In the August 19th issue of The New Republic
Steven Pinker wrote a masterful essay entitled “Science is Not Your Enemy.” The
essay is a defense of science that often veers into an attack on religion.
Pinker writes that science is committed to two ideals: The first is that the world is intelligible…In
making sense of our world, there should be few occasions in which we are forced
to concede “It just is” or “It’s magic” or “Because I said so.” The second
ideal is that the acquisition of
knowledge is hard. Part of the difficulty is that we humans are prone to illusions, fallacies, and
superstitions. Most of the traditional causes of belief-faith, revelation,
dogma, authority, charisma, conventional wisdom, the invigorating glow of
subjective certainty—are generators of error and should be dismissed as sources
of knowledge.
Which leads us to religion. To begin with, the findings of science entail that the belief systems
of all the world’s cultures—their theories of the origins of life, humans, and
societies—are mistaken… There is no such thing as fate, providence, karma,
spells, curses, augury, divine retribution, or answered prayers…
I agree with Dr. Pinker, but is this really what religion is
all about? To dismiss religion because of ancient ideas many religious people
have long outgrown is like dismissing medicine because doctors once rejected
the idea of germs. Why assume that only science grows? The history of religion
suggests that it too challenges outmoded thinking and offers new theories in
its place.
Religion is one way people make meaning out of reality.
While it is true that many religions insist on a worldview that is demonstrably
false, this doesn’t mean the meaning making is any less at the heart of what
these religions are doing. Good religion, just like good science, works with
facts as we know them. Bad religion like bad science ignores the facts when
they are inconvenient.
Based on evidence I consider irrefutable, I am a firm
believer in evolution. Contemplating the unfolding of species over 13.8 billion
years is awe inspiring, but when I ask my science colleagues about the meaning
of evolution most of them draw a blank. There is no meaning to evolution. As
Steven Weinberg once wrote, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the
more it also seems pointless.”
But when I look at the universe through the lens of science
I can’t help but make meaning out of what I see. I see evolution pushing toward
minds capable of greater and greater levels of consciousness. Making meaning
out of evolution is the work of religion.
Is meaning intrinsic to life? Yes, because we meaning makers
are intrinsic to life. Humans are the way nature makes meaning no less than
chickens are the way nature makes eggs (or is it the way eggs make chickens?).
Religion, no less than science, is a method. And religion,
like science, also rests on two ideals. The first is that the world is meaningful,
and we humans (at least on this planet at this time) are the means by which the
universe makes meaning. The second ideal is that religion, no less than
science, is hard. Religion at its best isn’t a matter of blind faith, but of
careful investigation and introspection.
Religion’s method is contemplative inquiry, difficult
practices that take years to master, and which allow us to study reality in
such a way as to make meaning out of it. Often meaning is best articulated
through myth, metaphor, poetry, art, and music. These should not be taken
literally, and when they are good religion goes bad, and making meaning
devolves into imposing belief.
Steven Pinker is correct: science is not the enemy, but
neither is religion. Contra Jay Gould’s “nonoverlapping magesteria,” at their
best science and religion are two overlapping human endeavors. Religion needs
science to keep it from clinging to old maps that no longer accurately
represent the facts on the ground. Science needs religion to avoid falling over
the precipice of nihilism. Religion and science are not in opposition. On the
contrary, they are partners in the human quest for truth, meaning, and purpose.
How do you understand the relationship between science and
religion?
