Attempting to describe the relationship between religion and science

This was written as a response to another question on Quora: "What is the relationship between religion and science?"

It is quite obvious that there IS a relationship between the two: Both are human activities, both are ways of seeking answers to questions, and both have profound affects on how humans live their lives.

Scientific research can help us learn the effect of specific religious beliefs and/or practices on ones ability to do scientific research, understand scientific theory, or use science to solve problems. We can also use scientific methods of research to understand the affects of specific religious beliefs and/or practices on whether a person’s life is happy, creative, productive, etc.  Social sciences can help us to understand the effects of religion on the societies in which they are practiced.

The people in a marriage or other partnership have different roles to play in order to make their relationship harmonious and mutually beneficial - and the people in the relationship often have to make an effort to find and implement the means to keep that harmony.  Similarly, science and religion have different rolls to play in the lives of individuals and in the development of civilization.  Pointing to present or historical examples of conflict between science and religion and concluding that they are always incompatible is like pointing to bad relationships between women and men, and concluding that men and women are incompatible in any relationship.

An individual who finds a good, dynamic (i.e. flexible, ever-evolving) relationship between science and religion in her or his life can become a person who is seen by others as exemplary. Likewise, a society - whether limited to the population of a single village, or one which spans the entire earth - which finds the right balance between science and religion can be the matrix in which its individual members achieve exemplary levels of happiness, creativity, and ever-growing ability.  The question, then, becomes: what relationship between religion and science can lead to individuals and society being happy, creative and productive? 

Science has an important roll to play in our lives and in society and civilization.  Most individuals do little or no scientific research, but familiarity with (and access to) the body of scientific knowledge and of the methods and standards of science help them to understand their world and to make choices based on that understanding.  Those who do legitimate, peer-reviewed, scientific research advance our understanding of how things work, the likely outcomes of various actions, and the web of cause and effect in the world.  But there are decisions that cannot, logically, be answered by science, and humans have needs which can be better fulfilled through religion.

Science leads to technology, but it takes something beyond science to answer the question, “what is the appropriate use of this technology?”  In this age, one appropriate roll of religion is to provide the wisdom to answer that question.  Some sample questions are, “should we be studying ways to build better weapons of mass destruction, or should we apply the same human resources to finding better ways to educate our children?”  “Should we be applying the technology of social psychology (i.e. advertising and public persuasion) to influence people to buy things they don’t need?”  “Should we apply that same technology to influencing people to get along?”  “Is it right for medical research to concentrate on developing treatments for illness rather than finding means of prevention?”  Science does not provide answers to such questions.  Ethics might provide answers, but it does not provide motivation. 

The role of religion is to provide both ethical answers and personal motivation to follow these ethics.  In this age, one of the central questions which religion asks of us is, “does this action or use of technology benefit all of the people of the world, or does it benefit a few at the expense of many?” In this age, one role of religion is to help us be aware of the oneness of Mankind.  In this age, one role of religion is to lead us to set aside our differences and prejudices and to cooperate in solving the problems of society and of the world.  When religion is the cause of strife, of discord and conflict, then no religion would be better.

So, in short, the relationship of religion and science is that religion points to what should be done and the purpose of our existence in this universe, while science is the tool for how our goals can be achieved and for understanding the nature of our universe.

How religion improves civilization through progressive revelation.

I wrote this today as a response to a question on the forum Quora (www.quora.com).  The question was: "Would big societies be able to exist without people believing in religions?"  Some people said "yes" and went on to tell about all the bad things that they find to be associated with religion.  I can see their points, but I still maintain that when a religion has become strongly established in a culture, it becomes polluted by politics, and other human frailties and so loses much of its true worth.  This was my response, for what it's worth:

I read a study a few years ago (and I apologize for not having the reference) that gave evidence that in primitive societies religion was a needed cohesive influence for cooperation and prevention of conflict in groups of more than about 20 to 30 individuals.  Most religions provide:

1) A common commitment to a set of values which prevent the strong and/or greedy from destroying the life of kinder and/or weaker people and regulate how common resources are to be used.

2) Shared rights, celebrations, rituals, symbols etc. which provide a sense of community.

3) A sense that there is a higher power (god or gods) which has authority to make laws and demand sacrifices. (Such laws and sacrifices being for the common good as much as to please the higher power.)

Consider the 10 commandments:

The first 4 (No other gods, No graven images (i.e., objects to worship), Don't take the Lord's name in vain, and Remember the sabbath and keep it holy) have the purpose of establishing loyalty, reverence, and a community activity which leads to the unity and agreement of the religious community.

