Is it Possible to Find a Middle Way Between Science and Religion?

In our minds, science and religion are entirely separate things, with separate mandates under which to operate. This was not always the case, however – for a long time in history, religion\mythology and science (or to put it another way, mythos and logos) shared the burden of explaining the world around us and our place in it. Then the Enlightenment and the age of Rationalism severed the link between religion and science and declared that only science could tell us about the world around. Now the pendulum appears to be swinging back, with many people in the world today adhering to more and more extreme forms of religion in an attempt to explain themselves and the world around them. This essay will look at Pope John Paul the II’s speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences as well as Abrams and Primack’s book on the latest theories about the origin of the universe, and see if a middle way can be paved between the purely scientific and the purely religious views can be found, by exploring the different views espoused by the aforementioned people on how they deal with the subject of our morals and moral responsibility and our place as a distinct species within the universe. It is possible, I believe, to find a bridge over the growing gap between the two camps, so long as everybody involves treats other people the way they themselves would want to be treated.

According to a certain interpretation of Genesis (chapter 1, verse 26-30) from the Old Testament, man was given dominion over the newly created Earth and all the creatures contained in it. With this in mind, when looking at Pope John Paul II’s views as espoused in his address to the Academy, it shouldn’t come as a surprise if he places more importance on humans first and foremost rather than their place in relation to the rest of the world. But since, as he says himself (John Paul, 407) the meeting is to address the origins of humans and evolution, perhaps even the Pope is beginning to change his opinion on the matter of humans and the Earth? Perhaps not – the Pope refers to the passages I referenced above, and says that ‘The human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society, he has value per se’ (emphasis in the original), meaning that man still comes first, whatever the varying theories of evolution and the Academy has to say about the origins of the universe. This is, I think, in direct contrast to the attitude espoused by Abrams and Primack, whose outlook is best summed up by the quote below:

In both cartoons the feeling of cosmic insignificance is uncomfortable to think about, so the characters run from it. This feeling derives from the Newtonian assumption that in an incomprehensibly vast, cold universe we are, to quote the famous Stephen Jay Gould, ‘a fortuitous cosmic afterthought’ but we know now that this is not the case. The new picture is revealing a universe in which we intelligent beings have a central or special place in several different senses of the phrase. Abrams and Primack, New Universe and the Human Future, 20-26.

To me, this suggests that the two authors do not see anybody or anything as intrinsically ‘better’ or more important than anything else – they see that we now have a more complete view of the universe than ever before, and can start to seek our own place to work within it. Dawes (1-4) seems to agree with Abrams and Primack in this case, arguing that there was a precedent set in the past by Christian theologians regarding the twinned outlook of science and religion when it came to human endeavors and behaviors.

We are all familiar with the idea that we should be open and tolerant to everyone we meet. People of a religious background would perhaps know it as unconditional love, since the ‘profound wisdom of various religious traditions has inspired many to embrace the ideal of universal compassion’ (Polinska, 2) even if, as humans who err, we don’t always manage to follow our ideals with actions. The Pope, as one might expect, references this ideal in his speech, by saying that Man, as created by God, resembles him in his soul (407) and also specifically mentions the existence of moral responsibility as being specific to man:

But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, of freedom, or again, of aesthetic or religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator’s plans. Pope John Paul II, Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 408.

This statement may not specifically address our moral responsibility in a scientific sense, but it does mention our moral responsibility as humans. One possible interpretation of the dominion given to man in Genesis (chapter 1, verses 26-30) is that since we were made in the image of God and given a soul that was the image of His – which presumably included a sense of moral responsibility, we received dominion over the Earth that we might care for it and everything contained within it. Even if you do not accept this interpretation of scripture and the Pope’s speech, the fact that two Popes, head of the Catholic church and leader of all the Roman Catholics in the world, considered keeping up with scientific endeavors precisely so that they would be better advised when making decisions for their flock (John Paul, 406), could be a statement on man’s moral responsibility through their own implicit assumption of that responsibility. The Popes are saying that, as leaders, they have a moral responsibility to be the best leaders they can. In contrast to this discussion of morals, Abrams and Primack don’t seem to consider the moral implications of the newfound knowledge we have. Perhaps they are like the many people who don’t consider religion and technology\science to be compatible (Verschoor-Kiss, 1)? Their only concession to the fact that we as humans may have a moral responsibility is their reference to the fact that, as far as we know, ‘we civilized, intelligent beings are the most complex things we know of in the entire universe’ (Abrams and Primack, 65). Perhaps, once again, this is an implicit recognition of our moral responsibility since we are part of the universe, thus explaining the reason for us being here (Armstrong 2000, xiii) in both a scientific and religious sense, or perhaps the authors simply felt that it was not in their purview to speculate on these matters.

