Reflection

profileOrangesky
Chapter2SCIENCEANDRELIGION.pdf

2

EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

THEISM AND NATuRALISM AT ODDS In the previous chapter we listened in on a debate between a theist and a naturalist. What was impressive is that they stayed calm and listened to each other. The attacks didn’t get personal.

As every reader will know, that’s often not what happens. People tend to dig into their own positions more and more deeply. Once they are entrenched, they begin to launch missiles at each other. Insults fly, and any pretense of dialogue ends.

One of the most famous – or notorious – examples of hos- tilities between religion and science is the battle between ‘intel- ligent design’ and ‘the new atheism.’ Intelligent design, or ‘ID,’ started with the claim that what is today called science is actually built on a prejudice against religion. Darwin’s theory of evolu- tion, for example, is really an anti-theistic worldview rather than empirical science. As Phillip Johnson, one of the founders of the ID movement, has written:

As the Darwinists move out to convert the nation’s school children to a naturalistic outlook, it may become more and more difficult to conceal the religious implications of their system. Plenty of people

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

18 EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

within the Darwinist camp know what is being concealed, and cannot be relied upon to maintain a discreet silence.1

The appropriate response to the ideology that parades as sci- ence, these theists argued, is to create a new kind of science that is willing to include God from the start – a creation science. As Johnson once wrote, ‘[Intelligent design] means we affirm that God is objectively real as creator, that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology.’ The basic logic is easy to state: things that evidence design must have a designer. An intelligent designer must there- fore stand behind the appearances, and God’s creative hand must be visible through them. The role of ID science, then, is to study those parts of the universe that offer the greatest evidence of having been designed.

Let’s consider an example from the birth of the universe and an example from the evolution of life. William Dembski pointed out that atheist physicists rely on the concept of information. But ‘information is not reducible to natural causes’; the origin of information must be sought in ‘intelligent causes.’ Hence his definition: ‘Intelligent design . . . becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow.’2 Because the early universe contains more information than can be explained by any naturalistic theory, it is scientifically justified to postulate a conscious agent who intentionally cre- ated the natural order – the agent whom believers call God.

Others argued in a similar way from biology: biological evolution could not be ‘unguided’ or random. Michael Behe gave one of the most famous defenses of this view in his book Darwin’s Black Box:

[A]s biochemists have begun to examine apparently simple structures like cilia and flagella, they have discovered staggering complexity, with dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts. It is very likely that many of the parts we have not considered here are required for any cilium to function in a cell. As the number of required parts increases, the difficulty of gradually putting the system together sky- rockets, and the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets. Darwin looks more and more forlorn.3

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

19EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

Behe admits that naturalist science can explain some of the complex features that we find in organisms. But, he responds, the development of life is actually irreducibly complex – so complex that it could not have evolved gradually through natural processes. For example, red blood cells could not have been ‘selected for’ through natural evolutionary processes until they were already carrying oxygen throughout the organism; but they could not be carrying oxygen unless they were selected for. Hence, he argues, there cannot be any Darwinian explanation for the exis- tence of red blood cells. Only an intelligent designer could have created them, and he must have created them apart from or out- side of evolutionary biology. Therefore the best science is one that includes the hypothesis of the existence of God.

Of course, it is always hard to launch a completely new research program in science, since existing areas of research tend to garner higher levels of financial support. But, again, struggling scientists have always managed to get the word out about exper- imental breakthroughs that challenge existing paradigms; word has spread; and eventually the institution of science catches on. In the case of ID, there doesn’t seem to have been significant new empirical data. In an online discussion in 2004 Paul Nelson wrote:

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem.

A year later Michael Behe admitted:

there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelli- gent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.

These failures notwithstanding, ID continues to spread and to win advocates. It is hard to overstate the influence of the intelligent design movement. At one point, surveys showed that more than 50 percent of American evangelicals did not believe in (Darwinian) evolution. Intelligent design also has massive

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

20 EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

support in the Muslim world; estimates are that it represents the majority view within Islam as well. ID supporters recognize that there are tensions between the naturalistic explanations on which biology today is built and the belief that God directly creates (‘designs’) new species that are adapted to their environ- ments. Rather than finding ways to live with these tensions, to reconcile them with belief in God, they challenge evolutionary science as a whole and offer a believer’s alternative.

