Religion and science: need there be a clash?

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.