Science and Religion: Enemies or Partners?

September 19, 2010 | 16 comments
By

For the next installment in this set of posts, let’s consider the relation between science and religion. In a mildly tedious but well-organized book, When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? (HarperCollins, 2000), Ian Barbour lays out four basic forms that the relation between science and religion can take: Conflict (either science or religion is correct, but not both); Independence (science and religion refer to different domains or aspects of reality); Dialogue (where discussions about method, metaphysics, and metaphor can enlighten both scientists and theologians); and Integration (natural theology or theology of nature approaches try to unite some or all aspects of science and theology). Which of these views or models correspond to the LDS approach?

Conflict. It’s not hard to portray science and religion as being in conflict. This way of looking at things receives the most airtime in the mainstream media as it fits a journalist’s need to create conflict in order to drive a story. Interestingly, both the New Atheist wing of science and many conservative religious figures adopt the Conflict model, one seeing science as the only relevant paradigm and the other seeing religion as the sole touchstone for truth. Elder McConkie seems to use the Conflict model. I don’t own a copy of Mormon Doctrine, but in his lecture The Seven Deadly Heresies, delivered at BYU in 1980, he lists as the second heresy the idea that “organic evolution and revealed religion … can be harmonized.” In fairness to Elder McConkie, in the same section he sounds a note for (ultimate) integration of religion and science: “May I say that all truth is in agreement, that true religion and true science bear the same witness, and that in the true and full sense, true science is part of true religion.” He also leaves the door open for other approaches:

These are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself what he will believe. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields.

Independence. The best-known exponent of the Independence model is the biologist Stephen Jay Gould. In his essay “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” he writes:

The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains …

The substance of the short “Evolution” entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism seems to be in agreement with Gould’s approach, including these 1931 comments from the First Presidency (ellipsis in original):

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church ….

Dialogue. The Independence model is both attractive and useful, not least for avoiding the false dichotomy so often announced by those embracing the Conflict model. But if you are someone who takes both science and religion seriously, it’s hard not to feel that they ought to have something to say to each other. There ought to be some profitable dialogue between the two. The growing science and religion shelf at your local bookstore suggests many qualified authors agree. The Biologos Forum runs a sparkling blog with the tagline “Science and Faith in Dialogue,” with posts such as “Finding Harmony” and “Making Sense of the Natural World.” The entry on “Science and Religion” in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism takes what sounds like a carefully worded Dialogue position:

[S]cholars today recognize that older descriptions of “conflict” or open “warfare” between science and Christianity are often mistaken. Nor could LDS thinking about science be described in this way. The Church is distinguished by its acceptance of ongoing revelation and the view that divine revelation underlies its scriptures and teachings. Consequently, Latter-day Saints assume that ultimate truths about religious matters and about God’s creations can never be in conflict, as God is the author of both. They look forward to a time when more complete knowledge in both areas will transcend all present perceptions of conflict.

Integration. It’s hard to get past Dialogue to Integration. Natural theology doesn’t get much purchase these days. Some think process philosophy offers a unifying approach, but nothing I’ve read on process philosophy makes much sense to me. What Barbour in his book calls the theology of nature offers more promise for an approach to Integration, I think. He describes it as follows (emphasis in original):

A theology of nature does not start from science, as natural theology usually does. Instead, it starts from a religious tradition based on religious experience and historical revelation. But it holds that some traditional doctrines need to be reformulated in the light of current science. … If religious beliefs are to be in harmony with scientific knowledge, more extensive adjustments or modifications are called for than those introduced by proponents of the Dialogue thesis. … Theological doctrines must be consistent with the scientific evidence even if they are not directly implied by current scientific theories.

The LDS biology prof who posts at The Mormon Organon makes admirably tentative forays into Integration territory, such as this post excerpting a few paragraphs from his Dialogue article titled “Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step Toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution.” Moving LDS theology toward compatibility with science is exactly what Barbour calls a theology of nature, starting from within a religious tradition and showing how some doctrines can be profitably reformulated in view of current scientific knowledge.

So the somewhat surprising conclusion is that responsible LDS thinking about the relation between science and religion spans the entire spectrum of possibility, from conflict and independence to dialogue and integration. That either means our theology is so underdeveloped that it cannot formulate a distinct position on this important question, or that Mormonism is more like a broad religious tradition (think the Jan Shipps thesis) with a spectrum of views on important questions rather than narrow views like a sect or denomination.

Other posts in this T&S series:

16 Responses to Science and Religion: Enemies or Partners?

  1. Kristine on September 19, 2010 at 9:51 pm
  2. John C. on September 19, 2010 at 10:03 pm

    Dave,
    I hear tell that Steve also posts at By Common Consent. So you know.

  3. R. Gary on September 20, 2010 at 12:26 am

    Dave, well done. Just a couple of additional thoughts.

    Independence. The Roberts book represents this model well.

    “Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology,… to scientific research”

    The 1931 First Presidency memo (from which those words are taken) closed the Church’s lengthy evaluation of a priesthood manual submitted in 1928 by Elder B. H. Roberts, a Seventy. In an effort to reconcile fossils with scripture, the manual quoted the latest conclusions of geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology. The final decision was, as quoted, that science didn’t belong in the manual.