The other six are laws which are important to establishing cooperation, trust, and justice.  Basically, they are necessary in order to develop  those institutions (like commerce, supportive families, specialized tradespeople, etc.) that we take for granted in our present society.

If you look at experiments in game theory, (like "the prisoners' dilemma") you see that unless there is a consensus that people cooperate, it is often to an individual's advantage to be greedy or self-serving.  However, if there is a consensus to cooperate and follow certain rules of behavior, then every one benefits and most every person in that society has a much better quality of life than even the strongest most ruthless self-server in a non-consensual "society".

The pioneers of new religions, those who sacrifice self-interest in order to follow a higher level of rules for cooperative behavior, despite the fact that the rest of society opposes them, are the ones who eventually bring about that higher level of cooperation and therefore general prosperity for the rest of the population.  Eventually, most of the population is following these rules and agrees that they are "just common sense if you want to live in a decent  civilization."  Whether or not the believe in the deity or the religion, they are following consensual, society-and-individual-strengthening behaviors which were originally brought into common practice by religion.
The problem we see now are partly due to there being such a huge human population on the earth. In the competition for resources, including human resources, the various religious groups, while somewhat internally cohesive, are at odds with each other.  Meanwhile, advances in science have brought us powerful technologies which can be developed and used either for the improvement of life, or for its degradation and destruction.  Unless all the nations, cultures, races and religions can learn to cooperate, the conflicts will continue to the point of a world wide disaster which could make the world wars look like a football match in comparison.
I believe that, once again, the bar for cooperative behavior is being raised by an emerging religion, and that many of its principles (like equality of the sexes and of all races, elimination of prejudice, and universal education) are becoming accepted as the norm by civilized people everywhere.

What defines other people?

(Has it really been nearly 3 months since I last posted?  I have this for today, and have news to post in the near future.  I see that if I want to keep folks informed, I must exercise a bit more discipline!)


The first Baha’i book I ever read was “The Hidden Words of Baha’u’llah”.  The book begins with this description of itself:

HE IS THE GLORY OF GLORIES
This is that which hath descended from the realm of glory, uttered by the tongue of power and might, and revealed unto the Prophets of old. We have taken the inner essence thereof and clothed it in the garment of brevity, as a token of grace unto the righteous, that they may stand faithful unto the Covenant of God, may fulfill in their lives His trust, and in the realm of spirit obtain the gem of Divine virtue.

Whenever this book uses the first person, I see that as being God, the Creator, Himself.  While I believe that He is, essentially, addressing every person who will listen, I find it best to consider that He is addressing me, and that I need to strive to take each passage to heart.  The second passage of that book says:

2. O SON OF SPIRIT!
The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.

There is much to be learned from this (and any) passage, but some of what I see from it is a statement of the principle that each of us must investigate the truth of things for ourselves, and should not accept (nor reject) other people’s interpretations of scriptures or of the world without looking at them ourselves.  I also see in that sentence, “Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be,” that I am responsible for how I am, not for how other people are.  I am not in favor of telling other people how to live their lives, or pointing out other people’s faults, sins, or errors of morality.  (On the other hand, I do care about people, and want the best for them, so I have been known to mention to others when I am fairly certain that their observable actions may have palpably bad outcomes.)

‘Abdu’l Baha has told us to look only at a person’s good qualities and to overlook the bad ones. I believe that our expectations of others, and our perceptions of who they are as individuals can effect those we interact with in subtle ways.  So, if one person perceives another as a liar, for example, that other person is more likely to lie to the first person.  On the other hand, if one person sees another as a creative, kind, and caring person (as in a typical love story), the other is more likely to manifest those qualities.  “Your love makes me a better person” is more than a compliment, it is often an exclamation of wonderment about a real, if mysterious, phenomenon.  I want to have a positive influence on others, so what can I do?

Each person has many discernible qualities, some good, some bad.  So, I want to overlook the bad, and see the good.  But what about a stranger I pass in the street?  In a two kilometer walk through town, I might pass a hundred strangers going the other way.   I thinks of a person’s good qualities as manifestations of God’s light within their soul.  The Hidden Words has this passage:

11. O SON OF BEING!
Thou art My lamp and My light is in thee. Get thou from it thy radiance and seek none other than Me. For I have created thee rich and have bountifully shed My favor upon thee.

