Religion and science: need there be a clash?

Religion, in the form of various pagan rituals, existed in Europe and elsewhere during prehistoric times, but the story of creation, which seems to be the bane of scientists, has been embedded in Western culture since Christianity was firmly established in Europe. Creationism was given intellectual weight by Ptolemy’s observation of the position of the Earth relative to the Sun and the other planets. Ptolemy, the greatest astronomer of the time who wrote extensively, described a system of planetary motion where the Earth was at the centre of the universe, and the Sun the moon and the stars move round in perfect circles, while the then known planets move around in smaller circles called epicycles.

Ptolemy’s geocentric view of the world fitted the literal interpretation of the Bible perfectly. Over the following centuries every state and church institution derived its raison d’être from divine authority.

Gradually, observers such as Copernicus and Kepler, increasingly found inaccuracies in Ptolemy’s description of cycles and epicycles: they found that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe, but it moved round the Sun. But how can this observation be reconciled with the profoundly held view that we were at the centre of all creation?

Finally, Galileo with his most powerful telescope and, combined with his accurate calculations, came to the conclusion that the Earth and the then known planets do indeed move around the Sun.

Galileo was a well-known and very influential scientist of his day. His observations, if published, would reverberate throughout Europe, and everyone would question the authority of the church’s teachings. This was not going to be allowed to happen. In 1633 Galileo was summoned to attend the Inquisition, was made to recant his observations, and was barred from publishing them.

However, despite the best efforts of the Inquisition, (the “secret” or the “thought” police of the time) scientific inquiry continued to burgeon in every field of human activity.

At the beginning of the 19th century there was an upsurge in scientific inquiry. In particular there was a great interest in fossil hunting among those who had the means or the inclination to do so. All sorts of strange and huge bones were discovered. How did those fossils get into the layers of rock? Why are fossils of marine shells found on top of hills?

All these pointed to our Earth being considerably older than the 6,000 years suggested by the literal interpretation of the Bible.

The scientific observations of the time culminated by the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the origin of species in 1859. The Theory of Evolution placed a permanent question mark over the literal interpretation of the Bible. Some claimed that it disproved the existence of any deity.

Yet, in spite of all the scientific evidence, and the determined expositions of evolutionary biologists, belief in creation persists in western cultures. How can this be explained? Like in the past, when the church pontificated about scientific evidence that was not in their area of expertise, are some scientists of today making profound claims about complex human relations, about which they have inadequate evidence?

Science is like an evolving and gigantic jigsaw (if there can be such thing) where every new piece has to relate to what is there already. An important part of scientific inquiry is that one should constantly question a theory.

There are several important claims made by some scientists as to why religious beliefs are an impediment to human progress. These can be summed up as:

1. the brainwashing of people into accepting belief systems;
2. religions cause conflicts; and
3. a general unease by many who, although they may accept many aspects of evolutionary biology, nonetheless question the seeming insistence on the “animal” aspects of humans.

These salient issues ought to be looked at, albeit briefly.

Brainwashing people to accept belief systems

This claim ignores the propensity of humans to look beyond their own self since time immemorial. John Ness clearly pointed out (in On Line Opinion, July 15, 2008) that our inherent morals and values preceded any organised religion. Morals are a code of behaviour that ensures the survival of the species and, in complex beings such as humans, this requires certain considerations for the welfare of others. There are certain “mirror” genes, which form the basis of emphatic behaviour.

There seems to be a common factor in all past and present belief systems. It is the adherence to self-discipline and the importance of a set of rules. For example, the Old Testament can be viewed as a demonstration of the absolute need for self-discipline. Lack of self-discipline, and not adhering to a set of rules is detrimental to the individual and to society. It was so then, and it is so now.

If we consider skills that, for example, a nurse or engineer may possess, those skills need intense training and self-discipline to develop. Scientific facts are not like music, which can be appreciated by virtually anyone, at any age. The appreciation of facts, such as “geological time”, or “carbon dating” needs training and the consideration of evidence. Likewise, scientists should not just dismiss ancient texts, which are regarded by many as a source of accumulated wisdom. The Old Testament may be a myth, but none-the-less, just as Greek Mythology, it reflects deep psychological truths.