So what is it that Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus really care about? Most believe that God, the ultimate origin and ground of reality, is intelligent, conscious, and Creator of the universe. ‘Designer,’ then, is for them an appealing way to affirm that God is, in some sense or another, responsible for the uni- verse as a whole – and thus for the beauty, order, and regularity that we discover within it. Many theists, and many others as well, share this sense that there is some sort of design or order in the universe, something that is ‘meant to be.’ Could it be, then, that the real insight of ID is this intuition of design, this experience of sensing order in the universe? If that’s right, then the painful mistake of ID is the attempt to turn the intuition of divine order into a new kind of empirical science.

Imagine that Jerrod has something like this experience, say, as he walks under a starry sky at night-time. He might say,

I can’t help but feel that there must be some intelligence behind it. After all, how could such beauty and order have come about all by itself? I’m not sure I have a good argument for this sense of God, but it’s certainly a part of my basic response to the universe around me.

Perhaps Jerrod’s experience is widely shared by others in his religious community. He and others may be able to show that their experiences of the world as created by God can’t easily be explained away as illusions or mere wish-fulfillment. But that’s not the same as building an alternate science in order to defend their experiences.

GOD, DESIGN, AND DELuSION As Newton recognized, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Perhaps not surprisingly, the virulent

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

21EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

anti-science stance of the intelligent design theorists gave rise to a virulent anti-theistic reaction in defense of science. Without a doubt, the most famous of these ‘new atheists’ is Richard Dawkins. The quickest way to get a sense of new atheist attacks on religion is to let Dawkins speak for himself. (Unless otherwise noted, the quotations come from his famous The God Delusion.)

• ‘God, in the sense defined, is a delusion; and, as later chapters will show, a pernicious delusion.’4

• ‘I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything super- natural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented’ (36).

• When you reject religion, ‘you stand to lose comforting delusions: you can no longer suck at the pacifier of faith in immortality’ (Devil’s Chaplain, 13).

• ‘The deist God is certainly an improvement over the monster of the Bible. Unfortunately it is scarcely more likely that he exists, or ever did. In any of its forms the God Hypothesis is unnecessary’ (46).

• ‘Fundamentalist religion is hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless thousands of innocent, well-meaning, eager young minds. Non-fundamentalist, “sensible” religion may not be doing that. But it is making the world safe for fundamentalism by teaching children, from their earliest years, that unquestioning faith is a virtue’ (286).

• In Christianity and Islam, ‘you don’t have to make the case for what you believe. If somebody announces that it is part of his faith, the rest of society, whether of the same faith, or another, or of none, is obliged, by ingrained custom, to “respect” it without question; respect it until the day it manifests itself in a horrible massacre like the destruction of the World Trade Center, or the London or Madrid bombings’ (306).

• ‘Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument. . . . Faith can be very very danger- ous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong’ (308).

Dawkins’ allies have been no less unambiguous in rejecting religion for the sake of science. As Sam Harris wrote, ‘The truth . . . is

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

22 EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

that the conflict between religion and science is unavoidable. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science.’5 Similarly, Christopher Hitchens argued that religion, even apart from its damage to science, is simply immoral: ‘Violence, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.’6

Not surprisingly, the new atheists’ vitriol about religion produced an equally vitriolic response from theists, giving rise to a sort of nuclear arms race. Books attacking the other side multiplied like nuclear warheads. Consider just one (painful) example: after the new atheist publications, the Christian phi- losopher Alvin Plantinga fired back at them. In ‘The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum’7 he wrote,

Richard Dawkins is not pleased with God: ‘The God of the Old Tes- tament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomania- cal. . . .’ Well, no need to finish the quotation; you get the idea. Daw- kins seems to have chosen God as his sworn enemy. (Let’s hope for Dawkins’ sake God doesn’t return the compliment.)

One can only be sad when the atheists throw names at God and the theists threaten eternal punishment in return.

A BROADER (AND MORE INTERESTING) EXCHANGE For many years people felt that they had to be on one of these two sides, whether they really wanted to be or not. In fact, how- ever, there are a number of ways to go between the horns of this dilemma. One of the major developments of the last years is the explosion of options. The religion-science discussion has become broader and more inclusive – and hence more interesting.

