Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomy blogger at Discover has a nice post reflecting on 9/11.

I always enjoy his writing but I am struck by how he presents a choice between science and religion to frame how a person understands and explains the universe. In this peice he says specifically

“To someone who is very religious, there is no other way to perceive life.”

Phil, and full disclosure I can call him Phil as I’ve known him for years before he became the Bad Astronomy columnist, has a wonderful gift for making sweeping generalizations that inspire people to think critically. This one kind of gets me going so I felt like I should write about it. So I did.

My point

Pitting science against religion undermines both and does little to further our understanding of our world and our condition

Religion and science are not absolutes, nor are they mutually exclusive. They are not in the spirit of either when they present themselves as in competition with the other. They can be subverted to the point that they inspire terrible acts by misguided people who harbour ill intent.

• For how questions science (usually) wins
• For why questions religion (usually) wins
• If you care enough about the “why” questions religious affiliation is valuable
• Religious affiliation is not about blind agreement
• We tend to gather around and imitate those that seem sure of themselves
• This tendency can be exploited to do terrible things
• But what the heck do I know I just like to think about why questions

As a Christian I believe God wants us to explore and understand what God has created. Generally speaking I have had no problem being very into science and very into religion, and I don’t think it’s a contradiction, a conflict or a hipocracy. As a scientific person I feel absolutely no concerns whatsoever in stating that I believe the fossil record proves that the earth is at least 4.5 billion years.

Here’s how I’ve approached it. I owe a nod to Rev. Trina Zelle for getting me thinking about it this way in the first place.

For how questions science (usually) wins

It’s usually what science is about, and spiritual understanding is hardly ever furthered by understanding how something happened. The Big Bang, or the Big Crunch theory for the creation of the universe is a great example of this. Both theories are strongly supported and accepted scientifically verifiable explanations for how the universe was created.

Since Phil has written a great deal on what science is about, I’ll leave this here.

For why questions religion usually wins

It’s usually what religion is about and religion has way more to say about why, science tends to be dry and logical about why. The creation story is a good example of this. Most religions have similar creation stories. Most religious creation stories barely address the mechanics of how the universe was created, being content to say “God did it”, being more interested in why our world was created. I believe the seemingly flippant assignment of the mechanics of creation to God focuses religious text on the questions of why. The creation story cedes the how to God to set the context of religion as means to answering to other big questions.

But answers to what? Answers to why, and especially why we_ were created. Why _we are here and what we personally were born to do is the essence of spirituality. This is never more evident than in science’s tendency to consistently explain the creation of the earth and our environment within a consistent explanation of the creation of the galaxy, the universe and the cosmos. While religious creation stories consistently focus on the creations of the earth and humans with out any interest in how the formation of distant galaxies are affected by our creation. They are there for we humans to look at.

The Value of Religious Affiliation

Many people answer these questions without the need for specific religious affiliation. Many also find that the people that they know that have a religious affiliation are more likely to have interesting thoughts on these why questions, as they have demonstrated a commitment to the why questions. This commitment is to a canon and doctrine in which their spirituality fits.

Affiliation is not about blind agreement

Here’s the interesting bit. I don’t know anyone that agrees with every aspect the canon and doctrine of the religion they themselves claims an affiliation to. Some Religions have very specific and discipline oriented doctrine. They are very specific in explaining how one should behave, believe and think about the world.

We humans tend to gather around and imitate people that seem sure of themselves

We as social animals are attracted to surety. Especially when surety can be translated into actions (thanks to our consumer culture this is especially true in the United States). Be it surety in religiously, scientific, or political structure we like to “try on” the beliefs that seem to resonate with our own beliefs and act on them to see what happens.

Our need to gather and affiliate can be very dangerous

9/11 and many other terrible acts of mass violence demonstrate that when we gather our actions together around a set of ideas we become caught up in the momentum of these beliefs and the success of our actions. This momentum makes it very easy to lose site of why. This is why I firmly agree with the idea that the acts of September 11th were not religiously motivated, but rather, the result of exploiting religious commitment.

I’m just some guy

I’d have to say I wouldn’t consider myself very religious having met people far more religious. Still compared to the general population, I’m pretty religious.

Religion is multi-dimensional. In addition to canon and doctrine, there are social and community development aspects and of course the personal spirituality of the individual members of religious institutions. I find canon and doctrine of a religion to be very similar to the academic / peer review and journal publishing functions in the scientific community. An area I don’t pay much attention to in either science or religion.

Very few of the folks I’ve talked to about religion and science have disputed scientific facts: notably the age of the earth is not literally disclosed in the Bible, rather the fossil record is a much more accurate indicator of the age of the earth, just to pick one.

Maybe it’s because many of the religious people I know are very progressive in their faith. Or maybe it’s because the people that do dispute such scientific facts are in my opinion actually far more into the doctrine and canon of religions which as I’ve said I don’t find that interesting.