--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For over three centuries, our culture has been experiencing a profound tension. We have learned volumes about ourselves and the universe through science, but many of these scientific discoveries have challenged our traditional concepts of “meaning.” With the advance of scientific knowledge, our faith systems have increasingly been called into question. For now, it seems that the “truth” which science conveys is largely incompatible with the “meaning” which religion seeks to uphold. Some notions tend to differ not only among religious traditions themselves but moreover between these diverse traditions and science. In some cases, the views of science and religion may outright clash. In others, science may even dispute the validity of various religious claims. Although specific distinctions between science and religion can be oversimplified, it should be acknowledged that important differences do exist. These differences largely derive from conflicting ways of knowing, or epistemology. Religion typically emphasizes faith, intuition, and reliance on a higher knowledge beyond the individual, while science relies on methods of empirical reasoning and deductive logic for understanding the world. In other words, this epistemological discrepancy can be generally regarded as a difference between the “subjectivity of faith” and the “objectivity of reason.” Although this distinction might be quickly fading due to recent breakthroughs in neuroscience, it is crucial to acknowledge the traditionally apparent discontinuity between science and religion. Their underlying differences and their neglect to dialogue cause the present tension between what we perceive as “true” through science and what we traditionally conceive of as “meaningful” through religion.
No one can be sure whether this tension between science and religion can be reconciled, although it is the hope and aim of many to do so. For any effective reconciliation to occur, religion and science should however maintain their differences to an extent because each offers a unique worldview. In addition to preserving their differences though, there must be ongoing, mutually-enhancing dialogue between them. Such a dialogue will facilitate the dynamic integration of the two while discouraging the conflation of each in the process. Before seeking any integration however, a differentiation must first occur. Therefore, it is necessary to explore their differences by examining the context of modern science’s emergence.
Much of modern science stems from discoveries during the European Renaissance and the age of Enlightenment by Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Bacon, von Leeuwenhoek, and Lavoisier among others. Its rise was further influenced by a wide variety of factors including an increase in trade, political revolutions, and technological innovations. Furthermore, it even has some roots in the medieval pseudo-science of alchemy-an amalgamation of mysticism, psychology, and primitive chemistry. Principally however, modern science developed in implicit reaction to the religious domination during its early formation.
Every facet of European life, including education, business, and government, was run by the religious institution. The authority of religion and its basis for truth was not to be questioned but obeyed. The major scientific discoveries that first challenged religious doctrine were therefore vehemently shunned and its discoverers often silenced. For example, Galileo’s observation that the earth revolved about the sun, which was based on the calculations of Kepler and Copernicus, threatened traditional theology. Religion therefore retaliated by condemning any challenge to its doctrine as heresy and grounds for excommunication. In effect, it had already deemed science as entirely incompatible before even entertaining the potential truth in its observations. Nevertheless, scientific inquiry persisted despite hostile religious authorities, and in the late 1300s the European Renaissance began with the period of Enlightenment following soon after. Some important factors of the rise of modern science during this time were: the Reformation, the invention of the printing press, the rise in aristocratic political influence, the expansion of trade, and the renewed interest in humanism and secular Greco-Roman culture. As a result of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, many came to exalt scientific empiricism and began to criticize traditional religious views.
The scientific method has since proven very beneficial in a number of areas and has offered amazing insights into the evolving diversity of life, the complexity of the cosmos, and the probabilistic behavior of quantum matter. Invariably though, despite its ongoing progress and profound contributions to society, science has historically failed to address existential questions. Existential questions are those concerning the “meaning” of life, where “meaning” is defined as indicative of purpose and possibly even higher intelligence. By restricting itself to the treatment of only empirical data, science then has been inherently limited from exploring questions of apparent existential import. Considering such limit, these questions have traditionally been reserved for religion. The historical temptation for science, however, has been to ignore these questions on the grounds that they could never be intelligibly addressed if they could not be addressed via scientific means.
And so for now, a daunting chasm spans between science and religion, challenging the likelihood of constructive dialogue between them. To use the phrasing of biologist Ursula Goodenough, science is seen to deal typically with “how things are” and religion with “which things matter.” Although this stance has given science a solid basis from which to explore the natural world, it has far from placated religion. According to theologian Matthew Fox, religion has received the short end of the bargain since its claims about the universe are increasingly being supplanted by newer scientific ones. The world, says Fox, has been cheated of the soul and the cosmos of spirit. Science has the authority to speak on things “natural,” but religion seems restricted to things “supernatural.” The additional and perhaps more troubling problem with this separation, according to the religious perspective, is that once the boundaries are set in this way, science can dismiss the so-called “religious questions” and continue with its empirical endeavors. Unless something can be observed and tested via scientific methodology, science may therefore regard it as unreal and consequently irrelevant.