Consider three famous typologies of positions on religion and science. The most widely known is Ian Barbour’s fourfold

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

23EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

division.8 Conflict refers to the kind of battle between new atheism and intelligent design that we have just been trac- ing. Independence means that science and religion each has its own realm where it is authoritative. Dialogue begins with honest, back-and-forth debate as the first step, waiting to see where authentic dialogue may lead. Integration, by contrast, implies not only finding common ground but being able to show how the two are interconnected in certain areas such that they may be able to work together in a complementary fashion.

John Haught’s four categories offer a slightly different angle. Science and religion may conflict, contrast with one another, make real contact, or confirm one another.9 Confirmation has multiple forms: science can confirm religion, religion can confirm sci- ence, or both can confirm each other in a kind of reciprocal relationship. Contrasts are an important heuristic tool. The con- trasts between two people, for example, can help others under- stand the unique features of each one more fully; similarly, the religion-science contrasts are a means for comprehending the nature of each, precisely through their differences.

Ted Peters’ typology includes eight options. It does not gen- eralize as well to all cases, but it does provide a more detailed snapshot of forms of relation and exclusion (I quote from the helpful summary by Christopher Southgate):10

• scientism: religion is outdated; science tells us all we need to know.

• scientific imperialism: science can give us good information even about what were formerly religious questions.

• ecclesiastical authoritarianism: the Church should have authority over science.

• scientific creationism: geological and biological data attest to biblical truth.

• the two-language theory, or ‘peace through separation’: the two disciplines speak in their own discourse and shared under- standing is impossible.

• hypothetical consonance: the two disciplines do raise questions of concern to each other, and should be open to subjecting their assertions to further investigation.

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

24 EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

• ethical overlap: theology has a vital role in speaking to questions of value raised by science and technology, especially in respect of the ecological crisis.

• New Age spirituality: a term covering certain recent attempts to fuse science and spirituality.

The list could easily be extended. It does however make a crucial point here at the beginning of our inquiry. Many people first become aware of our topic through the science-religion battles as covered in the media, which ask them to take the one side or the other. Looking more closely, they recognize that these two major features of human existence are in fact related in myriad ways. Of course, one can declare them independent, as the scientist Stephen J. Gould did in his book Rocks of Ages. Gould argued that they are ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ (NOMA); the realm of the spiritual and the realm of the worldly each has its own knowledge and authority, but there is no common ground between them. But this declaration of independence fails to do justice to the uncountable ways that science and religion are related: in human thought and practice, in history and across cultures, in law and politics – and, I think, intrinsically as well.

Let’s consider some examples of some new (and sometimes startling) ways that the relations have been playing out in recent years.

CONSTRuCTIVE SKEPTICISM: MICHAEL SHERMER One can’t say that, since the epic battles of a few years ago, all talk has been of the harmony between science and religion. A number of contributions to the dialogue are skeptical. But the role of skeptics is not always to deconstruct; sometimes they contribute to constructive reflection as well.

Consider the role of Michael Shermer, the editor of Sceptic magazine. I remember being the moderator for a debate between theists and skeptics that Michael organized. Some 1,100 people packed the large auditorium at CalTech in Pasadena, California, one of the world’s leading schools for science and technology. You wouldn’t say that it was a happy meeting among friends. The Christian and the atheist participants in the debate deployed

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

25EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

their strongest arguments, and the huge audience cheered and booed like fans at a football match. What I noticed, however, is that the two sides were (most of the time) actually talking to each other rather than just past each other. And some of the speakers, such as Ken Miller from Brown University, could find enough common ground that they won respect from both sides.

Make no mistake about it: Shermer does enjoy debunking false claims. But his questioning has also contributed to more sophisticated responses to the conflicts that religion sometimes faces. For example, in 2016 Michael Shermer debated the Oxford theologian Keith Ward on the topic ‘Has Science Made God Obsolete?’ Consider these central points from the two debaters:

Shermer: The supernatural answer – ‘well, God did it’ – is not an answer. That’s what we call the God of the gaps argument. . . . [We need] something testable that we can sink our teeth into . . . we don’t need to add an extra entity.

