Submitted by Marvin Miller
Science and traditional religions have different views about truth and knowledge.
As traditional religions view it, the complete, eternal, ultimate truth was revealed a long time ago from the divine source that is worshiped. It is written in the religion’s holy scriptures. Knowledge is information about what these scriptures say and mean. Any information that contradicts what is deemed to be divine truth is to be disregarded.
In the scientific view, all knowledge is incomplete and approximate. Research continually gives us more information and more accurate information about truth. If new information contradicts older ideas, new ideas are necessary to replace the old ones. Heat isn’t a substance; it’s the motion of molecules. Water isn’t an element; it’s composed of hydrogen and oxygen. Present living species weren’t created individually; they evolved from previously existing ones.
In science, differences in ideas (theories) are resolved by comparing them with observations. The “big bang” and “steady state” theories of the universe were opposing ideas. The conflict was resolved by the observation of the cosmic background microwave radiation, energy coming from all directions that originated in the “big bang” billions of years ago. Proponents of the “steady state” theory recognized that it was contradicted by this observation and gave up their theory.
In traditional religions there is no way to resolve conflicting ideas. Such conflicts continue to exist as long as the religions continue to exist. Often adherents of different religions attempt to resolve the conflict by means of violence directed against those who believe differently. Such violence always fails when the target group is large, but this fact doesn’t deter those who seek to use violence to support their beliefs. Examples of such violence are the Thirty Years War in 17th century Europe, the Irish “troubles”, and the current wars in the Middle East.
Some people think that science and religion can be reconciled. One way to do this is to engage in what George Orwell called “doublethink”, simultaneously holding two mutually contradictory ideas. Another way is to broaden the definition of “religion”, giving up its association with dogmatic acceptance of unchangeable ideas. This is what Felix Adler did in founding Ethical Culture. He wanted to retain what he saw as the benefits of religion, community and commitment to the understanding and practice of ethics, while jettisoning myths and dogmas. Some of us in Ethical Societies agree with this approach, while for others the word “religion” is too strongly associated with dogma to be separated from it and is therefore to be rejected. But we don’t fight over our different ways of thinking about the word “religion”.
Science and religion can be reconciled if one of them accepts the other’s approach to truth and knowledge. Science cannot become dogmatic and remain science. If religion retains its dogmatism this reconciliation is not possible.