Science and Religion

4.2.1 Faith and Reason

The relationship between faith and reason has puzzled humans throughout the ages.

Philosophers, theologians, and scientists have developed various models for relating these two frames of reference. For some, faith and reason have nothing to do with each other, for others, they are inseparable allies in the quest for truth, and still others think that they are in an insolvable conflict. It is undoubtedly true that faith and reason have their distinctive epistemological characters: reason relies on observations, theorising and logical inferences, whereas faith is often seen as a gift from the supernatural sphere, something which does not comply with the requirements of ordinary human reason but exceeds our understanding. This does not, of course, necessarily imply that interaction between faith and reason would not be possible.¹⁶¹

Many Christian thinkers have held that faith and reason support each other and that Christians should not be afraid to engage in rational scientific inquiry when they try to make sense of the world. According to Tertullian, God has not arranged anything in the universe without reason, and therefore it is natural that humans aim to under-stand everything through their reason. Still, Tertullian believed that faith is something much greater than reason—and, in some cases, even contrary to it.¹⁶² Augustine of Hippo and Anselm of Canterbury taught that faith precedes reason but is compatible

159 The Sensuous Curmudgeon 2015. Of course, despite any doubts about Dembski’s integrity raised by this development, his theories should be assessed based on their merits, regardless of his personal life history.

160 An interesting recent development (one that occured after the near-final version of the thesis was written) is that Dembski joined the Board of the Discovery Institute in 2018. However, he still has no intention of engaging in projects relating to intelligent design anymore. (Discovery Institute 2019.)

161 Plantinga 2011, 178–179. For more on the relationship between reason and (Christian) faith, see Plantinga 2000; Swinburne 2005, Swindal 2018.

162 Tertullian 1957. See also Vainio 2010, 24–31. The phrase “I believe because it is absurd” (“credo quia ab-surdum”), often attributed to Tertullian, is (in this form) actually not found in his writings (Pihkala 2010).

with it: a person must have faith before (s)he can properly understand what reason tells us about the world. Augustine’s “Believe so that you may understand.”¹⁶³ and Anselm’s “I believe in order to understand.”¹⁶⁴ have become well-known phrases in the history of Christian philosophy.

Although Christian faith and reason can support each other, their differences and distinctive characters must also be recognised. Martin Luther thought that it would be impossible for human reason to grasp the fundamental doctrine of Christianity.

From the perspective of pure logic, Christianity is likely to appear as absurd. Luther depicted reason as “blind, deaf, foolish, impious and sacrilegious in her dealings with all the words and works of God,” leading humans to “deny all the Articles of Faith.”¹⁶⁵ On the other hand, he also called reason a “bright light”¹⁶⁶, even “the most important and the highest in rank among all things”, set to administrate the world we live in.¹⁶⁷ These seemingly contradictory statements can be reconciled when things are put into the right perspective: for Luther, reason was a useful tool in enquiring about the physical world—although still fallible and incomplete because of the Fall—but useless in spiritual matters which are the domain of faith. Acknowledging the limits of reason would make it possible to understand that faith and reason do not contradict but actually complement each other.¹⁶⁸

Contrary to Luther (although not necessarily to all Lutheranism), Catholic theology teaches that using observations and rational thinking, it is possible to obtain reliable information not only about the physical world but also about God. According to the Roman Catechism, God did not create the world for “any other cause than a desire to communicate to creatures the riches of his bounty.”¹⁶⁹ Similarly, the Second Vatican Council declared that “God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created reality by the light of human reason.”¹⁷⁰ On a general level, the Catholic view in which faith has a rational foundation would seem to lend some support to the basic idea of intelligent design, in terms of encouraging Christians to search for God by observing nature and using natural reason. However, the Catholic Church does not officially endorse intelligent design.¹⁷¹

Some other philosophers have held less optimistic views towards combining faith and reason. John Locke, for example, asserted that reason is superior to faith as a source of knowledge, and in case of a conflict, we should always listen to reason. Faith can be an option only in matters which are “above reason,” in other words, things about which it is impossible to gain any reliable rational information.¹⁷² Some have gone even further and found no space whatsoever for faith in human inquiry about

163 “Crede, ut intelligas” (Augustine of Hippo 1888, 375).

164 “Credo, ut inteligam” (Anselm of Canterbury 2009, 32).