Ward: Religion is more like appreciating the true nature of reality than it is like giving some physical explanation of an unknown fact. . . . So the real question is: well, what is the nature of reality?11

As one of the world’s most famous skeptics, Shermer challenged Ward’s clam to know that God exists. We should be skeptical of the existence of God, he argued, unless we have clear evidence for this conclusion. Ward, who clearly understood the challenge, suggested a different way of thinking about religion: it’s not like explaining a fact, but more like appreciating the beauty or good- ness of a person or event.

In 2017 Shermer took on Alister McGrath, the Idreos Pro- fessor of Science and Religion at Oxford, on the topic ‘Is God a Figment of Our Imagination?’ Again, consider their main arguments:

Shermer: There is more evidence to show that we constructed the idea of God than vice versa.

McGrath: Belief in God is both cognitively and existentially sat- isfying. In other words, it seems to make sense of our

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

26 EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

world, but above all, to give meaning to our lives. . . . We all need a way of seeing ourselves and our world which we find to be deeply satisfying rationally, mor- ally and aesthetically.12

Again here Shermer, using the scientific model, pushes the evidence question. And again the theologian suggests that the- ism is not about the best explanation of the facts. But where Ward appealed to metaphysics and the ultimate nature of reality, McGrath appeals to religion’s power to make life meaningful. Because belief in God is ‘deeply satisfying’ (in rational, moral, and aesthetic ways), it merits affirmation.

The science-oriented skeptic and the religious believer have not reconciled their differences. But they are able to hear the objections of the other and to formulate their best arguments in response. It’s then up to the reader to decide which side is the most compelling.

THEISTIC EVOLuTION: FRANCIS COLLINS On the religious side, the media love to cover the intelligent design movement, which is the source of the spiciest quota- tions. Although ID is a great example of rejecting science in the name of religion, it’s not particularly helpful for bringing the two into any kind of constructive dialogue. In Chapter 3 we will explore some of the ways that religious beliefs can be revised to minimize the conflicts. First, however, let’s consider a more tra- ditional, orthodox Christian response that nonetheless seeks to maximize the positive connections with the biological sciences and to minimize the conflicts: Francis Collins’ popular book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

No one challenges Collins’ credentials as a scientist. Collins was the leader of the international Human Genome Project, which succeeded at sequencing the human genome for the first time and identifying the genes that it contains. But where others might have experienced tension with Christian belief, Collins makes the case that no conflict is necessary. In his book he describes the press conference with President Clinton in the East Room of the White House in the year 2000.13 During his

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

27EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

speech, Collins added, ‘It’s a happy day for the world. It is hum- bling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.’ In the book he adds, ‘for me the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achieve- ment and an occasion of worship.’

Collins is obviously not a naturalist. He pushes back strongly against Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and vehemently defends the existence of a supernatural God. He argues that suf- fering and evil in the world do not undercut the goodness of God, since suffering may be a by-product of an evolutionary world and perhaps even necessary for developing moral charac- ter. Collins also affirms miracles, though in a nuanced way:

I don’t have a problem with the concept that miracles might occasion- ally occur at moments of great significance, where there is a message being transmitted to us by God Almighty. But as a scientist I set my standards for miracles very high. . . . In my own experience as a phy- sician, I have not seen a miraculous healing, and I don’t expect to see one. Also, prayer for me is not a way to manipulate God into doing what we want him to do. Prayer for me is much more a sense of trying to get into fellowship with God. I’m trying to figure out what I should be doing rather than telling Almighty God what he should be doing.14

Collins raises a number of objections to naturalism. He does not think that it can ultimately make sense of the ‘moral law’ that we experience. He maintains that biological explanations of human social behaviors (sociobiology) cannot explain human altruism, that is, acts of self-sacrifice for the sake of others, even others outside of one’s clan or who are not genetic relatives. ‘For the evolutionary argument about group benefits of altru- ism to hold,’ he argues, ‘it would seem to require . . . hostility to individuals outside the group.’ But, he continues, this is not actually what we observe in complex populations.15 In his view, scientific cosmology supports the same conclusions: either we are extremely lucky, with astronomical odds against our exis- tence, or we are the product of God’s intentional creation. The latter answer does not conflict with science: ‘there is nothing

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

28 EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

inherently in conflict between the idea of a creator God and what science had revealed. In fact, the God hypothesis solves . . . questions about what came before the Big Bang, and why the universe seems to be so exquisitely tuned for us to be here.’16

