The seen versus the unseen

Religion versus science. Creation versus evolution. Are the two reconcilable?

People believe in either one in support of their more fundamental beliefs in Biblical inerrancy or physical empiricism.

Can either one claim to be a persuasive force? Does the theory of evolution create atheists? Does the story of Creation create Christians (or Jews or Muslims, who share the Christian Creation story)? I argue that, no, neither claim is persuasive. Instead, each claim is used by its respective camp to bolster more fundamental claims, which can stand on their own.

Science produces technology, and theology fulfills meaning for human life. To the extent that either one fails in its purpose, a vacuum is created that the other may rush into. Without proper science we lack the technology to help us control our environment. Then we turn to superstitions and defer to unseen forces, often with horrific consequences, e.g. the Salem witch trials.

Where a community ignores obvious empirical tenets, they will have to hang onto superstition to disguise their ineptitude. For instance, when empirical evidence had accumulated to allow scientists to conclude that proper waste disposal was necessary to avoid the spread of disease, many European communities refused to oblige this new found wisdom, claiming that it prevented God from purging them of sinners through the scourge of plagues. Eventually this religious absurdity gave way to humanitarianism (thank God), and towns began to implement modern waste disposal (by the eighteenth century).

But what practical purpose does evolution theory serve? Are we missing out on potential technology by disregarding it on the basis of its inconsistency with the literal interpretation of Genesis? Well, in one way, with the knowledge that strains of bacteria and viruses evolve (and are not immutable species established by God in the beginning) we know that in order to properly immunize ourselves we must develop new cold and flu vaccines every year, rather than continuing to use the same vaccines year after year.

But Creationists label this as microevolution, and most of them do not try to refute it. Wherever there is obvious technological advantage, there is ultimately no refutation. Fundamentalist Christians are not imbeciles, nor do they wish to return to the Dark Ages. Even if evolution is a valid theory, it is largely ahead of its time.

In the United States religion is popular, and Christianity is extremely common. So why is there a secularizing movement? Why are so many people abandoning their religious heritage? I would posit that it is because the Christian churches are not teaching proper theology. That is, the world view they teach does not generally provide us with a sensible framework for meaning in life. In my personal experience, Christian theology as commonly taught in the mid-Western United States is fraught with pointless absurdities and monumental distractions from God.

When I came to understand the world that was depicted literally in the Bible and had meditated on it, I was left perplexed by God's allegedly arbitrary and ulterior interaction with the world. The world I perceived around me did not undergo divine manipulation at the hand of God, but it did operated according to an timeless, predictable set of principles. So what first attracted me to science as a boy was the potential wisdom to be gained concerning the world's most timeless and predictable rules, by which it obviously operated. There was no need for superstition or "blind" faith. However, after I had come to understand the world view proposed by twentieth century science, I was left feeling desperately cold, alone, and helpless in a dark, unloving infinitude. That was not what I wanted either.

I wanted to know both how the world worked and what the meaning of life was, and I couldn't afford any inconsistencies. Unfortunately Christian theology and empirical science were at odds with one another. Besides, both of them had disappointed me. I concluded that neither one was correct. I decided that the theology I had been taught was incorrect and that science does not have all the answers. Over time I was able to justify both of these beliefs. For instance, it was clear to me that religious leaders often manipulated their followers with twisted teachings. As evidence I can cite the cults of David Koresh and Osama bin Laden, and the scandals of the Bakers' and the pedophilic Catholic priests. All of these were religious leaders who used religious teachings to manipulate people into doing pointless or evil things that benefitted only the leaders. Smaller scale abuses and manipulations are common. My upbringing, initially in a fundamentalist church, involved distortions of scriptural truth and emotional manipulation that was intended to result in my loyalty and tithe. Of course when conformity and money are the end goals, the theology is built on sand. No wonder I saw right through the ruse. What I learned was that my church was not about truth or love at all. The scary thing is, this church was really not that out of the ordinary. There are thousands of churches just like it. I ultimately guessed that the only way to know the truth about God was to embark on my own study of the Bible, free of manipulating influences.

It should be easy to see why I turned away from theology to science for answers, but in retrospect it is easy to see that science never presents a complete picture of the world. I simply cite the numerous instances in history when that picture has been radically altered. A scientific revolution happens on average once a century. (In fact, we're about due for another one soon.) Science only presents a picture that is complete enough to support feasible technology.

Both empirical science and holy scriptures are powerful vehicles for gaining understanding. But they are mutually exclusive. Theology concerns matters that we may only take on faith, while science governs matters that must always be thoroughly verified. According to the Bible, even the most rudimentary scientific claims are false; however, according to science God does not exist. What does that mean? Well, I believe it means that both science and scripture are limited in the kinds of understanding which they can yield. It is ludicrous to insist on Biblical consistency in all empirical conclusions, as Creationists do. It is likewise foolhearty to describe the meaning of life in scientific constructs, as many New Age writers like Carl Sagan have done.

One of the most respected minds in Christendom, St. Thomas Aquinas warned of the problems that would come if we ever conflated the Word of God with the Creation of God. Aquinas recognized this dilemma centuries before Galileo and Newton laid the groundwork for what would become empirical science. It is prudent for us to at least consider that admonition in this highly technological but also spiritually volatile period in history.

REPLIES add