    It was the overlap between science and religion that motivated Roberts to attempt a reconciliation. Applied to our day, the 1931 counsel suggests that similar overlap probably won’t be resolved by stretching the gospel to fit the latest theories of science.

    Conflict. McConkie is a good choice to represent this model, but note that Boyd K. Packer and Russell M. Nelson also use this model when it comes to evolution.

  4. Dave on September 20, 2010 at 1:02 am

    Thank you for the links, Kristine.

    John C., I guess Steve’s secondary blog affiliation just slipped my mind as I was writing the post.

    R. Gary, I didn’t really think about Roberts when writing the post and haven’t read the recent editions of what might be called his faith and science writing. I’m guessing that while they are an admirable attempt at reconciliation, science has changed a lot in 80 years. So Roberts’ reconciliations are no doubt rather dated. That fate awaits any attempted reconciliation, I imagine.

  5. Jeff G on September 20, 2010 at 4:28 am

    I suspect that ideally and overly simplistically the science/religion relationship is basically that of the relationship between poker and religion: the former really doesn’t say anything or even care about the latter, but some forms of the latter oft times take issue with many forms of the former.

    But of course we can’t separate the science from the scientists and to suggest that no scientist says anything or cares about religion is simply unrealistic.

  6. Anon on September 20, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    I’m curious if you think Bruce Lipton’s “Biology of Belief” is a good example of Integration?

  7. Dave on September 20, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    Anon, I haven’t read the book (or even heard of it until today), but the summaries given at Amazon suggest it’s about healing and wellness, not faith and science. So I’m not sure it would plot onto our conflict-independence-dialogue-integration spectrum.

  8. Mark D. on September 20, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    I think the ideal is the integration model. The problem is that the primary available point of integration – libertarian free will – is unusually unsusceptible to analysis. If there is no such thing as LFW – not even in God, there is no such thing as intentionality, nor creativity, nor a robust sense of moral responsibility, and all religion trivially reduces to a form of applied physics, as also every other field except logic and mathematics.

  9. Robert C. on September 20, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    For genuine integration, I highly recommend Bruno Latour’s work on this front. A good article, for example, is his article, “Will Non-Humans Be Saved? An Argument in Ecotheology.” (And I know Steve has been excitedly reading Latour recently, in response to Adam Miller’s work on Latour posted to the lds-herm listserv….)

  10. Bob on September 21, 2010 at 8:48 am

    Dave, these posts never seem to get anywhere because they really are only addressing Science Vs. Mormonism. They end up with Mormons (some are Scientist) speaking to Mormons. Science does not get to pick it’s spokespersons, Religion’s voice is a Mormon or a Christian.

  11. chanson on September 21, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    This is definitely an age old debate. These differing schools of thought all actually pose an interesting argument, for many making it all that much more complex. As times evolve and people become a bit more skeptical and opinionated, it will be interesting to see where this debate goes.

  12. Jeff G on September 21, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    Soooo….. my comments been in moderation for a couple days now….

  13. Dave on September 21, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    Jeff, that comment now shows up as #5. I’m guessing the filter caught the comment because of the p-word.

  14. Jeff G on September 21, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    I figured as much. ;-)

  15. BHodges on September 22, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    I’m guessing that while they are an admirable attempt at reconciliation, science has changed a lot in 80 years. So Roberts’ reconciliations are no doubt rather dated. That fate awaits any attempted reconciliation, I imagine.

    Yup. Roberts’s book TWL is a great example of integration and dialogue, though it may have aspects that fit the other two models Barbour outlines as well. Overall I think one takeaway lesson from Roberts’s book is that reconciling religion and science is a moving target but that it can be profitable or dangerous in the real-time moment depending on who is wielding the scalpel and for what ends.

  16. Anirudh Kumar Satsangi on September 23, 2010 at 4:24 am

    The goal of religion and science is identical i.e. Realization of the Ultimate.

    Now I give Radhasoami Faith view of Creation Theory. In Sar Bachan (Poetry) composed by His Holiness Soamiji Maharaj the August Founder of Radhasoami Faith the details of creation and dissolution has been described very scientifically. It is written in this Holy Book: Only He Himself (Supreme Father)and none else was there. There issued forth a great current of spirituality, love and grace (In scientific terminology we may call this current as gravitational wave). This is called His Mauj (Divine Ordainment). This was the first manifestation of Supreme Being. This Divine Ordainment brought into being three regions, viz., Agam, Alakh, and Satnam of eternal bliss. Then a current emerged with a powerful sound. It brought forth the creation of seven Surats or currents of various shades and colours (in scientific terminology we may call it electromagnetic waves). Here the true Jaman or coagulant was given (in scientific terminology this coagulant may be called as weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force). Surats, among themselves, brought the creation into being.

    These currents descended down further and brought the whole universe/multi verse into being i.e. black holes, galaxies etc. were born.

WELCOME

Times and Seasons is a place to gather and discuss ideas of interest to faithful Latter-day Saints.