In some ways, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief is an intensely personal book. The evidence that Collins presents is sometimes experiential evidence that he and many others have had but that many non-theists have not had. For example, he says that he has found theistic evolution a ‘satisfying’ and ‘consistent synthesis’ of faith and science.17 But the book also seeks to make a more general case for the compatibility of traditional Christian faith with Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design is wrong; it’s not true that ‘science needs divine help.’ As strong as the biological sciences are, there is a level, above the level at which scientists work, at which theists can still affirm that God is guiding evolution as a whole. This is ‘BioLogos’ – the combination of theism (Logos) and biology (Bio). Because here we face questions that science was not intended to answer any- way, we are free to respond with faith and worship of God. This is the place where science and faith are in harmony.

AGNOSTIC NATuRALISM: NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON Naturalism in the hands of the new atheists means claiming to know that religion is worthless, that nothing at all about it is worth preserving. But much more subtle, and intriguing, ver- sions of naturalism have been developed since that time, with names like ‘deep naturalism,’ ‘broad naturalism,’ and ‘ecstatic naturalism.’ Understanding the natural world in scientific terms does not need to silence the responses of awe, wonder, even reverence. These new versions of naturalism open up important common ground between science and religion.

The most famous atheist of the first half of the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell, used science to support his famous argument, ‘Why I Am Not a Christian.’ And yet at the end of his book Science and Religion, he still affirmed a sort of mysticism in response to the cosmos.

Probably the most famous representative of religious natural- ism in the twentieth century is Albert Einstein. Best-known is

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

29EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

his observation in 1954, ‘science without religion is lame, reli- gion without science is blind.’ Einstein was not an advocate of a personal God; he was a naturalist who was deeply impressed with the mystery, and the comprehensibility, of the universe. The ways that he integrated his naturalism with religion deserve close attention, since they transgress the usual categories. Einstein wrote, ‘if something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.’18

Reading Einstein, one begins to wonder: Is it possible to be a naturalist without being an opponent to religion? Perhaps the most famous defender of this view today is the current host of the classic science series Cosmos, Neil deGrasse Tyson. Together with Bill Nye (the science guy), he is probably the best-known advocate on behalf of science in North America today. Tyson is never shy when it comes to taking on the Really Hard Questions. He notes that he dislikes the word ‘atheist,’ per- haps because the label tends to associate him with the virulent anti-religious language of the new atheists. Tyson, who prefers to describe himself as an ‘agnostic atheist,’ once posted a video entitled ‘Does Religion have an inherent conflict with science?’ on his website, BigThink.com.19 No advocate of the ‘warfare’ model, Tyson observes that:

[t]here’s been a happy co-existence [of science and religion] for cen- turies and for that to change now would be unfortunate. . . . Consider also that in America 40% of American scientists are religious, so this notion that if you are a scientist you’re an atheist or if your religious you’re not a scientist, that’s just empirically false.

Tyson shows a similar openness to being religious and valuing science. Consider this passage from Frank Johnson’s In the Words of Neil deGrasse Tyson:

Most religious people in America fully embrace science. So the argu- ment that religion has some issue with science applies to a small frac- tion of those who declare that they are religious. They just happen to be a very vocal fraction, so you got the impression that there are more of them than there actually is. . . . It’s actually the minority of religious

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

30 EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

people who rejects science or feel threatened by it or want to sort of undo or restrict the [places] where science can go. The rest, you know, are just fine with science. And it has been that way ever since the beginning. . . . 20

Make no mistake about it: Tyson is an agnostic, not a religious believer. He is critical of certain religious forms of thought, especially those that undercut scientific work. He rejects ‘the God of the gaps,’ that is, using God to explain events that science has not yet but may someday explain. But he is also convinced that science and religion can coexist without warfare. As Tyson puts it in Death by Black Hole (with his usual edge), ‘as they are currently practiced, there is no common ground between sci- ence and religion. . . . Although, just as in hostage negotiations, it’s probably best to keep both sides talking to each other.’21

What makes it possible for this co-existence to take place? In disputes about empirical fact, we need to let the empirical sci- ences do their thing, since religion is not designed to construct empirical theories. This is probably Tyson’s most urgent message: religion and science have complementary roles to play, as long as science is still free to formulate and test specific laws and expla- nations for specific kinds of phenomena in the world, without interference from religion.

