The science and religion dialogue

The Science and Religion Dialogue: Where It Stands Today and Why It Matters, by
George F. R. Ellis

Metanexus Cosmos. 2005.02.04. 9,458 words.

This is a public lecture given by George F. R. Ellis, 2004 Templeton Prize winner at the
meetings of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature in
November 22, 2004 in San Antonio, Texas. Professor Ellis is Distinguished Professor of
Complex Systems in the Department of Mathematics at the University of Cape Town.
The first part of this talk appeared in the Winter 2005 issue of The Spiral. What follows is
the talk in its entirety.

George Ellis, Ph.D., is professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape
Town, member of the Metanexus Board of Directors and recipient of the 2004 Templeton
Prize. After completing his Ph.D. at Cambridge University with Dennis Sciama as
supervisor, he lectured at Cambridge and has been visiting Professor at Texas University,
the University of Chicago, Hamburg University, Boston University, the University of
Alberta, and Queen Mary College (London University). He has written many papers on
relativity theory and cosmology, among them The Large Scale Structure of Space Time
co-authored with Stephen Hawking (Cambridge University Press,1973); Before the
Beginning: Cosmology Explained (Merion Boyars, 1993); Is the Universe Open or
Closed? The Density of Matter in the Universe with Peter Coles (Cambridge University
Press, 1997); and Dynamical Systems in Cosmology with John Wainwright. He has also
written on science policy and developmental issues, science education, and science and
religion issues. He is co-author with Nancey Murphy of "On the Moral Nature of the
Universe" (Fortress Press, 1996) and editor of "The Far-flung Universe: Eschatology
from a Cosmic Perspective" (Templeton Foundation Press, 2002). He is past president of
the International Society of General Relativity and Gravitation and of the Royal Society
of South Africa and fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Institute of
Mathematics and its Applications. Among the prizes and honorary degrees he has
received are the Claude Harris Leon Foundation Achievement Award, the Gold Medal of
the South African Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Star of South
Africa Medal, which was presented to him in 1999 by President Nelson Mandela.

--Editor

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The Science and Religion Dialogue: Where It Stands Today and Why It Matters

By George F. R. Ellis

Part I

Science and religion are two major long-term themes of human thought-indeed two
dominating aspects of human culture, each making major contributions to how we live

and think. At issue here is the way we understand ultimate reality and humanity: the very
nature of existence. This plays a crucial role in how we see ourselves and how we see the
meaning in our lives. Because of this, their interaction is of considerable importance for
the way we live and behave, which to a large extent flows from our world-view.

Science and religion have in the past been taken by many to be in deadly conflict, and
indeed many have talked of the battle between science and religion. This was, however,
by no means a universal position. There is now an increasing recognition of mutuality,
with a growing science and religion dialogue taking place, and numerous books
appearing on the topic.

This debate recognizes that major areas of concern of science and religion are separate,
and in the main no conflict arises between them: science dealing with 'how' and religion
with 'why'; science with what is, and religion with what ought to be. Indeed this view has
been formalised by Stephen J. Gould into the idea of 'non-overlapping magisteria' or
NOMA with each ruling its separate domain and not even a possibility of conflict. The
Bible is not a science textbook telling you about thermodynamics or the periodic table of
the elements. Chemistry books do not tell you the meaning of life. You need to go to the
appropriate sources for each class of questions.

However, this argument is not sustainable - it is mainly but not always true. There are
indeed some areas of common concern and potential conflict. Thus there is a vibrant
debate now that aims to clarify this. Some claim there is indeed still a real conflict, with
science dominant; others that there is a possibility of peaceful coexistence; and still
others that some kind of integration is possible to give a unified world-view that
accommodates both, without diluting either. The latter is my own position, as it is of
many others, and is reflected in a vibrant and growing literature.

The science and religion dialogue can provide essential benefits both ways-from religion
to science, and from science to religion, provided we reinforce the open-minded, non-
fundamentalist tendencies on both sides. Indeed the dialogue can be a counter to both
religious fundamentalism and scientific fundamentalism, where fundamentalism is
defined as those tendencies that claim total access to truth but in fact are proclaiming a
partial truth to be the whole truth

The key need is to see what each of these areas, that is, science and religion, can
contribute: what is its proper domain of application in human life and understanding, and
what lies outside that domain in each case. This discussion also clarifies where tensions
remain, those areas where both still make claims and hence there are serious issues to be
faced.

The issues

I will talk about this in terms of three major interrelated aspects first in terms of practical
issues where the discussion makes a real world difference; theoretical issues that have to
do with how we understand, how we make and test theories; and philosophical issues,

what we learn from this debate about how things are. These aspects are related by and
based in certain foundational understandings, which deal with underlying value systems
and overall approaches taken and they are all made concrete in relation to specific issues,
where they become real.

These specific issues fall under a number of categories from practical to essential to
critical. A practical issue for religion, that is making a real world difference, is the tension
experienced by some religious believers caused by the unprecedented increase in our
understanding of how the world works given us by modern science. This undermines the
faith of many believers and in fact in Europe has led them to leave the church. This is
clearly a practical issue for the church. A primary importance of the science and religion
dialogue is that it faces this issue and examines to what degree this loss of faith is
inevitable if one takes both science and religion seriously. This dialogue can help in
developing mature religious understandings that will be robust in the face of modern
scientific discoveries: indeed, this is a core project of the science and religion debate.
Obviously, this is of real world significance to the religious community.

The universe

First I would like to discuss some issues that I call non-essential issues such as the
question of origins of the universe and of life. The mechanism of the evolution of the
universe and the large-scale structures in it, that is, cosmology and the physical big bang
are now well understood by scientists. The universe started in a smooth hot state with
only elementary particles in equilibrium. This hot gas expanded very rapidly and cooled,
and with this cooling structures such as galaxies and stars formed spontaneously through
the action of gravity. This is the subject of physical cosmology, which is my technical
area of work.