So, what I can do - what I try to do and pray for assistance to do - is to see God’s Light in every stranger that I pass, and in each friend that I make, and in people who begin to annoy me, and even in those who seem to wish me harm.  For me, this is what defines other people, and what, in the end, defines me.  In this, I think, I am also obeying Christ’s directive to love my neighbor and my enemy.  Whether you are Christian, Baha’i, Buddhist, Muslim, agnostic, or atheist, can you really say there is any harm in this?

In Kabgayi

We are mostly settled into our apartment at La Petit Seminaire at Kabgayi, just outside of Gitarama.  Anne has begun her work to improve the quality of midwifery care at the hospital here, and to train a new generation of midwives in the application of evidence-based practice.  (That is, instead of practicing in the way you do because, “this is the way we have always done things”, one practices according to what has been found to have the best outcomes.)  It is evident that she has a lot of work ahead, but there are many here who support what she is striving to do, and Anne has faith that it can be done.  The country has decided to adopt a model of having one university with 5 or 6 different branches (sort of like the University of California which has U.C Berkeley, U.C. L.A., etc.)  I think the idea is that the curriculum will be basically the same for all of the branches.  In any case, they are striving to raise the level of education provided, and also to have the capacity to provide better health-care.

I have offered my services as a teacher of English to the School of Nursing and midwifery, and to the boys’ school where we are living.   I have begun with the boys school (La Petit Seminaire Saint Leon at Kabgayi – The Minor Seminary) participating with the Century Language Club which meets 8 times a week for 25 minutes a meeting: in the afternoon and evenings on Monday and Tuesday, they hold informal debates in English, and on Thursday and Friday they debate in French.  Such a wonderful group of young men they are!  There are about 20 members of the club, and all are brilliant souls. The debates are informal:  A topic is chosen, one person is chosen (or volunteers) to be moderator, then the rest of the members choose to either support or oppose the premise of the topic.  There is no real order to the proceedings after that, so members of each side take turns putting forth whatever arguments comes to mind.  As in any group, some are very ready to jump in and share their opinion, or their point while others seem relatively reticent.  The main purpose of the club is for the members to develop their skills at thinking and speaking in English and French, so I am working to ensure that the more aggressive talkers give the others a chance, and that the others feel empowered to participate.  I think it might also serve them well to develop the skills that a more formal debate requires: Research of facts relevant to the topic, consultation among team members as to the best arguments to use, and the ability to argue either side, whatever their personal opinion might be.  (That last should help them to see more aspects of an issue than what they are biased towards, which might lead to a change in personal opinion, and will certainly make them better prepared to answer opposing arguments, whatever side they are on.) 

So far, the topics that I have heard debated were “Does CHANCE exist?” and “Can material possessions make one happy?”  As for the existence of chance, many of the students believe that, “A Man’s Chance is God’s Choice,” (which is also the title of a book) while others believe in the “Law of Attraction”!  That debate took two 25 minute sessions to complete.  Being informal, there really is no basis for determining a winning side, but the moderator will offer his judgment none the less. For the other topic, most of the students supported the proposition that having material possessions CAN make one happy.  I expected them to mainly be talking of having essentials like food, clothing, and shelter, as there are many in Rwanda who live in great poverty. However, some of them were asserting that one could not fail to be happy if they acquired great wealth, or had a car, or owned a big house.  I fear they have bought the hype and drunk the Kool-Aid of Western Materialism.  I hope to share some websites giving more scientific data about “what makes people happy.” For example: http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/08/here-are-the-things-that-are-proven-to-make-y/  Personally, attending the meetings of the Century Language Club makes me happy! 

Time to do some research on the guidelines for formal debates. 

Religion, Society and Civilization

There can be no doubt that religion has had a powerful effect on society. Some historians and historiographers have suggested that with the ascension of a new religion has come a renewal of civilization. Studies in the social sciences have suggested that religion facilitates cooperation among unrelated people, including strangers, within a culture or society (assuming that all or most members of the society are members of the same religion.) There have been cultures based around common religious belief and practice, theocratic states, and even theocratic empires. There have also been many conflicts caused by religious differences, including wars waged by the members of one religion against the members of another, the purging of heretics, and lesser conflicts in the form of verbal and social attacks.

IMHO, one of the central purposes and functions of religion is to unite people. We can look at this statement in two different ways:
1)The function of uniting people that religions have had in the evolution of social order. This would be the materialist view.
2)The purpose of uniting people that the founders of religions have had and that the Supreme Being has had in inspiring the revelation upon which each religion is founded. This would be the theist point of view.