Great scientific minds, from Claudius Ptolemy of the second century to Isaac Newton of the seventeenth, invested their formidable intel- lects in attempts to deduce the nature of the universe from the state- ments and philosophies contained in religious writings. . . . Had any of these efforts worked, science and religion today might be one and the same. But they are not.22

What works best for deriving reliable theories about the natural world? Tyson: ‘I simply go with what works. And what works is the healthy skepticism embodied in the scientific method. Believe me, if the Bible had ever been shown to be a rich source of scientific answers and enlightenment, we would be mining it daily for cosmic discovery.’23

And yet the successes of science do not in any way undercut the awe and wonder that it evokes in us. They even evoke a kind of reverence for what is:

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

31EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

It’s quite literally true that we are star dust, in the highest exalted way one can use that phrase. . . . I bask in the majesty of the cosmos. I use words, compose sentences that sound like the sentences I hear out of people that had revelation of Jesus, who go on their pilgrimages to Mecca. . . . Not only are we in the universe, the universe is in us. I don’t know of any deeper spiritual feeling than what that brings upon me.24

It’s been said that your view of the Before and After guides your actions in the Now. Certainly this is true of belief in creation, reincarnation, or the coming Messiah. It seems to be equally true for a reverential naturalist such as Neil deGrasse Tyson. He closes, ‘So what is true for life itself is no less true for the uni- verse: knowing where you came from is no less important than knowing where you are going.’25

NEW VISTAS The goal of this chapter has been to invite you in to an open- ended discussion. The dichotomy, ‘intelligent design versus new atheism,’ no matter how great its popularity in the media, is like a straightjacket; it does not give you room to nuance your responses. The wide range of additional options covered here opens the door to a much broader participation. Theists can now be Darwinians, and naturalists can find room for awe, won- der, reverence, and ecstatic mystical experiences. Similarly, the British mathematician and logician Alfred North Whitehead opens up new vistas from the side of religion:

Religion is the vision of something which stands beyond, behind, and within, the passing flux of immediate things; something which is real, and yet waiting to be realized; something which is a remote possibil- ity, and yet the greatest of present facts; something that gives mean- ing to all that passes, and yet eludes apprehension; something whose possession is the final good, and yet is beyond all reach; something which is the ultimate ideal, and the hopeless quest.26

In the coming chapters this range of positions will only increase. We will look first at the religions of the world, then at the major categories of science, then at the history and

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

32 EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

philosophy of science, and finally at ethical issues raised by sci- ence and technology. There is hardly a hypothesis regarding science and religion that you might wish to try out that needs to be excluded in advance from this panoply of possible positions. The goal of these chapters is to invite you into this free-ranging dialogue. Of course, proposals will need to be defended; you will find some proposals stronger than others. But, as in science, the time for pruning possible positions does not come before they are formulated, but only through the crucible of critical dialogue.

quESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCuSSION 1 How do you evaluate the two opening positions, intelligent

design and new atheism? Are you strongly drawn to one of the two, or do you tend to want to distance yourself from both? Try to explain your reasons for favoring one or the other (or neither!).

2 Think of the categories in Barbour’s (or Haught’s) typology. Which of the four categories do you think most accurately describes the relationship between science and religion, and what reservations do you have about the other three? Can you come up with a fifth category that you think better describes the relationship?

3 The author claims that the well-known skeptic Michael Shermer can be of service to theologians by helping them to formulate their faith in stronger ways. This might seem like a rather strange claim, since Shermer is an agnostic about the existence of God. So is the author right? In the end, what is the role of skepticism in religion? In science? Are skeptics more helpful in the one than the other? (Is it sinful to be a skeptic?)

4 The famous biologist Francis Collins maintains that one can be a biologist and a believing Christian at the same time. Take a careful look at his quotations and the summaries of his position. Which parts of his argument do you think are suc- cessful and which not? Theistic evolution is widespread across multiple religions, and many believe that it may be the only way to reconcile God and evolution. Is it the best strategy for

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

33EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

accomplishing this reconciliation, or can you think of others? And (to name the most controversial part) can science and miracles ever be reconciled?

