Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation
John F. Haught
Reviewed by David H. Bailey
I wish to convey my strong recommendation for the book Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation, by John F. Haught. He is not LDS, but it is full of very good insights on these issues. Frankly, I am not aware of any other book that deals with these issues so well, respectful of both religious beliefs and scientific sense. It is available in many larger bookstores, or from amazon.com.
I have read quite a few books in the general area of science and religion, including many of the currently popular general interest books written by professional scientists, who often touch on the topic of religion. Haught is not a professional scientist, although he is very familiar with modern science. He is however well schooled in modern philosophy and theology. The book addresses the following nine questions, with one chapter devoted to each:
1. Is religion opposed to science?
2. Does science rule out a personal God?
3. Does evolution rule out God's existence?
4. Is life reducible to chemistry?
5. Was the universe created?
6. Do we belong here?
7. Why is there complexity in nature?
8. Does the universe have a purpose?
9. Is religion responsible for the ecological crisis?
This book structures its discussion of these nine questions as a "debate" between four distinct schools of thought, which Haught terms conflict, contrast, contact and confirmation. Scientific and philosophic concepts introduced in ensuing discussion are explained clearly, so that the book is accessible to nonspecialists.
The "conflict" school of thought holds that modern science is irreconcilably opposed to religion. Skeptical scientists of this persuasion, including the likes of Dennett, Hawking and Weinberg, argue that modern science has indeed hit the final nail into the coffin of theistic religion. The Copernican revolution removed humans from the center of existence to an obscure speck in an unimaginably large and hostile universe. Newton showed that the universe is governed by natural law, not by continual supernatural intervention. Darwin demonstrated that living organisms on earth arose through a natural process over many millions of years. Quantum mechanics revealed the laws governing the world of subatomic particles. Einstein removed any vestige of absolute space and time. Big bang cosmology removed any lingering need for a Creator. Thus it is no longer intellectually possible to accept modern science and still believe in God.
Ironically, this "conflict" point of view is shared by many religious fundamentalists. In a defense of their faith, some are determined to overturn conventional scientific theories, replacing this body of knowledge with an alternative version that they call "creation science".
The "contrast" school argues that most, if not all, of the tension between modern science and religion is unnecessary, stemming from a persistent failure over the past few centuries to recognize the separate domains of science and religion. Those advocating this view cede to science the outward description of the physical world, including the processes by which it came to be, but reserve for religion questions such as the nature of God and the meaning of existence. Along this line, the Catholic Church was completely out of order when it persecuted Galileo over Copernican cosmology -- the Church was invading the domain of science. But scientists are equally out of line when they invade the realm of religion (several modern examples are cited in the book). Indeed, many skeptical scientists betray their own unfounded belief systems in such writings. These belief systems include scientism (the belief that all knowledge comes only through the scientific method), materialism (the belief that all reality, including life and mind, is completely explainable in terms of its constituent material) and reductionism (the belief that the best approach to truth is through analysis at the lowest level). Thus the conflict between science and religion is really a conflict between scientism/materialism/reductionism and religion.
The author then describes the "contact" school of thought, with which he is obviously sympathetic. While those of this persuasion acknowledge the need for a respectful division between science and religion, they argue that a completely clean division is not really possible. Further, a total separation prevents science and religion from mutually nourishing each other in their quest for truth. Advocates of this view cite certain remarkable developments of twentieth century science, including the apparent requirement for an observer in quantum mechanics, the fact that the fundamental constants and laws of physics appear to be exquisitely tuned for our existence, and the findings of the emerging field of chaos, which indicate that the neatly mechanistic universe of Newtonian mechanics must give way to a universe that is fundamentally unpredictable and continuously creative of beauty and order. Developments such as these simply cannot be ignored when considering our place in the universe. They not only point to a divine Creator and a rational Lawgiver, but also to a universe that, in the spirit of the prophetic tradition, has the promise of eternal progression and creativity.
Finally, the author mentions what he calls the "confirmation" school, which notes that the whole notion of a universe that is rational and discoverable is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian thought (and, I might add, even more so in Mormon thought). The Book of Job, for example, teaches us to trust in the rationality of the universe even in the face of seemingly incomprehensible tribulation and suffering. In this light, all scientists implicitly work from an underlying faith that the universe is ultimately simple, elegant, rational and comprehensible. Without this faith, which is entirely comparable to faith in God, there would be no point in performing experiments or trying to craft rational theories to explain the findings. In this light, the Judeo-Christian tradition, as it emerged from the Middle Ages, actually set the stage for modern science.
One important question is whether or not harmonious approaches such as those discussed in this book can gain acceptance, either by scientific or religious people. Haught observes that the outlook is not encouraging. Skeptical scientists seem unwilling to cede any domain of truth to religion. Typical is Tipler's claim that either religion must eventually be reduced to a branch of physics, or else it must be dismissed as a subject of no content. On the other hand, few deeply religious persons seem willing to even accept the theory of evolution, for example, much less weave this or any other theory of modern science into their personal religious fabric. But there remains some hope that if each side displays sincere flexibility on these questions, a meaningful dialogue can be established.
In summary, this book is highly recommended for college students and others who struggle with these questions. I only wish that something of this quality were written by an LDS writer, aimed at an LDS audience.