The science and religion debate took place on 29 March 1999.
It was recorded on minidisc  and digital video in studio 1 at DCU.

Scripts of opening statements

Introduction by Dr. Helena Sheehan

Science and religion: Can they be reconciled ?  Or is it necessary to renounce one for the sake of the other ?

This is basically a question arising in modernity.

For much of our history as a species they could barely be separated, let alone counterposed.  On our way up from the mud and the dark, we as a species stumbled upon the earth and looked up at the skies, we struggled to cope and to comprehend and we gave names to stones and gods.

From animism to the pantheons of primitive religions to monotheism, religion evolved reflecting our conceptualisation of the natural world and the social order at any given time in our history.  Primitive gods were idealised functions of a primitive society.  The medieval god was an idealised medieval lord.

However, as our methods of empirical investigation and logical reasoning grew, more and more phenomena once explained by religion came to be explained by science.  Thunder was no longer the startling roar of an angry god but came within the sober scope of meteorological prediction.

The god hypothesis became more and more redundant.  From being the loving father who counted every hair of our heads and cared for every lily in the fields, he became, in the world of newtonian mechanics, a vague first mover who set the mechanism of the world in motion.  God was disappearing from the world, dying the death of 1000 qualifications.

There were moments of classic confrontation in the process.  In the wake of copernican cosmology, Galileo versus the Inquistion.  In the battle over darwinian evolution, there was Huxley versus  Wilberforce at Oxford and Darrow versus  Bryan at the Scopes trial in Tennessee.

There have been waves of challenge, conflict and crisis.  There have also been patterns of resolution.  These have taken the form of accommodation and reconciliation or of renunciation of one for the other.

For religious believers, there have been 2 basic strategies:

The first has  been to assert the harmony of faith and  reason, to affirm that the achievements of science attest to the glory of God, to update the argument from design, according to the most recent science in the tradition of Abelard and Aquinas to Teilhard de Chardin to William Reville's columns in The Irish Times.

The second is  to assert in the tradition of Tertullian: "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem ?",  in the tradition of Luther seeing reason as the devil's harlot, in the tradition of Barthes insisting that faith is God's revelation to man and not man's speculation about God.  Various forms of neo-kantian, postmodernist and new age theology take up this strategy, downgrading reason to make room for faith.  Absurd misinterpretations of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty, of complementarity, of chaos, of fuzzy logic, often come into play.

Where the first stategy finds God in the order of the world, the second, these days, with ever more absurd misinterpretations of quantum physics, finds God in the disorder of the world.   The first is based on harmony and continiuty and respect for science and sees religion as an extension of it in fundamental continuity with it.
The secnd is based on a radical discontinuity, on emphasis on what science doesn't know more than what it does know, on affirmation of other ways of knowing, often with a strong implication that these other ways are superior to science.  Science and religion in the post-wittgensteinian world are just two different language games with nothing much to do with each other.

Counterposed to both of these is scientific secularism, asserting that we have come of age, that we no longer need a god to explain the world, that we are on our own, but we are able, with the powers of empirical investigation and logical reasoning we have evolved and tested in the fire of experience, to face into the darkness and the light, the light of our knowledge, the darkness where our ongoing search for knowledge may yet bring light.  In this view, there is only one way of knowing and it is science. The word science means  knowledge.  What goes on in laboratories and peer reviewed journals is a particular highly formalised part of it, but anything that deserves to be called knowledge is in continuity with it.

When the discipline of empirical evidence and logical reasoning are applied to the phenomenon of religion, it is clear that gods are the creations of man, not that man is the creation of god.

With this introduction to the topic, where intelligent and honourable people are on both sides, I hope that we can have an illuminating debate. It is a difficult but critical debate, as it concerns questions which are at rock bottom at the foundations of our world view: the existence of god, the place of science, the meaning of life. I hope that no one will be inhibited from entering into it.
 

Noel Cunningham

Can religion co-exist with the confident march of science? It is a question that has bothered theologians and scientists ever since they became two separate professions over three hundred years ago and no doubt will continue to prove problematic well into the future.

When my colleagues across the table argue that science and religion are compatible, I suspect that they will attempt to re-define religious belief in subjective terms and regard the divine as simply an internalised symbol for individually chosen values. While such a rationale may characterise many contemporary or ‘new-age’ belief systems, it cannot and does not characterise that which is commonly understood by the term ‘religion’. The danger in voicing support for these new-age belief systems is that because there are so many of them and because so few of them are well defined, it becomes too tempting to pick and choose the bits and pieces one needs from each of them in order to bolster what is already a very weak case.
Each of the three main western religions – Christianity, Islam and Judaism – believe that there is a purpose and design to the universe which our minds can discover and not just fabricate. And God does interfere in the world, as opposed to just standing idly by, paring his nails in sublime confidence in his artistry.

