A Brave New World:
How Science Cannot Replace Religion
Many times in popular articles commentators will state that
old religious dogmas are being replaced by the new knowledge
that comes from scientific discoveries. In fact, many people
believe that science and religion cannot coexist - that fact and
faith are contrary ways of understanding the world. Usually when
this argument is asserted, it is to bolster the view that
science is a better and truer way of seeing things; that
humanity is in the process of abandoning its myths in order to
come into a new enlightenment.
Unfortunately, those who advance such notions don't realize
that they've made a fatal flaw in their thinking. They've not
abandoned religion; they've simply substituted one belief system
over another. What's more, to substitute science for religion is
a proposition destined to fail. Let's look at the roles of both
and see why.
The Role of Religion In The Life of Man
Throughout history, humanity has sought the highest meaning
of life through religion. Christian scholars set out to try and
understand the ultimate reality of our existence and to
establish a cohesive worldview. People would turn to the cleric
as a trusted source of knowledge in their search for the truth.
Christianity specifically has always held the view that the
world can be knowable. The Christian worldview teaches that God
created the material universe. Since the universe is designed by
a rational being, it should behave in a predictable way. In
other words, the world as we know it should act in accordance
with certain observable physical laws and that would allow us to
predict how objects will react in specific circumstances. This
is the origin of modern science.(1)
Today, however, the understanding of religion has changed.
Come up to a person today and say you want to talk about
religion and you'll usually get an interesting reaction. Many
people get uncomfortable discussing religious topics; they feel
that religion is a personal matter and that spiritual matters
should be a private affair.
The New Role of Science
Science, on the other hand, is treated much differently. New
scientific breakthroughs are trumpeted in newspapers and
discussed at the water coolers the next morning. Scientists are
now looked upon as the ultimate arbitrator of truth. If science
says something is true, it receives widespread public acceptance. Even corporate America has discovered that the
credibility of a product will rise dramatically when a man in a
white coat advertises its benefits.
It is because of the amazing achievements we've seen through
science that many people have jumped to the conclusion that
science is capable of explaining everything. However, science by
itself is useless. It cannot answer the most important questions
of morality and ethical actions. Science is primarily a way of
understanding the material world. Science can tell us what is
the case, but it cannot tell us what should be the case or what
we ought to do about it.
Where Science Falls Short
A recent meeting of the European Society of Human
Reproduction and Embryology highlights this difference with
frightening clarity. Several shocking announcements were made in
the name of advancing the science of human reproduction. Robin
Marantz Henig of the Washington Post reports "An American
scientist, Norbert Gleicher, announced that he and his
colleagues had successfully inserted cells from a male embryo
into an early-stage female embryo, creating a mixed-gender
chimera that some journalists called a 'she-male.'"(2)
Gleicher allowed the embryo's cells to duplicate and grow for
three days before killing the embryo.
In another announcement at the same conference, a group of
scientists from Israel and Holland extracted egg from aborted
female fetuses and kept them alive in the hope that the
"aborted foetuses could one day be used to obtain eggs for
fertility treatment, leading to the possibility of babies being
born from mothers who were themselves unborn."(3)
Both these examples are pure science - those involved
followed the scientific method in their experiments. And the
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the UK agency
responsible for licensing such research said there was no law
that expressly forbade such experiments.(4) So
why do people recoil in horror at the thought of such
experiments? Because it is our understanding of morality that
tells us life shouldn't be used like tinker toys. Denying a
fetus life and then using its remains as spare parts strikes us
as repugnant. Fertilizing a human embryo to only experiment on
it and destroy it is obscene.
Science without ethical guidelines is not a boon to mankind,
but an unwieldy power capable of evil. It has no way of
determining good. There is no scientific test for the moral. It
is religion that tells us not only what is, but what's right. It
is only when we practice our science with an overriding goal of
pursuing the good that science can serve man at all.
The Category Problem
The problem is really one of misunderstanding. Those who try
to exalt science to the ultimate arbitrator of truth are
committing a fallacy that is known as a category error. Science
serves only to explain a small subset of the human experience -
the way the material world behaves. Religion is an entirely
different category - one that seeks to answer to what our
purpose in life should be.
Now, the scientific progress that's been made in the last 100
years is astounding. It's allowed us to travel great distances
with ease, given us the ability to communicate instantaneously,
and overcome disease more easily than ever before. Neither are
most scientists like those we've seen above. However Christians
need to be aware that good science does not fly in the face of
Christianity, but Christianity is its source. It is only when we
grasp that science gets its worth from theology - the
appreciation of God and his relation to the world - that we can
use this tool to benefit mankind.
What do you think? Have scientists gone too far? Write us at newsletters@comereason.org.
Until next month, God bless.
|
