Reconciling Science and Religion

For many years I've been intrigued by the work of the Templeton Foundation, which has funded investigations that seek to reconcile the world views of empirical science and spiritual religion.  Some would argue that a true reconciliation is impossible, but I've long believed that science and religion should be seen as compatible frames for understanding world. 

Dogmatic Christianity does prevent an appreciation of the wondrous discoveries of science. I can recall the minister's wife at my childhood church noting with disgust that some people believe we came from monkeys.  I believe that myself, these days, and am always stunned to meet someone who doesn't.

Dogmatic science-worship has its own problems, however, as represented by the hyperventilating atheism of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.  Natural science will always struggle with explaining the interpersonal dimensions and ethical dilemmas that comprise any thoughtful life.  If we were merely a collections of cells and atoms, life would not be as challenging--or as interesting--as it is.  It doesn't follow from this that one must believe in God, of course.  My point is simply that relying on science alone gives us an improversished view of our humanity.

Yesterday's Times commentary by Robert Wright offers a way out of the supposed conflict between science and religion.  Here are the two sentences that capture the thesis of this developed and nuanced piece (but you should read it all, of course): "Oddly, an underestimation of natural selection’s creative power clouds the vision not just of the intensely religious but also of the militantly atheistic."  "Believers could scale back their conception of God’s role in creation, and atheists could accept that some notions of 'higher purpose' are compatible with scientific materialism."

As with many disputes involving supposedly implacable positions, there is less to the "war" between science and religion than meets the eye.  Thanks to Robert Wright for pointing this out.

Comments

[Eric]

Have you read the most recent New Yorker article, I believe called "The New Anti-Anti Atheism?" It offers some alternative theological platforms which also challenge the sneering, dogmatic approach of "Ditchkins" (Dawkins and Hutchens). I think the final solution the author proposes is a weak one, but his dissection several atheist theologists' viewpoints is quite interesting.

When you mentioned the Templeton Foundation, I thought for sure it would be a reference to Charles Templeton, the Canadian evangelist who partnered with Billy Graham, then midway in his career (late 1950s) publicly declared himself an agnostic. His final book, Farewell to God, was written near the end of his life, around 1995. I first learned about him from visiting the Creation Museum in Cincinnati a few weeks ago.

Turns out it's not the same Templeton after all.

[Marcus]

Thanks Eric! Yes, a very different Templeton. I need to read the New Yorker piece.