Likewise, IMHO, the conflicts which religion has caused are due in part to the those tribal instincts which we share with our closest genetic relatives, the great apes. While religions have, through the ages, provided common identity, common goals, common moral laws, and cooperation within large groups of people, it has not eased competition and conflict between large groups with different religions. The tribal instinct is exacerbated by the human creativity of some clerics and pseudo-clerics who use the influence of religion for the promotion of their own power. It has been found in the villages of Pakistan and Afghanistan that education can strengthen a society against the influence of so called “fundamentalists”, who try to recruit terrorists by using lies about Islam. This is especially true when girls are educated the same as boys. (See the book "Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortenson.)

I believe that conflicts can be ended, and humankind's potential increased, by a religion which grows by its power to attract peoples hearts, which appeals to our highest aspirations and ideals while also satisfying our intellect, and which promulgates the oneness of humanity (that is, that expands the group to include all people everywhere, whatever their races, cultures, nationalities, or original religions), the oneness of religion, universal education, unity of nations and the development of a common world language and script.

Bahá’u’lláh says, “The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity.” 'Abdu'l-Baha expands on this, saying, “if religious belief proves to be the cause of discord and dissension, its absence would be preferable; for religion was intended to be the divine remedy and panacea for the ailments of humanity, the healing balm for the wounds of mankind. If its misapprehension and defilement have brought about warfare and bloodshed instead of remedy and cure, the world would be better under irreligious conditions.”

It is because of human nature that an institution such as religion is needed to unite and facilitate cooperation among large groups of unrelated people. Human nature includes many characteristics that we share with chimps, bonobos and other great apes. Among these characteristics is a sort of tribal instinct. Tribes of great apes usually consist of 20 to 50 individuals. There is coherence and cooperation within each tribe, as well as a limited degree of competition. There is competition, between tribes, and inter-tribal warfare has even been observed. Human nature also includes a degree of creativity and individual expression far beyond that of the great ape. This creativity and ability to act outside of cultural norms and constraints is, I believe, what the book of Genesis refers to as “knowledge of good and evil”. Our creativity has also led us to form cooperative groups (societies, states, cultures, etc.) much larger than the tribe.

Cooperation in these larger groups requires shared identity, trust gained through a shared moral code, and shared allegiance to leaders who are perceived to have a strong claim to authority. All of these are provided by religion, along with guidance on how to practice being a good member of society and motivation (in the form of promised reward and punishment in the afterlife) for behaving within the norms. From a theist point of view, one sees that God, having created us and the universe in which we live, has given us religion to guide us along the path He has set for us. In the scriptures of most religions, we are urged and guided to strive toward the goal or purpose for which we were created. In the Christianity, Islam, and the Bahá’í Faith, that purpose has been stated in different, but compatible, ways. One of them is, “to know and worship God.” Also in those scriptures we are told that to knowledge of God is knowledge of our true selves. In the Bahá’í Writings we are told:

“The heights which, through the most gracious favor of God, mortal man can attain, in this Day, are as yet unrevealed to his sight. The world of being hath never had, nor doth it yet possess the capacity for such a revelation. The day, however, is approaching when the potentialities of so great a favor will, by virtue of His behest, be manifested unto men. ... All men have been created to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization. The Almighty beareth Me witness: To act like the beasts of the field is unworthy of man. Those virtues that befit his dignity are forbearance, mercy, compassion and loving-kindness towards all the peoples and kindreds of the earth.”

The academic philosopher in me

An argument, called “The Problem of Evil” was presented by an atheist. That argument is presented below in a clear and rigorous form, along with my rebuttal to that argument. Please pardon me if this reads like an academic paper. I wrote it in an academic spirit, and I feel that it is well reasoned.

The Argument:
“We wish to test the validity of the following proposition (proposition X) about which we disagree:

X: There exists a Supreme Entity, Whom we will call “God”, Who has the following attributes:

1. God is the Sole Creator of the universe, and has created this universe with full knowledge and understanding of all aspects of that creation.
2. God is All Powerful, meaning that He can do whatever he pleases with His creation. Among the things which He can do: He can cause whatever change in it He desires, including changing the mental and physical characteristics of the creatures, the laws of physics, the relative densities of specific substances, the operation and severity of the weather. etc.)
3.God is All Loving. He loves each of His creatures, and most certainly us humans.

We are going to test the logical validity of proposition X against the following propositions, A, B, and C, which we either all agree upon, or which are clear and evident to any reasonable and observant person:

A. In this world, which God is said to have created according to #1, we all agree that there is human suffering.

I.We also agree that some of that suffering is caused by evil actions of humans.
II. We also agree that events, such as earthquakes, and severe weather, which are caused by physical circumstances that seem to be part of this world, also cause suffering.