The issue where people have seen a relation with religious issues is in the question: was
there a start to the universe or not? Is it eternal? Would it be bad for religion if there were
no beginning to the universe? It used to be believed by some that if you could prove the
universe had a beginning, this would vindicate biblical claims and so would be good for
religion. On the other hand, if you could prove that the universe did not have a beginning,
as with Fred Hoyle's theory of the steady-state universe, this would undermine a religious
worldview.

However, even in the time of St Augustine it was known that this was a faulty analysis,
for the crucial existential issue is not dependent on whether the universe had a beginning
in time. This issue does not really make a difference to issues of fundamental causation.
It only deals with mechanisms. The fundamental question is why the physical universe
has the form it does-why the laws of physics have the specific nature they have, and why
the expanding universe has the specific characteristics it has. So whether the universe had
a start or not, it is this that remains a fundamental metaphysical question. Why does the
universe have this particular form, when it could in principle have had so many other
forms?

Some would claim this an issue of the beginning of the universe is an essential one.
However, I would claim for most of those in the debate that it is non-essential. God could
have created the universe in many different ways, with or without a starting event, and
the way she chose to create it is a matter of scientific interest but has no real theological
substance. That is simply a question of what mode God chose to use to bring the universe
into existence and maintain it in being; the creative power of God remains, whatever the
physical vehicle chosen.

Evolution

The second and much more controversial non-essential issue is that of the origin of life,
the mechanism of evolution of animals and humans. A huge amount has been written
about what is claimed to be the upsetting of the religious view by Darwinian evolutionary
theory. With the modern view of evolution, what you have is an understanding of the
incredible self-structuring propensity of nature, which enables the Darwinian
evolutionary process to shape animals to function well in their environment. This process
has the capacity to create complex organization with a purposeful character by the
process of random changes over a long time period leading to animals better adapted to
their particular environment. This is a very powerful mechanism that leads to greater and
greater complexity, including consciousness, because the ability to think enhances
survival capacity.

Now some have seen this as a threat to religion, many have not. From my viewpoint,
there is no clash with religion here. The point is the following. In particular, it is based in
the way electro-magnetism and quantum theory work. These underlie chemistry,
chemistry underlies biochemistry, biochemistry underlies the way that cells function and
life comes into being. So in essence it is the laws of physics that allow the spontaneous
self-structuring to take place, and then Darwinian evolution leads to apparent design. So
from this viewpoint, if you look at the causal chain, it is the nature of physics, which is at
issue here. Physics allows the process to take place. And if you have physics as you see it
in the universe around us, then the process of the evolution of life becomes almost
inevitable. From the viewpoint of theology, it makes no fundamental difference to the
issue of design whether God chooses to design individual animals. The new picture
would be God designing the laws of physics and designing them in a truly remarkable
way that allows creation of life to take place. From a fundamental causation viewpoint,
whichever method God chose is equally good. In fact, it is more wondrous to design the
laws of physics so that they have this inevitable consequence. It is truly remarkable feat. I
do not see any deep theological issue there either. If God chose to create complex beings
including human beings through a process of designing the laws of physics, which lead to
that consequence, that is a wonderful way of doing it. There is nothing wrong with that
from a theological perspective..

Part II

The nature of existence

However, there are still some deep underlying issues where potential or real conflict can
arise. The first of these significant issues is the foundations of existence, the metaphysics
and the ontology of cosmology. This is the issue of design and creation returning at a
higher level. What underlies existence and its nature? What underlies its relation both to
space-time, to matter, and to the laws of physics themselves? Why is there an ordered
universe? Why any laws of physics at all? And why are there these particular laws of
physics?

One particular important issue arising here is the anthropic question. The way life evolves
depends on the universe. We can consider universes with all sorts of properties: bigger or
smaller; hotter or colder; expanding faster or slower; with different laws of physics,
different kinds of particles, different masses for particles; maybe with different laws of
physics altogether. As a cosmologist, one imagines all these different universes and
considers what they would be like. In most of them there would be no life at all.

What is clear is that life, as we know it, would not be possible if there were very small
changes to either physics or the expanding universe that we see around us. There are
many aspects of physics, which, if they were different, would prevent any life at all
existing. There are all sorts of subtleties if the whole thing is to work, allowing
complexity to emerge: for instance, the difference in mass between the proton and the
neutron has to lie in a very narrow range, and the ratio of the electro-magnetic to the
gravitational force has to be very finely tuned. If you tinker with physics, you may not get
any element heavier than hydrogen; or maybe if the initial conditions of the universe are
wrong it doesn't last long enough, or it's always too hot, or it expands so rapidly that no
stars form at all. So there are all sorts of things that can go wrong if you are the creator
trying to create a universe in which life exists. We are now realizing that the universe is a
very extraordinary place, in the sense that it is fine tuned so that life will exist. Because
of its specific nature, our existence is more or less inevitable: since its start, it was always
waiting for us to come into being (as well as other intelligent beings elsewhere in the
universe).

A lot of books have been written on this, for instance Just Six Numbers and Our Cosmic
Habitat by my friend and colleague Professor Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal. In
particular, it has recently been established that the universe is not at present slowing
down as we would have expected, but rather is accelerating. It is expanding faster and
faster due to a cosmic force known as the 'cosmological constant' or 'quintessence':
various names are used for it. We do not know why this force is there, but we do know
that if it were substantially bigger than it is, there would be no galaxies at all, no planets,
no life at all. The question is why it has the value it has, when fundamental physics
suggests it should have been much larger than it in fact is, with no structure at all forming
in the universe and hence no life.

