of evolution. But, for many, a theory based on these extensive but surely limited observations had pure speculation written all over them. Darwin’s theory was developed indirectly. He found a way of explaining something based on his observations. His observations were not as direct a way to his theory, as were those of Newton’s. Looking at it more closely, the studies of science were thought more benign under Newton. Clearly, Darwin’s science was not inconsistent with well-accepted science but it pushed science to new levels of exploration and human understanding. A theory such as his was a bold-faced challenge to a lot of religious beliefs that had been around for centuries, especially the story of creation in the Christian bible. Science accepts the idea that human understanding of the world is evolving—Newton’s laws (an absolute truth) yields to Einstein’s theories, whereas religion has been principally based on the idea of absolute truth.
As advances in science were made, the belief in a God that personally interacted in human lives was important to many people if not most. However, that belief, even if not explicitly rejected, seemed to be irrelevant to scientists. Even as scientists expressed the idea that God’s interacting in the creative process being examined by scientists, it was clear that scientists for the most part were not even considering God’s involvement because it wasn’t relevant to the scientific process. Stephen Hawking’s new book The Grand Design reemphasizes the irrelevancy of God’s creation. Science’s attitude, not just its findings, surely sounds frightening and threatening to many religious believers. God as creator, a pillar of religious beliefs, becomes regarded by science as irrelevant.
But religious culture was the basis of human understanding at so many levels for so many centuries. Principles of justice and fairness, right conduct, and the motivation of humans to live a moral life were, to an almost exclusive extent, based upon religious beliefs. Humans need to put their lives in the context of a purposeful whole. Religion provided that anchor. Each individual needs to understand that their small role is part of the vastness of the social, economic, and natural environment they find themselves enmeshed in. Science and rationality are woefully deficient in dealing with these basic individual and community human needs. Science and technology are having an important impact in all of these areas and the coping mechanism provided through a religious culture for a lot of people was constantly—no, continuously—being challenged, if not, as many fear, displaced, by science. The coping strategies that humans employ and which enable them to feel connected and purposeful in their jobs, communities, and even their families are challenged by a science that seems indifferent to those basic human needs. But regardless of those challenges, science seems pretty amorphous in the spiritual and the moral realm. At the same time, science confronts the world with new moral questions, such as those about climate change and the changes needed to prevent or to forestall climate disaster.
As science and rationality have challenged much of religious doctrinal underpinnings, many religious leaders and followers have found science hostile to religion. Reacting to those hostilities, many rationalists and so-called secular humanists have hit back with their own hostile criticism of religion. But a full understanding of humanism and human behavior over centuries would include the pervasiveness of humans attaching themselves, usually in community, with religious ideals and values, as they still do. Of the roughly six billion people in the world, three-quarters of them identify with some specific religious connection. Many, perhaps most, can see that religion and rationality/science are simply different paradigms for understanding the world and the place of humans therein and that their different roles are completely different in most areas. Where they overlap, ambiguity resides, whereas in the past, religious culture provided certainty. Science and rationality seem to have the facts and demonstrations on their side; the religious clearly have defined human purpose and human connectedness to the world in a way that science barely touches.
Over a very long time, the place of humans in the world has been defined by religious teachings and stories. Human curiosity and the interest in the arts have not been abated in the religious context—perhaps, inhibited or slowed from time to time—but encouraged, even if somewhat indirectly. The rational or science centered person is actually at a loss to understand or explain the human compulsion toward intellectual and rational curiosity as well as the profound interest in the arts. (To be fair, science and rationality have, not only not inhibited, but also advanced human curiosity and achievement.) Religious history is rampant with examples of the encouragement of the expression of human achievements in the arts and sciences. As a result of that encouragement and support, human capability in the arts and sciences has advanced. And, in many ways, religion has spawned that achievement.
As mentioned earlier, the most visible achievement has been the massive European cathedral. From achievements like that, it is not surprising that humans reveled in their achievements and the possibility of even greater accomplishments, as well as a fuller understanding of the world through science. Religion is the mother of human progress in that understanding. For religion to have such a violent rejection of science and science to have such a hatred of religion, is like the parent wanting to kill the child and, at the same time, the child wanting to kill the parent.