B. According to X - 2 above, God is All Powerful, and therefore He is capable of preventing human suffering of both kinds if He wished to. [I believe that most of us can agree on this.]
C. A Loving God would not allow his beloved human creatures to suffer if He could prevent it.

[Proposition C is a key point on which, I believe, the theists and and atheists disagree.]
If C is true, then we must conclude one of the following:

I.That if there exists an Entity Who is the Sole Creator of the universe and is All Loving, He is NOT All Powerful. OR
II.That if there exists an Entity Who is the Sole Creator of the universe and is All Powerful, then He is NOT All Loving OR
III.That there exists NO Entity Who is the Sole Creator of the universe.

[In truth, we really only need I or II, but III is the conclusion that the atheists believe and the belief to which they wish us all to convert.] ;- D

My Rebuttal:
Now, as ____ has complained, all of us “traditional” theists are quite attached to proposition X, which he wishes to test. (Some “modern” or “untraditional” theists are not so convinced about many aspects of proposition X, but we will set that aside for now.) Because we theists take proposition X on faith, and believe that it “Must be True”, we are ready to seek ways to give good cause for rejecting proposition C. In other words, we feel compelled to demonstrate why a Loving God would, in fact, allow the human suffering that we see in the world, even though He could prevent it. There are several arguments, which theists consider conclusive, for rejecting C. If the theists and the atheists cannot or will not agree upon the validity of C, then we are at an impasse.

I believe the atheist argument in support of C is as follows:
C – 1 “Any reasonable person will agree that if one person loves another, they would gladly do [nearly] anything to prevent the ones they love from suffering.”

There is a second part of this argument which I have not seen stated, but that is necessary to completing the logical support of C. That is:

C – 2 “God is a person, or enough like a person, (and God's relationship to us humans is enough like the relationship between a person who loves other persons) that statement C – 1 also applies to God.”

Assertion C – 1 is supportable and verifiable as far as human persons (and many other living creatures, particularly mammals and marsupials) are concerned, but the question is, whether it is reasonable to extend this assertion and apply it to the God whose nature and existence we are testing. I will conclude with my own arguments why we cannot extend this generalization about persons to God; that is, why C – 2 is not acceptable. (Understand that this is an argument specifically regarding why proposition C cannot be reasonably applied to the being described in proposition X):

God is fundamentally different from human persons in that (according to X) He created the universe and has full knowledge and understanding of all of its aspects, whereas humans are creations of His and have only very limited knowledge of the universe. But the question still remains whether this difference is sufficient to reject C – 2.

Part of human knowledge of the nature of the universe is explained by the theory of Evolution, which provides a framework for explaining aspects of the anatomy, physiology, and behavior of all living beings in terms of the efficacy of those aspects for assuring the survival of the species. It can easily be shown that physical sensations of the body, which result from stimuli impinging on the sensory organs, have evolved because they (pleasurable sensations) tend to attract us towards things that are beneficial, or they (pain and other unpleasant sensations) tend to repel us from things that are detrimental. Likewise, we can show that most mammals feel compelled to intervene on behalf of a member of the same species when that other expresses pain or appears to be in peril. This is particularly true in the case of two individuals whose lives are closely conjoined, as in a familial relationship. Thus, the scientific explanation for the fact of C – 1 is that this is a response that has evolved because it has contributed to the survival of the species. Any reasonable person will have this tendency, will feel sympathetic pain, will do what they can to prevent or alleviate the pain of another because it is in our genes. We value this tendency and call it an expression of “love” for good reason: it preserves our species, and particularly those individual members of our species who are closest to us genetically.
God, on the other hand, does not have such a need, as He is not part of any species, but has created all species and the balance of forces that supports them and causes them to evolve and advance. Therefore, it is unreasonable to say that God is enough like a "person" that statement C - 1 applies to God.

QED

God shows His love by providing guidance to our human species, whom he has endowed with capacity far beyond that of all other species. His guidance is the surest means to ensure the advancement of the species with a minimum of pain and suffering. We will be able to use observation of the decrease in the pain and suffering in the world as one small measure of how well we are following His guidance:

“O CHILDREN OF MEN! Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other. Ponder at all times in your hearts how ye were created. Since We have created you all from one same substance it is incumbent on you to be even as one soul, to walk with the same feet, eat with the same mouth and dwell in the same land, that from your inmost being, by your deeds and actions, the signs of oneness and the essence of detachment may be made manifest. Such is My counsel to you, O concourse of light! Heed ye this counsel that ye may obtain the fruit of holiness from the tree of wondrous glory.”