So why does the universe allow life to exist? Some scientists do not see this as a valid
issue, but in my view it is a very serious question. There are three main ways of trying to
explain it.

The first is pure chance, things just happen to be that way with no further metaphysical
implications. This is a logically tenable position, if you like to live with extremely thin
philosophies. But it has no explanatory power; it doesn't get you anywhere. So it is not an
argument that is popular in many scientific or philosophical circles.

The second option is the designer or purpose argument: that the way the universe
functions reveals intention, the work of some kind of transcendent power or force. Life
exists because this fine-tuning intentionally took place. In simple terms, God designed the
universe and the laws of physics operational in it in such a way that it was inevitable that
life would come in to being. Physics has this extraordinary ability to underlie the
spontaneous development of complexity because that was intended to be the case. This is
the theistic view.

The third option is the idea of a multiverse, supported amongst others by Professor
Martin Rees, who has studied and written about the problem of fine-tuning in the books I
mentioned. He and others propose that this is not the only universe, but that there are
millions and millions or even an infinite number of other universes, all with differing
properties. Or perhaps there is just one huge universe with many, many different
expanding regions like the expanding universe region we can see around us, but each
with different physical constants, different rates of expansion, and so on. This enables
physicists to start doing what they like, talking about statistics of universes.

If you play the game right, you can say that in this context life is highly probable. In most
of these universes life will not occur because conditions will be wrong. But in a few of
them it will just happen to work out alright. So although there is an incredibly small
probability of a universe existing that will allow life, if there exist enough universes with
all sorts of properties occurring, it becomes essentially inevitable that somewhere the
right mix of circumstances will occur. There are all these zillions of universes, so in some
of them surely life will come into being.

The problem with this explanation is that none of these other universes or expanding
universe domains can be observed. They are beyond the part of the universe that we can
see, so whatever is said about them can never be proven wrong. In many cases, there is
no causal connection with them whatever, so there is not even the faintest possibility of
checking their existence or their properties. That makes this a metaphysical rather than a
scientific proposal.

The distinguishing feature of science is that you can test its proposals, but there is no way
of testing this hypothesis. Martin Gardner writes in his book "Are Universes Thicker
Than Blackberries":

"There is not the slightest shred of reliable evidence that there is any universe other than
the one we are in. No multiverse theory has so far provided a prediction that can be
tested. As far as we can tell, universes are not even as plentiful as even two blackberries. .
. Surely the conjecture that there is just one universe and its Creator is infinitely simpler
and easier to believe than that there are countless billions upon billions of worlds,

constantly increasing in number and created by nobody. I can only marvel at the low state
to which today's philosophy of science has fallen." (1)

Belief that a multiverse exists is faith, not a scientifically testable or provable theory. The
multiverse theory just postpones the problem; the issue of ultimate causation remains. A
final point is that if there indeed were a multiverse, it would not necessarily exclude a
creator God: for she could have decided to create many universes instead of one. These
are not in fact exclusive options. And indeed the multiverse proposal is not after all a
final explanation; it just pushes the final question back one stage further. The issue
becomes, why this multiverse rather than that? Why a multiverse that allows life, rather
than one that does not? The crucial question recurs.

The nature of humanity

The second major issue is the question of what is the essential nature of being human.
What is our essential nature in the light of modern biology and, in particular, molecular
biology and neuroscience? This is where there is potential for real conflict between
science and religion, which is going to go on for a long time. This concerns particularly
the related issues of the nature of free will and the nature of the soul. And what is the
nature of being human with important correlates in the area of health? Overall, the issue
is: what is the quality of humanity? What is needed is an adequately humane view of
humanity.

On a scientific basis, we have obtained and continue to obtain greater and greater
understandings of how life works. In biology, we are learning more about the way that
molecular processes underlie the functioning of each of us, particularly through DNA as
the store of our genetic heritage and through neurons as the basis for our minds. We have
been gaining a remarkable mechanistic understanding of the way that life works, which is
extraordinarily successful. The problem arises when the claim is made that this is all
there is: nothing else is relevant or has any reality.

Here we come up against the fundamentalist views of reductionists who produce
incredibly thin views of humanity. It is an extraordinary phenomenon: people from
sociology, psychology, evolutionary theory, molecular biology, neuroscience,
philosophy, and so on, making claims that humans are far less than they actually are.
They do so with great authority, and if you disagree with them on humanistic or religious
grounds you are greeted with derision. This is a really important area.

Underlying humanity is the basic physical hierarchical structuring: quarks making up
protons and neutrons, which with electrons make up atoms; atoms together make
molecules; enough molecules together make bio-molecules; if you string these together
you eventually get cells; cells make tissues, tissues make systems, systems make the
organism, and organisms make communities. Each higher level depends on the lover
levels. This is the physical structure underlying our existence and functioning.

For reductionists what ultimately counts is only the lower level, that the only causal
effect present in this hierarchy is bottom-up causation, the attraction between tiny
electrons and protons at the bottom causing everything all the way up. In a certain sense
that is obviously true. You are able to think because electrons are attracting protons in
your neurons. This reductionist view tends to make one feel that life is just a form of
machinery and any higher meaning of life is undermined by these views. This is a critical
issue for religion. Other issues for religion relate to prayer and miracles; the soul,
resurrection, and after-life; the issue of evil and, for that matter, the issue of good.
Viewpoints in each of these areas are to some degree constrained by scientific
considerations, but they are also heavily influenced by the religious viewpoint taken.