165 Luther 1958, 165.

166 Luther 1974, 54.

167 Luther 1960, 137.

168 Grosshans 2017; Loikkanen 2015.

169 The Catechism of the Council of Trent 1829, Pt. I, Art. I.

170 Dei Verbum 1965, Ch. I, 6.

171 Withnall 2014.

172 Locke 2001, 575–582. Despite this, Locke (2001, 515) does think that “[w]e are capable of knowing certainly that there is God” through logical thinking.

the world, following on the lines of Anthony C. Grayling, who wrote that faith is “a negation of reason” and “belief even in the face of contrary evidence.”¹⁷³

4.2.2 The Science-and-Religion Debate

In the contemporary discussion, the issue of faith and reason is often approached from the perspective of the interaction between science and religion.¹⁷⁴ Indeed, during the last few decades, the relationship between science and religion has become one of the most heavily-debated themes in the field of philosophy of religion. In addition to finding its way into university curricula at philosophy and theology departments, several research centres dedicated solely to the study of science and religion have been established, some of the most significant being the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at the University of Oxford, the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion at the University of Cambridge, and the Francisco J. Ayala Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California.

Thanks to popular atheist figures such as Richard Dawkins¹⁷⁵, Daniel Dennett¹⁷⁶, Sam Harris¹⁷⁷ and Christopher Hitchens¹⁷⁸,¹⁷⁹ the topic has also attracted a consider-able amount of public attention, particularly in the English-speaking world. These so-called New Atheists regard religion as nonsensical and find the concept of “God”

useless, especially in scientific discussion. Dawkins sees religion as “the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.”¹⁸⁰ Hitchens writes that religion “comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody (…) had the smallest idea what was going on.”¹⁸¹ According to Harris, “the difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately con-sider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so.”¹⁸²

173 Grayling 2002, 117.

174 When discussing the relationship between science and religion, it must be kept in mind that both “sci-ence” and “religion” are somewhat ambiguous terms. “Sci“sci-ence” is not some homogenous, easily-definable entity but instead covers a wide variety of disciplines which have their own distinctive methodologies and areas of study. Likewise, the term “religion” can be used in reference to established world religions such as Christianity and Islam, or to different worldviews including religious elements, such as Confucianism and Scientology. Furthermore, within most religions, there are various sub-groups with different views towards science. It is also debatable whether we should talk about “science and religion” or “science and theology.” Some commentators have used “religion” and “theology” as synonyms, while others have drawn a clear distinction between religion as set of beliefs and practices and theology as an academic discipline.

(McGrath 2010, 4–5; Bowker 2015, 62–63.)

175 Dawkins 1995; Dawkins 1996; Dawkins 2006; Dawkins 2015.

176 Dennett 1995; Dennett 2006; Dennett & McGrath 2008.

177 Harris 2004; Harris 2006.

178 Hitchens 2007; Hitchens 2015; Hitchens & Wilson 2008.

179 Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens are often referred to as the “Four Horsemen” of New Atheism (Gribbin 2011).

180 Dawkins 1994.

181 Hitchens 2007, 64.

182 Harris 2011.

In Europe and North America, the critique of religion has traditionally focused on Christianity.¹⁸³ As a reply, the possibility and importance of a fruitful interaction between science and religion has been defended by many Christian scientists and theologians, for example Arthur Peacocke¹⁸⁴, John Polkinghorne¹⁸⁵, John Lennox¹⁸⁶, Robert John Russell¹⁸⁷ and Alister McGrath¹⁸⁸. They argue that the criticism against Christianity is based on faulty argumentation and misses its mark. When understood correctly, science and Christianity are actually in harmony. In this study, the relation-ship between science and religion is discussed only insofar as is necessary from the point of view of the research questions. Excellent introductory works to the current state of the discussion on science and religion have been written, for example, by McGrath¹⁸⁹, Nancy Morvillo¹⁹⁰ and Mikael Stenmark¹⁹¹.¹⁹²

4.2.3 Models for Relating Science and Religion

Several models for relating science and religion have been proposed, the most re-nowned one—and the one still serving as a basis of more refined models—being due to Ian Barbour. According to Barbour, one of the pioneering scholars in the sci-ence-and-religion field, there are four ways of relating science and religion: 1) con-flict, 2) independence, 3) dialogue and 4) integration. In the conflict model, one can, to give an example, either decide to endorse the results of science, in which case the supernatural claims of religion have to be rejected as absurd, or to rely on the literal interpretation of the Bible, in which case science becomes useless in trying to explain the world.¹⁹³ The former view is often called scientific materialism (promoted by, among others, the New Atheists), the latter biblical literalism (embraced by, for

183 To be sure, lately, other religions have received an increasingly large share of the critique and are often seen as even more dangerous than Christianity by the New Atheists. For example, Dawkins has described Islam as “one of the great evils in the world” (Miller 2012).

184 Peacocke 1979; Peacocke 1993; Peacocke 2001.

185 Polkinghorne 1988; Polkinghorne 1989; Polkinghorne 1991; Polkinghorne 1994; Polkinghorne 1998.

186 Lennox 2007; Lennox 2011a; Lennox 2011b.

187 Russell 2001; Russell 2006; Russell 2008.

188 McGrath 2002a; McGrath 2002b; McGrath 2003; McGrath 2011.

189 McGrath 2010.

190 Morvillo 2010.

191 Stenmark 2004.

192 See also, e.g., Brooke 1991; Murphy 1997; Brooke & Cantor 1998; Coleman 2001; Ward 2008; Peters &

Bennett 2011; Dennett & Plantinga 2011; Haught 2012, as well as the extensive recent handbooks: Clayton

& Simpson 2004; Harrison 2010; Craig & Moreland 2012. In Finland, discussion on the dialogue between science and religion has been advanced by, e.g., Juha Pihkala and Esko Valtaoja (2004; 2010).

193 This is not an exhaustive depiction of the conflict model but only one illustration of it. Barbour’s categories are meant to be more general.

example, young Earth creationists¹⁹⁴). In both cases, science and religion are seen as largely incompatible.¹⁹⁵

In the independence model, no conflict between science and religion exists for the simple reason that they have nothing to do with each other. Science and religion have their own separate domains and methods of inquiry which must be kept apart.

Religious beliefs cannot be based on scientific arguments, nor can science found its theories on religious doctrines.¹⁹⁶ The most well-known formulation of the independ-ence model is by Stephen Jay Gould, whose principle of “non-overlapping magisteria”

is based on the idea that scientific theories are concerned with facts of the physical world, whereas religion deals with meaning and values. Science and religion can coexist, each accommodating its own realm while accepting that both are “equally important, but utterly different.”¹⁹⁷

The dialogue model allows the possibility of interaction between science and re-ligion, admitting that there are certain boundary questions—such as why is there something rather than nothing, or whether traces of divine action can be found in the world—that are related to both disciplines. At the same time, the limits of the dialogue have to be recognised: although there are some areas of inquiry where science and religion overlap, there are even more areas where they do not.¹⁹⁸ The dialogue model is a popular choice among contemporary scholars trained in both theology and science, supported by McGrath, Lennox and Russell, among others.¹⁹⁹

The final model, integration, is based on the assumption that science and religion can offer extensive support to each other and work together in trying to find out the truth about the world. According to Barbour, the three main modes of integration are natural theology, theology of nature, and systematic synthesis. Natural theology is a form of theology in which the existence (and attributes) of God are argued for through the observation of nature and the use of reason, without appealing to divine revelation or sacred texts.²⁰⁰ Theology of nature, for its part, takes as its starting point the doctrine that the natural world was created by God and interprets the findings of science in this light, yet admitting that science is a reliable way of gaining information about God’s creation. Systematic synthesis goes the farthest, suggesting that science and religion can “contribute to a coherent world view elaborated in a comprehensive metaphysics.”²⁰¹

194 To be more precise, many young Earth creationists would argue that science and religion are actually not incompatible. The problem is the false interpretation of the evidence (“raw data”) by the majority of scientists which conflicts the young-Earth reading of the Bible and must therefore be rejected. The creationist interpretation concerning, for example, the fossil record and the origin of the variety of living organisms, differs from the consensus view of the scientific community. (Batten 2017.)

195 Barbour 1997, 77–84.

196 Barbour 1997, 84–89.

197 Gould 1997.

198 Barbour 1997, 90–98.

199 Many other influential theologians have also supported the dialogue model, e.g., Wolfhart Pannenberg (1993; 2008) and Karl Rahner (2002).

200 See MacDonald 1998. For an overview of the critique of natural theology, see Kojonen 2017.

201 Barbour 1997, 100–105. Many writers have constructed their own theories of the possible ways of relating science and religion, often based on Barbour’s typology; see, e.g., Bowker 2015, 49–51; Peters 2018. For a more nuanced multidimensional model and critique of Barbour’s typology, see Stenmark 2004, 250–269.