Science and theology are both in the business of truth – they both display similar periods of confusion, revision and consolidation – so why does science work and religion doesn’t? My colleague Robert will be arguing that the chief reason is science’s tendency to question everything logically, whereas religion relies on the Divine word as it appears in their respective holy texts, and because this word is divine it is unquestionable. So for instance King James I, writing in 1628 warned that articles in religion must be understood in their “literal and true meaning”. The problem arises when science shows that the Divine word is – quite simply – wrong. However I will leave Robert to argue the finer points.

I would like to concentrate instead on what I believe lies at the heart of each of the main religions. This is the belief that man is somehow ‘special’ – he is different from all other animals in that he has a soul. Not only did God give man this immortal soul but he also created the whole world especially for man.

It was interesting to note from last week’s debate that knowledge of the history of science resulted in a somewhat humbler notion of what science was about. Indeed we saw that science itself proceeds to a considerable degree on the basis of what is written in esteemed texts and taking on trust what is said by recognised authority figures.

A similar analysis of the history of religion proves to be equally revealing although I would suggest that the process could be much more damaging for orthodox religion than for science.
What religion provides us with is what has been referred to as ‘an egocentric view of the world’. This is central to each of the main religions and all facts are to be interpreted in a manner that would support this. Science however assumes nothing of the sort and in so doing succeeds in dismantling the egocentric view. There are two famous examples of this and I will finish by briefly describing each.

Most people now accept that the earth orbits the sun and see nothing demeaning in this fact. Four centuries earlier the situation was much different. Back then it was ‘common knowledge’ that we were the centre of the universe. It didn’t even make sense to question this. Ptolemy had shown how the other planets and the sun revolved around us. In fact God, in creating these, had shaped them as perfect spheres, and made them out of non-earthly materials. When it was proposed that it was in fact the earth which orbited the sun, the Church’s response was to shoot the messenger (not literally of course, but as good as).

While the heliocentric theory did away with the notion that we were at the centre of the universe, the Theory of evolution has done away with the notion that we are significant even on our own planet. The Catholic Church appears to have learnt its lesson from Galileo and now instead of fighting science on science’s ground, it chooses instead to embrace it. So for instance in 1952, in an encyclical entitled Humani Generis, Pope Pius 12th accepted the theory of evolution as a theory which people could accept as an explanation of their origins if they so wished, but he warned of ignoring “the sources of divine revelation which demand the greatest moderation and caution in this question”. In other words the theory of evolution is only one possible explanation and when deciding whether to believe it or not one must be guided once again by ‘divine revelation’.  In 1996 Pope John Paul II went one step further by accepting that the theory was the only acceptable theory. However the question then arises; given that there is no one point where we can say “we became human here”, when did God decide to infuse the body with the soul? The church has not yet addressed this question (although French Jesuit priest and palaeontologist Pierre Tielhard de Chardin did put forward his own ideas in a famous book entitled The Phenomenon of Man – but neither the church nor science could accept his interpretation). The Pope has in fact warned that “the moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of [scientific] observation”.

As a result of the Church’s reluctance to deal with this issue, Her followers still believe in ideas that have been outmoded for decades. For example a recent (1994) publication entitled Catechism of the Catholic Church states “God destined all material creatures for the good of the human race” – an idea which cannot be reconciled with the theory of evolution.

Conclusion
Earlier on I raised the question: Why does science work and religion doesn’t? Let me conclude by offering the following as a possible answer. Science works because it knows its limitations and generally works within them. Religion on the other hand is constantly finding its territory being eroded and the agent of this erosion is usually science, and as a result science and religion are not – and never can be – compatible.
 

Elizabeth O'Connor

To begin it must be remembered that if, as the opposing side say, that science and religion are incompatible they are in fact saying that a lack of belief in God is a prerequisite for becoming a scientist. Does this mean that I am not a scientist because I believe in God? Does every scientist compartmentalise their religious and scientific beliefs or not believe in God at all. I do not think that it is true, I know plenty of scientists that are able to reconcile their scientific beliefs and their religious ones without compartmentalising them.

Many scientists believe in the existence of God and see their knowledge of the universe gained through science as strengthening their belief in God. The wonder of the natural world to them proves the existence of a God. They credit God with the design of such a complex and awe inspiring universe. Just because we can explain how some aspects of the universe does not mean that God did not create it.