As a whole, both sources feel as though they explain their respective positions very well. I did find it interesting that in chapter one of their book, Abrams and Primack made reference to the Ancient Egyptian theory of creation (6) and not to alchemy as a way of showing the difference between ancient theories and our own. Since alchemy was essentially an amalgamation of the science of time and religious doctrines (Hall, 494), it seems as though it would have made more sense for them to do so, but perhaps they were working on the assumption that more people would be familiar with Ancient Egypt than alchemy. The analogy works, however, and it is a useful springboard for their subsequent explanations of the theories about humans being made from stardust, and the twinned dark energies that make up the universe. Pope John Paul II’s speech to the Pontifical Academy also makes it plain that he considers it to be his duty, as his predecessor Pope Pius XI did, to be open and accepting of scientific theory during his deliberations on the future of Catholicism since that is where the world is headed. While it might seem like the Popes are only accepting scientific input because the world is becoming more scientifically minded, I would still be more favorable towards John Paul since his speech gives a more genuine feeling of a wish for collaboration between science and religion – he makes reference to the fact that they have worked together in the past by referencing Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine and their work on scientific principles through the bible (Russell, 372-373) while Abrams and Primack seem to say that religion can take over now that science has done the heavy lifting, by suggesting that all other creations stories are now worthless.

Neither of the two main sources sounds unduly optimistic or pessimistic – or at least, any more than would be natural for them. The writers of New Universe and the Human Future are scientists first and foremost, and they are sticking to the scientific method of writing by reporting things as they stand, from as unbiased a view as possible. By the same token the Pope, it could be argued, has an obligation to remain optimistic and hopeful for the future by virtue of his position as the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Leaving aside these thoughts, however, the pope’s address to the Academy could be seen as having an optimistic tone:

In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the academy’s refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections. Pope John Paul II, Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 405.

While, as mentioned above, it is really the mandate of the Pope to look to the future of his church and the followers of Catholicism with hope and optimism anyway, there is hope being expressed in this address. As shown in the quote, the Academy exists so that the Pope can be given access to all information, including new developments in the scientific arena, to facilitate his decisions in what would be best for his flock. The optimism comes from the knowledge that Pope John Paul II’s predecessor re-founded the Academy specifically so he could know what was going on, and also in the mention of the complete freedom allowed to the advisors. From this, we can assume that Popes Pius XI and John Paul II at least saw a possible collaboration between the scientific and religious fields. It is a way of seeing the future that has optimism at its heart if they truly believed that such a thing would be possible.

In conclusion, both sources appear to support the conclusion that a middle way between science and religion can be found and followed, in their different ways. While the Pope is, as one would imagine, very much focused on the role of humans, but the mere fact that he has acknowledged the Academy and is prepared to work with it as his predecessor did suggests that John Paul II is acknowledging the importance of science and religion working together and can see a future for them both. In the same vein, Abrams and Primack, while staying within the parameters established by scientific reporting (unbiased, fact-based reporting), also seem hopeful that science and religion can now work together, laying emphasis on the fact that since the people who made the new discoveries about the universe are all of different races and religions, perhaps this new information can be seen as a new creation story that can be shared by all.

Works Cited

Abrams, Nancy and Primack Joel. New Universe and The Human Future: How a Shared Cosmology Could Transform the World, Cambridge, 2011, Yale University Press. Electronic.

Armstrong, Karen. A History of God, London, 1993, Heinemann. Print.

---. The Battle for God, London, 2000, Harper Collins. Print.

Anon, Holy Bible: New International Version, London, 2011, Hodder and Stoughton. Print.

Dawes, Gregory. “Could There be Another Galileo Case?” Journal of Religion and Society volume 4 (2002). Print.

Hall, Manly. The Secret Teachings of all Ages, New York, 2003, Penguin. Print.

John Paul II. “Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22nd 1996” The Evolution Wars ed. Michael Ruse. ABC-CLIO, 2000. Pages 405-411. Electronic.

Polinska, Wioleta. “The Making and Unmaking of Prejudice” Journal of Religion and Society volume 11 (2009). Print.

Russell, Betrand. History of Western Philosophy, London, 1946, Unwin Brothers Ltd. Print.

Verschoor-Kiss, Alex. “Even Satan Gets Likes on Facebook” Journal of Religion and Society volume 14 (2012). Print.