I will make two comments here. First, we do not understand the nature of consciousness
despite what some people claim. Furthermore chemistry and physics do not provide a
causally complete theory able to investigate this matter, because they do not take human
causation into account. In terms of the soul, resurrection, and so on, consciousness is not
understood by science. The hard problem is not even touched on by modern day
neuroscience. You may take a viewpoint, which is a faith viewpoint, on this issue without
being contradicted by science because science does not understand consciousness.

Second, in terms of the issue of prayers and miracles and so on, quantum uncertainty may
be epistemological rather than ontological. In other words, there may be room for divine
action through quantum uncertainty. We do not understand the nature of quantum theory
when we really look at it at a deep level. So this can open up windows for looking at
prayer, miracles, and so on in a way which could be important.

What are the important practical issues for science? Can theology make a difference? Of
great importance here is how applied science impacts our lives: for example,
biotechnology issues such as cloning; values in environmental decisions; the issue of
global warming; uses of information technology; and creation of weapons of mass
destruction. Science and its child technology have allowed all these things to come into
being. As they take place, we need to really consider the values that guide our decisions.
Scientists do not normally discuss these values explicitly. What is crucially needed here
as part of the future of humanity is specifically considered and adopted ethical values that
inform technological decisions as we apply science in these various ways. Science cannot
provide these values; they can only come from religious and philosophical positions.
These values and their applications can fruitfully be explored by the science-and-religion
dialogue. What are needed here are people who are scientifically trained in the particular
area of concern and who also have a deep understanding of morality. Hence, the kind of
possibility that arises is a panel of religious representatives who could give an ethical
view on crucial issues, one that a panel of scientists alone could not give. For example,
there could be an office attached to the United Nations, which could provide such advice
from an interfaith view on the ways that world religions look at these issues. Underlying
this proposal is a core belief that the spiritual wings of the world's great religions have a
common core of ethical values, which can be used to provide guidance in practical
situations.

Major issues will be arising in the future in particular concerning value-based human
sciences and medicine and the brain and consciousness. This issue of science and values
is particularly going to come up as we understand more about the brain, and as we obtain
more and more ability to interfere with the brain both genetically and in other ways. It is
going to be crucial to have a proper ethical viewpoint guiding these uses of science.

Top-down causation

The new and very important realization is that, as well as the bottom-up action, there is
top-down action. In this hierarchy of structure, the top levels are equally able to influence
what happens at the lower levels. Somehow, it is this simple fact that somehow quite a lot
of people seem to miss. Top-down action is what enables the higher levels of the
hierarchy to be causally effective, and it occurs around us all the time. This happens for
example in the physics of the very early universe, in the way that genes are influenced by
the environment through the process of evolution and in the way that they are read on the
basis of positional information in the developing body. This happens in the way that the
mind influences what happens in our bodies (2).

A key point here is the issue of human volition: the fact that when I move my arm, it
moves because I have 'told it' to do so. In other words, my brain is able to co-ordinate the
action of millions of electrons and protons in such a way that it makes the arm move in
the way I want it to move. Everything in this room that is created by humans is created
through human volition, and this demonstrates that our minds are causally effective in the
world around us. The goals that we have shape what we do, and hence change the
situation in the world around us as we act on it, for example when building a house or
driving a car or making a cup of tea. It is this causal efficacy that enables us to carry out
actions embodying our intentions. This in turn is crucial to our existence as ethically
responsible beings.

It is important to understand that information is causally effective, even though it is not a
physical quantity but rather has an abstract nature. It is because of this effectiveness that
it costs money to acquire information - it has an economic value. Not only that, but social
constructions, too, are causally effective. The classic example of this is the laws of chess.
Imagine someone coming from Mars and watching chess pieces moving. It is a very
puzzling situation. Some pieces can only move in one way and other pieces can only
move another way, so you imagine the Martian turning the board upside down or looking
inside the rook, searching for a mechanism that causes these differences.

But it is an abstraction, a social agreement that is making the chess piece move only in
these ways. Such an agreement, reached by social convention over many hundreds of
years, is not the same as any individual's brain state, though some people will try to tell
you that it is. It is an abstraction that exists independent of any single mind, and that can
be represented in many different ways. It is causally effective through the actions of
individual minds, but none of them by themselves created that abstraction or embody it in
its entirety. It will survive even when they die.

Many other social constructions, including language, mathematics, and science, are
equally causally effective. This already is enough to undermine any simplistic
materialistic views of the world, because these causal abstractions do not have a place in
the simple materialist view of how things function. Indeed materialism itself is a theory,
but a theory is not a physical thing. Its very existence denies its own fundamental
premise.

Theoretical issues: how we understand

Science may help religion in examining its processes for discerning truth. The issue is
that of religious dogmatism and hubris, the tendency to make claims of absolute truth for
possibly fallible religious positions. The problem is that we live in a world of multiple
faiths and they can't all be true in all of their dogmatic statements because they contradict
each other. For each strongly held religious position held by a fundamentalist in one
religious faith there is a contradicting one in some other religious faith. That must raise
for the believer who is open to these kinds of issues the questions: how do I tell if my
faith is true? How do I relate to these other faiths? The scientific approach can temper
this tendency to dogmatism and - realizing that faith will always be the core of religion -
can help religious understanding relate more coherently to the evidence that supports
faith. Crucial is the issue of discernment. Science can help in the understanding of how to
evaluate evidence, how to test theories in the face of experience.

Various theories have been developed showing how one can develop and test scientific
and religious theories in an analogous way: varieties of critical realism have been
proposed by Ian Barbour and Arthur Peacocke and Lakatos' vision of progressive
research programs have been put forward by Nancey Murphy.