5 The chapter ends by considering forms of naturalism that are not anti-religious, focusing in particular on Neil deGrasse Tyson. Try to specify more clearly what the word ‘natural- ism’ might mean in this new context. If possible, set up a debate between the different kinds of naturalists to evaluate the different meanings of the word and decide which ones you think are the strongest. Can religious people find allies in these naturalists who are no longer dismissive of religion? If so, what does this tell you about their understanding of religion?

6 Consider Alfred North Whitehead’s quote at the end of the chapter. Suppose you accepted this definition of religion. In that case, how might religion differ from science? How might religion be similar to science? How might religion complement science?

7 To what extent do the results of science influence your reli- gious (or your anti-religious) orientation? How much and what kind of evidence would it take to change your beliefs about God, for example, from theism to atheism or vice versa?

NOTES 1 Phillip E. Johnson, ‘Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism,’

First Things 6 (1990), 15–22, republished in Robert T. Pennock, ed., Intelli- gent Design Creationism and Its Critics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), 59–76, quote 75.

2 William A. Dembski, ‘Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information’; http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm.

3 Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Free Press, 2006), 73. 4 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin,

2006), 31. The following references in the text are also to this work unless otherwise noted.

5 San Harris, ‘Science Must Destroy Religion,’ Huffington Post ( January 2, 2006), updated May 25, 2011; www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/ science-must-destroy-reli_b_13153.html.

6 Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve [Hachette, Warner], 2007), 56.

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

34 EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

7 Alvin Plantinga, ‘The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum,’ Books and Culture 13/2 (March/April 2007), 21.

8 Ian Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science, Gifford Lectures vol. 1 (San Fran- cisco: Harper & Row, 1990).

9 John F. Haught, Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversion (New York: Paulist Press, 1995), chapter 1.

10 Christopher Southgate, God, Humanity and the Cosmos: A Textbook in Science and Religion, 3rd edn. (London: T & T Clark, 2011). Southgate references Peters’ article in The Modern Theologians, ed. David Ford (Oxford: Black- well, 1997), 650–654. See also Ted Peters, ed., Science and Theology: The New Consonance (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998).

11 Keith Ward in his debate with Michael Shermer, ‘Has Science Made God Obsolete: The Great Debate,’ www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM2Q5 REenmk&t=2869s.

12 Alister McGrath in his debate with Michael Shermer, ‘Is God a Figment of Our Imagination?’; www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScykHWO4LY& t=212s.

13 You can view the press conference at www.youtube.com/watch?v= slRyGLmt3qc.

14 Francis Collins in dialogue with John Horgan in 2009; http://inters.org/ Collins-Scientist-Believer.

15 Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), 28.

16 Ibid., 81. 17 For this and the following quotes, see pp. 200–204. 18 Einstein, 1954, letter to an atheist. 19 Tyson’s video is now accessible only at www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbv

DYyoAv9k. See also www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/quotes-by- neil-degrasse-tyson/spirituality-quotes.

20 Frank Johnson, In the Words of Neil deGrasse Tyson: The Inspiring Voice of Science (CreateSpace, 2014), 74–75.

21 Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries (New York: Norton, 2014), 347.

22 Neil deGrasse Tyson, The Sky Is Not the Limit: Adventures of an Urban Astro- physicist, 2nd edn. (New York: Prometheus Books, 2004), 183.

23 Ibid., 188. 24 Neil deGrasse Tyson, ‘Beyond Belief: Science, Reason, Religion and Sur-

vival,’ Salk Institute for Biological Studies (November 7, 2006). 25 Tyson, Death By Black Hole, 345. 26 Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: Free

Press, 1967), 191–192.

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

35EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

SuGGESTIONS FOR FuRTHER READING Barbour, Ian G., Religion in an Age of Science, Gifford lectures 1989–1990 (San

Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1990). Barrow, John D. and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1988). Behe, Michael, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Free Press, 2006). Clayton, Philip, Adventures in the Spirit (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2008). Dawkins, Richard, The God Delusion (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2006). Dawkins, Richard, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for

Wonder (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1998). Dembski, William and Michael Ruse, eds., Debating Design: From Darwin to

DNA (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Pennock, Robert T., Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism

(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999). Polkinghorne, John, Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion

(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005). Ross, Hugh, The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discover-

ies of the Century Reveal God, 3rd expanded edn. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001).

Whitehead, Alfred North, Science and the Modern World (New York: Free Press, 1967).

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ou tle

dg e.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .