« PETA vs. The World | Main | Interview Time »

January 21, 2005

What vs. Why

I have never fully been able to understand the vehemence expressed by either side of the God vs. science debate. Perhaps it's simply a factor of my upbringing: both of my parents possess advanced degrees in the hard sciences, so I grew up with a reasonably good understanding of the scientific method and its importance. At the same time, my extended family has a very strong faith, so I was exposed to a degree of religion in parallel with science. Given these influences, I suppose it was natural for me to consider the two disciplines as wholly unrelated. Given what science has discovered, it was clear to me that the Bible was allegorical in many respects, certainly in the case of the creation myths. But that didn't prove to me that faith was necessarily wrong in the larger picture, only that some of the details might not be well-understood. I had little trouble conceiving that God might have created the world by building a system and letting it go, rather than setting things up largely as they look today from the beginning.

It's obvious just from the comments I've drawn on this site when I've ventured into the wilds of faith and science that there are a lot of people who are not able to reconcile the two. I have no doubt I'll see comments on this post, or emails to me, that attempt to convince me of the folly of my ways. The great thing about being agnostic being that I'll get that from both sides: the atheists will dun me for failing to take science to what they consider its logical conclusion, while the Christians will hammer me for questioning the literal truth of the Bible. But it offers me a great opportunity to learn a little more, so I can live with that.

What I often have trouble understanding, however, is why science and religion need conflict at all. When I speak of religion here, I am discussing primarily Judaism and Christianity, since Islam is a more restrictive religion that has clearer conflicts with science, and I'm simply not familiar enough with non-Judeo-Christian religions to discuss them. But I see little reason for conflict between science and those religions beyond the interpretations of the Bible.

Science is about what. Science can help us to better understand the world around us. Does the Earth rotate around the Sun, or vice versa? Science helped us to learn that the Earth not only rotates around the Sun, but that the Sun is moving throughout our galaxy, and our galaxy is moving through the universe. Why did many people get sick and die from relatively minor wars prior to the 20th Century? Germ theory explained the dangers of infection and helped us develop antibiotics and sterilization techniques that helped beat back many diseases and preserve life to the point where almost all soldiers who make it to an aid station alive will survive. We have science to thank for that: by creating a methodology for creating, testing, improving, and abandoning hypotheses, we have advanced human knowledge geometrically in the 20th Century.

Religion, conversely, enters the realm of the why. I would consider it a subset of philosophy, although I suspect many theists would consider that insulting. Nonetheless, philosophy, like religion, attempts to answer the question of how we live a good life. Whether religion is the result of divine revelation, or simply a distillation of ancient theories on the right way to live, is that not what each religion teaches? People consult with religious leaders on a regular basis to ask their guidance on the right thing to do. While the source is different, philosophy also attempts to answer that question.

These two questions, while they can often intersect, are ultimately unrelated. Science can tell us what will happen if we take certain actions but it cannot tell us whether or not it is right to take that action. Religion can tell us what actions we should take, but it cannot prove what will happen if take those actions. Science can undermine religious texts, but it by definition cannot speak to the heart of religion, the supernatural. While an inductive proof can suggest that God does not exist, we cannot create a testable hypothesis for His nonexistence.

Despite this, religion and science (or more properly, proponents of the two) frequently find themselves at loggerheads. Theists look to convert unbelievers to their point of view, and many atheists seek to do the same to believers. While I can understand the concern atheists have regarding the use of government power to promote theology, I am often stunned by the vehemence expressed by atheists who seek not only to preserve their own independence, but to do everything in their power to demean believers and attempt to force them to recant their beliefs. Conversely, I still recall a conversation with a fellow officer in OBC(Officer Basic Course) revolving around his expressed desire to see the United States changed from a republic to a theocracy. When I asked him what we would then do with people or other religions, another officer piper up with 'educate them.' Just as I see no reason for atheists to force their beliefs on others, I was and am disturbed by those who seek to take the power of government and use it to force those beliefs on others.

Ultimately, I believe the question revolves around the why much more than the what. This is natural. We can work out the what; that's what science does. But the why ultimately depends on what we believe in. The only way to ultimately prove the existence/nonexistence of God is death, and since that's a one-way trip, that doesn't help the living a bit. And people need something to believe in. Whether it's God, Satan, aliens, Gaea, reason, or Isadora Duncan, we all seek something greater than ourselves because we seek meaning in life. We are a relatively short-lived species, and it is vital to each of us to believe that our life can mean something beyond a few decades of resource consumption and interaction with other mortal souls. So we adopt religion, or a cause, or another person to help make our life meaningful.

With no way to be certain that our interpretation of meaning is correct, we seek solace in others. We're a social animal, and we therefore form into groups based on our beliefs. Other beliefs then become threatening to some people. I often think that part of this is based in fear: the fear that our interpretation of life's meaning is incorrect. So we see all sides lashing out at one another in the hope that, by destroying the other belief system, they will somehow have demonstrated the superiority of their own beliefs. It is a vain quest; the theists will never wipe out the atheists, nor vice versa. Each side will doubtless wax and wane over the years, but neither side will vanish. But it is human nature, and therefore the attempt to defeat the other will never vanish either.