The relation of knowledge and existence

What is key in looking at science and religion and how they relate is the appropriate
nature of epistemology, that is, the theory of knowledge in this broad-ranging context.
What kinds of evidence should we include in our considerations? Science takes
repeatable, strictly controlled experiments into account while religion takes into account
the daily religious experience of believers. In other words, in each domain different kinds
of data are taken into account. How do we test these for validity? How do we relate them
to the testing of the nature of reality in broad inclusive explanatory schemes?

So we need to look at the data of the nature of knowledge but there is also the question of
the nature of existence, the nature of ontology: what kinds of existence should we assign
to entities in the world? Is there only a material physical world, or are other worlds, for
instance a Platonic world of mathematics, that we also have to take into account? One has
to meditate on existence, the possible kinds of existence. And I claim that from a
scientific viewpoint one requires more than just the world of particles and physics.

But the key thing is the relation of epistemology to ontology. How does one relate one's
knowledge to existence? This is one of the key issues at stake. Most of the errors

humanity has made over the centuries, from logical positivism on the one hand to
extreme relativism on the other, have arisen because we continually confuse
epistemology with ontology. Humans continually believe that what they know is what
exists. And that is just another example of human hubris.

Our understanding of complex issues derives from making and testing models and
theories. Indeed all our understanding is necessarily represented this way. Our brain
works by making models of things, testing them, and discarding the models if they don't
work. One of the key points is not to confuse models with reality. Any model is a partial
representation of reality. Many scientists at the present time seem to confuse their models
of reality with reality. Religious believers may do the same. There is a lot one can learn
by looking at the relation between image and reality. The images we have of reality are
mediated by the sensory apparatus and detectors available to us, and each image will be
but a partial representation of reality. The data available through each channel is strongly
influenced by detection and selection effects.

Furthermore, each of these theories has a limit. Each has a domain of applicability and do
not apply outside of their a domain. If you want to understand a theory you must
understand its range and applicability. You only understand it if you know its limits of
applicability.

Science can help see the multiple ways that a single reality can be represented and
understood, and perhaps this is one of the things that non-scientists don't know so much
about. In mathematics, many mathematical concepts can be represented in many different
ways. In physics too there are many different representations of the same physical laws.
For example, in quantum theory there is a famous equivalence between the Schrodinger
theory and the Heisenberg theory, which is not at all obvious initially. These theories can
look completely different but are representing the same reality. So science is a very
interesting way of seeing in multiple ways how a single reality can be represented and
understood.

This I would see as a force for progress in inter-religious dialogue because of course the
same kind multiple views of a single reality can easily occur in the religious domain.
These kinds of studies can also help us see how epistemology and ontology relate. A lack
of evidence is not evidence of non-existence. One case where this occurs is in cosmology
where there are galaxies that we see and there is a horizon. We can't see beyond the
horizon because the light has not had time to reach us since the creation of the universe.
Astronomers believe firmly that there are galaxies beyond the horizon but we can't see
them and never will see them in the foreseeable future but we believe they exist. This is
an example where existence can be inferred even though we don't have the direct
evidence.

So, in science, it is not true that there is a simple relation between evidence and existence.
It is a complex relationship. The lesson of all this is that one mustn't confuse
epistemology with ontology. If you don't have evidence, the thing may still exist; on the
other hand, the fact that you don't have evidence does not prove that it does exist. In

science as in religion there are ways of justifying belief in the existence of the unseen -
for example, electromagnetic fields and quarks, which are both not seen but which we
believe to exist. There are philosophical tests of this through the fruitful participation of
such ideas and theories that make testable predictions

Religious experience

The issue of religious experience is here crucial - the interpretation of ethical and spiritual
data. Is it all delusion? Is all self-constructed? Or, does some of it relate to reality? How
do we tell what is genuine in the religious sphere? This is the issue of discernment: how
do we tell true religious/ethical experience from false. Science is very powerful in
detecting within its domain what is true or false. How do you do that in religion? The key
issue in trying to get a religious approach that is compatible with science: to drop dogma
and subject religious theories and ethical issues to testing. This is analogous to the way
that science tests the truth-value of theories. Religion has a similar need.

Discernment is through tradition, through scripture, through elders and priests, through
community opinion, through personal judgement, and above all by outcomes: by their
fruits ye shall know them. But the latter is dependent on a view of what is good and what
is bad. Those criteria are determined on some understanding of ethical values. In the end,
one can have these criteria and, in the end, they will not be decisive. There is an ultimate
uncertainty facing us in the metaphysical domain. By definition in the end these are faith
issues where sufficient evidence for proof, as was known to Hume and to Kant, will
never be available. So we encounter the tension between rationality and faith, and the
paradox of justified faith and reasonable hope. We have to have faith in order to have a
metaphysical position, whether it's an atheist one or a religious one, because the data is
not sufficient. We can use all of those criteria but they will in the end not give us a one
hundred per cent watertight answer. We have to use our faith in order to come to a
metaphysical or religious position whether it is atheism or Christianity, Islam, Hinduism,
or whatever.

The central point is that, in the light of our present day understanding of science and
epistemology, we can have strongly supported beliefs, we can have good reasons for our
beliefs. But certainty cannot be attained in these areas in a philosophical sense -
metaphysical doubt will remain always in my view. Anyone from either side, the science
or the religious side, claiming certainty in metaphysical issues is either deluded or
dishonest. So beware of the peddler of certainty, whether a priest or a scientist.

The outcome is unclear. That is why we need faith and hope on the one hand, and why,
on the other, we need dialogue for clarifying potential conflicts and whatever consistency
checks or tests of consilience there may be for testing our beliefs.

On being human: faith and hope

The essential features of a full human life are faith and hope, driven by the need to make
life choices in the face of uncertainty and adversity (and we note here that even atheism is

a faith). Rationality, based on impartial analysis of repeated experience and carefully
collected evidence, is what gives us our ability to plan sensibly and successfully in the
face of reality and its inherent limitations. But hope is often needed in order to continue
surviving and functioning in the face of desperate situations - to fight against the odds.
It's not just that we don't always have evidence that is sufficient so we have faith. There
will be times when the evidence is against us but we need to keep on fighting. Indeed this
was abundantly clear in the recent history of my country South Africa. There were many
times when the rational thing would have been to give up in despair. But the miracle of
the political transition happened without the the country descending into wholesale
bloodshed because of the moral leadership of Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu among
others.

Part of the point here is that the non-rational clinging to hope is itself part of the
transformational process. Hope is an active factor in changing the context in which we
live, and hence the outcomes of our choices and actions. This process has an element of
faith - faith in what might happen if hope is pursued. But faith is needed in any case to
provide a basis for thought, values, and action, for a number of reasons, even though it is
itself guided by thoughts and values. Faith is needed when the evidence is incomplete;
hope when the evidence is against you.

However there is a crucial final point. It is not true that all exercises of faith and hope are
equal. Like all our abilities, they too can be used rightly or wrongly. So this is where the
exercise of discernment is essential. Some faiths, and in particular fundamentalist faiths,
are destructive and to be avoided; some hopes are evil. Thus faith and hope, like our
actions, have to be guided by ethics - value choices of what are acceptable goals for each
of us.

Balancing reason, emotion, ethics

It is crucial to understand that our minds act, as it were, as an arbiter between three
tendencies guiding our actions: first, what rationality suggests is the best course of action
- the cold calculus of more and less, the economically most beneficial choice; second,
what emotion sways us to do - the way that feels best, what we would like to do; and
third, what our values tell us we ought to do - the ethically best option, the right thing to
do.

These are each distinct from each other, and in competition to gain the upper hand.
Sometimes they may agree as to the best course of action, but often they will not. It is our
personal responsibility to choose between them, making the best choice we can between
these conflicting calls, with our best wisdom and integrity, and on the basis of the limited
data available.

This shows where value choices come in and help guide our actions. Rationality can help
decide which course of action will be most likely to promote specific ethical goals when
we have made these value choices, but the choices themselves, the ethical system, must
come from outside the pure rationality of rigorous proof, and certainly from outside

science. As emphasized before, science cannot provide the basis of ethics. A deep
religious worldview is crucial here. It is essential to our well-being and proper
fulfillment, because ethics and meaning are deeply intertwined. Humans have a great
yearning for meaning, and ethics embodies those meanings and guides our actions in
accordance with them.

I am presenting here a very Quaker view of things: that one needs to bring ethics into the
science and religion dialogue. In fact, the whole discussion is incomplete without ethics
for many reasons. Thus it is important to have a sound view on the nature of ethics and
morality.

The boundaries of science

By its very nature, science cannot deal with major issues of great importance, and firstly,
science can't deal with ethics. There is a tendency to mistakenly believe that science can
handle these ethical issues, either through evolutionary psychology studies, through the
imperative of survival built into our genes over millions and millions of years; or, that
ethics can be handled by sociology and anthropology, which study the force of culture
and the way that it shapes how we think. But in fact ethical issues are by their very nature
beyond the scope of science. You can see this because these two proposals, the
evolutionary psychology proposal and the sociology proposal, do not agree with each
other over how ethics is derived. In the end science can't deal with ethics because there is
no scientific experiment that tells us what is good and what is evil. It is a part of reality
that is crucially important but which lies outside the scope of science. There is no
experiment, no apparatus which can test for ethics.

Science cannot deal with aesthetics. There are no scientific criteria telling us what is
beautiful. Science cannot deal with metaphysics, and it cannot deal with meaning. The
attempt to deal with these issues on a scientific basis is not only misleading, it is
positively dangerous. The Social Darwinism movement was one that was particularly
dangerous. It attempted to deal with ethics from a scientific basis and it provided the
theoretical underpinnings for Marxism and led to great evil. It is crucial that each of these
be recognized in their own right over and against science, with scientific factors in their
development but each with their own logic and nature justified in their own terms.

Science is very powerful in its domain, but that domain is strictly limited. Natural and
biological science is constrained by its very nature to its proper domain of application
(the measurable behaviour of physical objects), and so cannot handle features of a quite
different nature, such as the appreciation of beauty, the greatness of literature, the joy of
cooking, the lessons of history, the nature of evil, the quality of meditation, or the
understanding of love. The fact that science cannot handle them does not mean that they
are unimportant to us.

The boundaries of religion

Similarly, religion too cannot deal with issues of mechanism and causation, the kind
investigated by science. Religion does not deal methodically with repeatable phenomena
nor with the analytic way we understand the parts of natural objects and phenomena as
making up the whole. Nor does it use mathematics as a tool and measurability as a
criterion of validity. Rather it deals with integral issues related to meaning and value.
Above all, it relates to individual lives and events, which may be similar to others in
some ways but are always different in important essences.

Philosophical issues

What do we learn about how things are? What science teaches us is something about the
way God thinks. In fact, this is what Newton thought. If you believe God was the creator,
then science can teach you a great deal about the nature of the mind of God. God created
the vast scale of the evolving universe, governed by cause and effect, particles and forces,
emergence of complexity out of simplicity, life shaped by evolutionary processes. So all
of this is part of the nature of God. It is truly an amazing idea.

One of the things that we learn from science is the idea of models of immanence and
transcendence with electromagnetism providing a model of immanence and
transcendence being modeled by higher dimensions. We learn that underlying physical
reality, we find a startling hidden world of mathematics waiting to be discovered. So
science shows us this hierarchy of structure. It shows us these mathematical structures -
for example, the Mandelbrot set which for billions of years was waiting to be discovered
in some abstract Platonic, mathematical domain before we had computers powerful
enough to create visions of these structures.