It is also important to realise that, as the disastrous cult of personality has shown in totalitarian systems, the source of self-discipline must be independent of the individual. Ever since Darwin, it has always been a vexed question to define the source of that self-discipline and the source of the set of rules. It may be that it is inherent in every individual.

Religions cause conflicts

To address this claim we have to look beyond the very simple explanation of historical events. It is the economic needs or pressures of the mass of ordinary individuals that causes conflicts, not necessarily religion.

For example, conflicts such as the “troubles” in Northern Ireland, which are portrayed as a conflict between Catholics and Protestants: the fact is often overlooked that the Catholic community was excluded from job opportunities, and education was divided. While all this was going on in Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants lived peaceably together in the rest of Europe because there was not the institutionalised segregation between them as regards jobs and education.

In fact, in all the trouble spots around the world, the institutionalised exclusion of one community versus another can be observed, irrespective of religion.

Evolutionary biology

The third, and probably the most important unease caused by those who do not fully support evolution are the currently held views of a human being. Defining a human as an animal, albeit capable of abstract thought and capable of using complex tools, is, somehow, inadequate. After all, many animals, not just the chimpanzees, use tools of one kind or another. And regarding communication, immediately dolphins come to mind. The great apes may be our most recent evolutionary ancestors, but even then, probably millions of generations, (as opposed to millions of years) have passed by since the divergence in evolution.

Species diverged because of environmental pressures. Can those changes in environmental sequences be replicated, including the massive volcanic eruptions, the gigantic meteoric impacts, the drifting of the continents, ice ages, the enormous fluctuations in sea levels, and the powerful solar flares?

If we consider the current prevailing definition of a human being, it is claimed that humans have developed exponentially greater skills in using tools; and language has given them a virtually limitless ability to communicate. This definition of a human being is not adequate. It implies that there is only quantitative and not qualitative differences between humans and our nearest evolutionary ancestors.

So how can we redefine a human being?

Humans are social beings, capable of perceiving and communicating concepts, which they do not or cannot directly observe, and are able to generate and control energy.

Whatever happened about 40,000 years ago, humans have acquired those special capabilities, which set them apart from what went before.

Every part of this definition of a human being has extensive connotations. Even the relatively simple concept of being social has to be clarified. Many animals and insects are, undoubtedly, social. They are social either for foraging, hunting or for defensive purposes. In addition to these purposes humans are social for creative reasons. To say that a human is social means certain characteristics, which add to the “social value” of an individual, are more advantageous in an evolutionary sense than when these characteristics are limited or absent.

One of the clearest examples of the ability to perceive and to communicate concepts that humans do not or cannot observe is that of Einstein’s mathematical proof of the existence of the power locked in atoms, long before it was proved to be so. Another example is the mathematical proof of the heliocentric nature of our solar system, without anyone being able to physically observe it from outside the system.

Regarding the ability to generate and to control energy, it ranges from making simple fires, to the creation and the control of atomic power. Even the ancient Greeks realised the importance of fire when, in their mythology, Prometheus gave it to humans.

Conclusions

Perceptions matter, not only on a personal level, but more importantly, in our world-view. The way we understand things guides our beliefs, and in turn, it determines our actions. If our perception is incomplete, our actions will be flawed. Conversely, if we draw the wrong conclusions from our actions, our perception will remain flawed. It can become a vicious circle. One reason for the demise of past civilisations was their inability to break out of their belief system. Therefore, it is important that, periodically, we re-examine our perceptions, whether it relates to individual interactions, or more importantly, if it relates to our commonly held view. The notions we hold about creation or evolution are some of those important perceptions.

Some scientists, who may deride those who tend to believe in ancient texts, may like to reflect on the possibility that they may not have fully considered all the facts pertaining to why religious belief systems persists. They may also like to consider that the current interpretation of evolution in the public domain may not be sufficiently adequate. The original message was “modification by descent”. Somehow the expression “survival of the fittest” gained prominence. (Probably it was a better sound bite.) The real meaning was “survival of the most adaptable”. (The most adaptable happens to be fitter in the general sense.) This has completely different connotations. Another point worth considering is the sheer time-scale involved in evolution, which is not readily appreciated by those who did not have the benefit of scientific training (which is the vast majority of people).

A fresh look at the definition of a human being would go a long way towards refocusing our worth, and our intentions.