One of the main arguments against the compatibility of science and religion is the conflict between the story of creation and the theory of evolution. It must be pointed out that all genesis is just a story. The Bible was written by people of that time for people of that time so it had to be written in a way that related to the people of that time and in a context that they understood. The Bible is full of parables that were relevant to the people of the era in which the Bible was written. Would the concept of evolution have made sense to the people of that time who were not very technologically advanced? Of course it wouldn’t and neither would quantum mechanics, genetics or any other things that are fundamental to our understanding of the universe. The Bible was not meant to be a scientific text its value lies in cultural and religious terms. As science has a basis in culture we must admit
that religion has a role to play in science and that role is not incompatible with science.

Belief in religion does not rule out a belief in science and vice versa both of these can be reconciled with the other. Religion can contribute the moral authority to science that people believe that some aspects of science lack. It can also provide moral rules for science to operate under in subjects such as cloning of humans.

Most people rely on both science and religion as a sense of comfort in their lives. They both help to give a sense of order to our lives in different but not incompatible ways science gives us a sense that there is order in nature in their lives and religion gives them a sense of moral order in our lives.

I believe that a God that inspires a scientist to understand the intricacies of nature must be immensely powerful to create such a complex and subtle universe.

Scientists can only trace the universe back to moments after it was created by the big bang. They cannot say what created it or why it was created. It cannot be ruled out that God created the universe in such a way and created an environment suitable for evolution to occur. It must be remembered that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with creation it just shows that God had more imagination than he is credited with in the Bible.

To quote Pope John Paul II "science can purify religion from error and superstition and religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."
 

 Robert Duffy

I would like to commence by reading from the text of a disagreement that took place a long time ago.

22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.
23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

 Does anyone recognize this text? I am not surprised. It's not a part of the bible that the Church likes to bring to its member's attention too often. The reason for this lies in the nature of the bible, a nature shared by the Torah, or the Koran, or indeed almost the sacred texts of almost every
religion in the world: That is that the content within is sufficiently pliable to be interpreted in almost any way one wishes. A religion is defined not by the entirety of what its texts contain, but rather in which verses of these texts it chooses to read.

I sincerely doubt that Abraham had any skills that would lead anyone today to think of him as being cast in a scientific mold. Certainly Abraham did have an extremely religious mindset. When, four chapters after the verse that I read to you, God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to him, Abraham prepared to do so without question. But his actions in defending Sodom and Gomorrah symbolize the central question in the struggle between science and religion today: Is there any limits to what we can question? Science says no, and on that day so did Abraham. And the plain fact is that
religion throughout the ages has found little use for a follower that would question its God.

 That makes sense doesn't it? Religion demands faith, absolute faith. The Church tells its followers that the word of God is the supreme truth, that it is pointless to try and question it. Because if you can question God then you can certainly question the Church. There is no doubt that that the Church
takes this danger seriously. Take the perennial example of Galileo. He was one of the strongest supporters of the Copernican theory that refuted Christian belief that the Earth was the centre of the universe. This idea was deeply rooted in scripture, since it was clearly stated here that man was the centre of creation. Therefore, no matter what evidence Galileo had to support his theory, it must be wrong. Galileo was eventually forced to recant his support for this idea. History has proved him right, but when he was on his knees being threatened with the Spanish Inquisition that must have been small comfort.

The church won that round. But a few hundred years ago a strange thing happened. People started to rely upon the evidence of their senses more. It was no longer enough for someone to say 'Well I think the truth of a matter is as thus'. They had to prove their theories. Science as we know it was born from this development, and this is an attitude that defines science more than anything else. It is this that makes the antithesis of Religion. Science is against faith. Faith destroys science, for the practice of science is best carried by a mind that will question everything. It is this attitude that has led to science and religion opposing each other throughout the ages.

Science, as we have said, believes that almost anything can be questioned. Religion insists that there are some things man is not meant to question. Any man other than one associated with the Church that is. Modern religion has set itself up as the mouthpiece of God. We are supposed to believe what they say over anything else because God speaks through them. That is a statement of supreme arrogance. The churches, for all their robes and temples, are men. Men who have been wrong, and shown to be wrong. How then can the church claim that it is worthy of blind faith?

We have asked whether Science and Religion are compatible. At present, it seems pretty clear that they are not. Will this ever change? Perhaps. Perhaps what we need is a Church that reads from different verses than the present one does. A church that would accept Abraham's act and all its
consequences. For if you accept that God can be questioned then you must accept that his Church can also be questioned. Only this acceptance will ever make Science and Religion compatible.
 
 

 (under construction)