But what is really important is what religion can tell science about the multidimensional
nature of reality and causality, multiple natures of reality and levels of causation. Science
tends to ignore these because each science is compartmentalized and deals with only one
aspect of causation. What is truly important is the full nature of humanity that there is top
down as well as bottom up causation and the importance of human choice, what happens
is the social environment, the effects of society that affect the mind. Genetic inheritance
affects the mind. But personal choice also affects our minds and what we are and what
we become. We change ourselves through the way we think and the way we construct our
behaviour. Just as we strengthen our muscles by exercising them, we change our mind by
the way we think. Personal choice is equally as important in changing the mind just as are
social environment and genetic issues.

Ethics is causally effective because ethics is the topmost level of this layer of goals in
society. Goals are hierarchically structured and are causally effective. Human goals
create things around us, computers, spectacles, and everything we see around us is
created by human intent. The human mind is causally effective and ethics is causally
effective because it is the topmost level in the hierarchy. Science must acknowledge that
ethics as well as physics and chemistry are causally effective.

On the scientific side we face dogmatism and hubris: in particular, a denial of human
nature in human sciences and neuroscience. At issue here is the way we view ourselves:
what is the core of humanity. Crucial consequences follow for how we treat people
individually, medically and politically. Thus there is a need for the more humanist views
to counter against scientific fundamentalism and associated absolutist views. The
science-and-religion debate can help here: a strong force on the side of humanity.

Merlin Donald writes in his fine book "A Mind so Rare":

"Hardliners, led by a vanguard of rather voluble philosophers, believe not merely that
consciousness is limited, as experimentalists have been saying for years, but that it plays
no significant role in human cognition. They believe that we think, speak, and remember
entirely outside its influence. Moreover, the use of the term `consciousness' is viewed as
pernicious because (note the theological undertones) it leads us into error ...

They support the downgrading of consciousness to the status of an epiphenomenon...a
secondary byproduct of the brain's activity, a superficial manifestation of mental activity
that plays no role in cognition" (3).

He continues:

"[Daniel] Dennett is actually denying the biological reality of the self. Selves, he says,
hence self-consciousness, are cultural inventions. ... the initiation and execution of mental
activity is always outside conscious control...

Consciousness is an illusion and we do not exist in any meaningful sense. But, they
apologize at great length, this daunting fact Does Not Matter. Life will go on as always,
meaningless algorithm after meaningless algorithm, and we can all return to our lives as
if Nothing Has Happened.

This is rather like telling you your real parents were not the ones you grew to know and
love but Jack the Ripper and Elsa, She-Wolf of the SS. But not to worry" (4).

And further on:

"The practical consequences of this deterministic crusade are terrible indeed. There is no
sound biological or ideological basis for selfhood, willpower, freedom, or responsibility.
The notion of the conscious life as a vacuum leaves us with an idea of the self that is
arbitrary, relative, and much worse, totally empty because it is not really a conscious self,
at least not in any important way" (5).

These views deny the full nature of humanity. Religion can and does affirm this nature,
and its value: the worth of the individual. It can also be a force in the development of
truly multi-disciplinary studies in the sciences themselves, and also integrating them into
humanites, the arts, and philosophy.

Steven Pinker writes that the problem with behaviourism in psychology is that:

". . . there was no such thing as a talent or and ability. Watson had banned them from
psychology, together with the contents of the mind, such as ideas, beliefs, desires, and
feelings. To a behaviourist, the only legitimate topic for psychology is overt behaviour
and how it is controlled by the past and present environment...

Behaviourists believed that behaviour could be understood independently of the rest of
biology, without attention to the genetic makeup of the animal or the evolutionary history
of the species" (6).

Pinker continues:

"In The Behaviour of Organisms [Skinner], the only organisms considered are rats and
pigeons. . .Watson wrote an influential child-rearing manual recommending that parents
establish rigid feeding schedules for their children and give them a minimum of attention
and love" (7).

But we now know that this attention and love is crucial for proper child development;
indeed that they may wither away and even die if it is withheld. Behaviourism advocated
what is in fact a form of child torture because of its reductionist views of the nature of
human beings.

Foundational understandings

The crucial battle is against all the fundamentalisms that deny the multi-faceted nature of
causality and existence: that elevates some simplistic explanatory scheme (that the
proponent happens to be expert in) over all other considerations and without taking
context into account.

The science-and-religion dialogue can help fight dogmatism across the board by bringing
broadly scientific criteria into the search for truth, and at the same time not denying the
breadth of human evidence and the need for faith and hope as well as rationality. It gives
up the claim to be right in favor of trying to see what is actually there from as many
different viewpoints as possible, respecting alternative viewpoints put forward by others,
but all the time keeping in mind the need for evidence and testing of theory and being
aware of the dangers of self-delusion.

Sir Isaiah Berlin writes:

"Few things have done more harm than the belief on the part of individuals or groups (or
tribes or states or nations or churches) that he or she or they are in sole possession of the
truth: especially about how to live, what to be and do-and that those who differ from
them are not merely mistaken, but wicked or mad: and need restraining or suppressing. It
is a terrible and dangerous arrogance to believe that you alone are right: have a magical
eye which sees the truth: and that others cannot be right if they disagree" (8).

The science-and-religion dialogue can promote a consilience of very different world-
views that are attempts to understand important aspects of the same underlying reality
from different viewpoints, based in humility instead of dogmatism. It can help in
encouraging the development of world-views that can accommodate the pragmatic nature
of science as well as the kinds of deeper issues regarding existence and meaning that can
be encountered in spiritual and religious beliefs and world views. Thus it can explore the
deep nature of reality.

Overall, it can be important in emphasizing all the dimensions of humanity and the
crucial role of value systems that cannot be derived from science alone. Thus it can be an
important integrative factor helping all humanity in the way we see ourselves and the
universe in which we live. This affects our quality of life in a crucial way. It helps us be
fully human.

Indeed, it has the potential to provide a deeper and more profound consilience than is
possible any other way because it can probe root causes and meaning in a way that
science by itself cannot do. It can link science to ethics and meaning ('telos') and even to
aesthetics. In doing so it can keep alive the awareness of the spiritual dimension of life in
the face of scientific certainties from the viewpoint of faith, deepening our wonder and
awe as we appreciate the mechanisms by which our life has been created and supported.

This can be claimed to be the true nature of spirituality - being profoundly aware of all
these dimensions of existence, appreciating them all and their interconnections, replacing
the 'nothing but' of reductionism by wonder, reverence, and awe.

The future

The science-and-religion debate can be expected to grow with the establishment of
academic standards in this area, supported by public debate, lectures, meetings, journals,
books, and societies. The debate will be international and interfaith - indeed it is an
excellent meeting ground between the faiths (including atheism), and gives a sound basis
for interfaith discussion, enabling consideration of important issues without a head-on
clash on faith fundamentals. Indeed, from this viewpoint, despite the deep
metaphysical/philosophical divide between monotheism and non-theism, the main divide
in the religious world is not between the different faiths but rather between the
fundamentalist and non-fundamentalists of whatever faith.

The issue of ethics

The long term success of this interfaith movement, particularly in relation to the science
and religion dialogue, is going to depend on the establishment of standards of
acceptability - and hence criteria of rejection - in the religious and ethical areas as well as
in science, where they are already the well-established key to success. Indeed the
criterion of discernment and hence religious acceptability will have an essential ethical
core, as indicated above; hence the science-and-religion dialogue will have to take up a
specific position on the nature of ethics if it is to have the full power of its potential.

Thus in order to be successful, this movement will take science seriously (testing
understanding with data and rejecting extreme relativism) and have acceptable ethical
standards (rejecting religious authoritarianism and dogmatism) and ultimately agree on
ethical standards to be used in looking at ethical and behavioural issues.

Here I claim that at a deep level, there is a universal ethic agreed on by all religions -
namely "kenosis" (self-emptying, giving up, or self-sacrifice). Much religious practice
however contradicts that inspiring ethic, and indeed has a horrific historical record, which
is rightly rejected by humanitarians, scientists, and the broader public. The science-and-
religion movement will need to be seen to be free of this negative kind of thought and
practice.

There is an equal need for recognition that as well as providing many positive services,
there have been major baleful effects of science, not merely in terms of enabling major
environmental destruction and horrific weapons of war, but also in terms of promoting a
dehumanizing view of humanity. This has caused as much evil as any other aspect of
human existence, for example when codified in the social Darwinism movement (see
"From Darwin to Hitler", Richard Weikart). The fact that one can make that statement is
itself a proof that ethical judgements are independent of such scientifically based
theories. What is needed is a sound approach to ethics in relation to science, technology,
and development, informed by science but also informed by values that cannot come
from science.

The need

The need is for widespread recognition and support of this fundamentally important
debate. What is required is a science-ethics-religion triad, because the debate is
incomplete and inconclusive without including all three. Thus it must take cognisance of
all three: science - studying the mechanisms of how things work; religion - studying why,
thus issues of meaning and spirituality; and ethics - what to do, making it real.

These must all be approached with humility and questioning (so avoiding any of the
fundamentalisms), but also with rigour (honest intellectual assessment avoiding the
woolly minded), and with an ethical commitment that informs the discussion. Thus to be
really worthwhile it should involve consideration of both hard science, with its high
standards of rigour of proof, and hard religion, with its high standards of ethical demands.

Perhaps the discussion should move further, for example to include in addition to this
triad, aesthetics, because beauty is also a fundamentally important aspect of reality with a
power to move and enthuse people in a profound way.

Whether these further aspects are included or not, the core of the need is for integrative
studies that transcend the usual disciplinary boundaries and make links between the
various issues discussed here. In particular, it should be ready to tackle ethical issues
raised by science and technology - cloning, GM crops, information technology, etc.

It will value both science and religion, and respect both. It will try to understand the true
complexity of existence in all its dimensions. This can be claimed to be true spirituality.

Endnotes --------

1. Martin Gardner, Are Universes Thicker than Blackberries? W. W. Norton, 2003.

2. For a discussion of these issues, see http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/~ellis/emerge.doc.

3. Merlin Donald, A Mind so Rare, pages 29/36.

4. Donald, A Mind so Rare, pages 31/45.

5. Donald, A Mind so Rare, page 31.

6. Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate, page 19.

7. Pinker, The Blank Slate, pages 20/21.

8. Sir Isaiah Berlin, The New York Review of Books, October 18, 2001.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-This discussion list, COSMOS, is hosted by Metanexus Online .
The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors.

Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book
reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful
ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the
topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to
editor@metanexus.net. Metanexus consists of a number of topically focused forums
(Anthropos, Bios, Cogito, Cosmos, Salus, Sophia, and Techne) and periodic HTML
enriched composite digests from each of the lists.

Copyright notice: Except when otherwise noted, articles may be forwarded, quoted, or
republished in full with attribution to the author of the column and "Metanexus: The
Online Forum on Religion and Science". Republication for commercial purposes in print
or electronic format requires the permission of the author. Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by Metanexus Institute.

The science and religion dialogue

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to The science and religion dialogue

More from Sabiq Hafidz

Recently uploaded

The science and religion dialogue