Such disregard however may undermine the possibility of reconciling the different worldviews of science and religion. Without mutually acknowledging the validity of the other’s distinct pursuit and outlook, no integration seems possible. Religion, instead, still largely bemoans the sense of a “lost unity,” or fragmented worldview, for which it blames science. Conversely, science still tends to berate prevailing religious claims as merely delusive and repressive. Both accusations though likely stem from dubious assumptions. On the one hand, religion tends to assume that a unified worldview existed in the first place. If it did not, as Ken Wilbur deduces in The Marriage of Sense and Soul, then maybe the call for “re”-unification is less plausible. That is, if there were no “unity” to begin with, then not only is there none to return to but also there may be none even realizable. Rather, as paleontologist Loren Eiseley points out, the inability to identify completely with either the natural world or the spiritual realm may simply be a fundamental condition of being human. The sense of loneliness, incompleteness, and the struggle to reconcile differences-to relate and belong-may just be a part of the human experience. And so, science is unlikely the sole culprit for such feelings if they have been with us since our evolution. On the other hand however, the scientific community’s ridicule of religiosity is likely based on the assumption that any questions of spiritual import are inevitably unintelligible because science has not been able to observe the existence of a spiritual reality.
Very importantly however, one need not refrain from addressing questions that appear unanswerable. Moreover, the lack of answers need not deter the pursuit of them. Science, however, has generally avoided many of the existential questions about matters such as the “soul” and “purpose,” and has typically left them at the door of religion. Now though with the advances of neuroscience, some (but, significantly, not all) of the very questions that science long shunned are being explored with the help of cutting edge brain-imaging techniques such as PET, CAT, and SPECT scans. For example, concepts about the self and “self-reflexitity”-or one’s ability to reflect back upon, perceive, ponder, and possibly alter oneself and to form the very “concepts about the self”-were once typically considered unverifiable and speculative. They were matters reserved exclusively for religion and philosophy. Now, these concepts and others have become increasingly legitimate scientific questions via observation of the brain’s neural activity. To begin with, the neurobiological correlates of processes less complex and controversial than specifically “self-reflexivity” have been discovered. Emotions, for example, have been observed as the result of various neurotransmitters interacting among specific neural pathways. In addition, much more is understood about the particular neural processes of vision and speech. With the quickening advance of scientific knowledge about the brain, some believe science may eventually be able to identify the neurobiological correlates of the sense of self and “self-reflexitity,” typically assuming the material “brain” and the idea of “mind” are one and the same. Clearly with these discoveries, the relationship between religion and science would become even more ambiguous.
Again, notions of soul and self have been the subject of religion and philosophy for some time. But to their chagrin, the latest findings in neurobiology suggest that certain neurochemical processes in the brain may be responsible for “self-reflexitity,” or, more generally, for notions of the self, mind, and consciousness. And so, some are beginning to argue that the activity of trying to make sense of the world, to relate to it, and to generate/comprehend meaning in it-which is predominantly associated with ideas of a soul-is reducible to complex neurochemical firings in the brain. If such a discovery could be made, the ancient epistemological question still beckons though: What is true and on what basis do we know it? In other words, is it possible to understand our minds and the dynamic of self-reflexivity if with what we are reflecting back on to understand such is the very mind itself? Furthermore, is “meaning” itself constructed in our minds alone or is it perceived with simply the help of our minds in a reality extrinsic to ourselves? The epistemological question is perhaps the eminent question needing to be addressed from the perspectives of both science and religion. It is likely the quintessential proverbial ‘fodder’ for stimulating dialogue and possibly enhancing the relationship between the two.
The pivotal epistemological question can also be couched in a more religious tone: Is religious feeling just a mental fabrication or a sublime indication of a spiritual reality? In this manner, the question more directly speaks to the prevailing tension between the worldviews of religion and science. For instance, the question very closely pertains to some implications in the research of neuroscientists Andrew Newberg and Eugene d’Aquili, who were able to view the brain activity involved in alleged mystical experiences of Franciscan nuns and Tibetan Buddhists. They found that an area called the “orientation association area” in the parietal lobes, which provides a sense of distinction between “self” and “world,” was virtually inactive according to SPECT images. They concluded that the diminished activity of this area might account for the characteristic mystical description of limitlessness where the boundary between “self” and “world” seems transcended. The question persists however: How real is a mystical experience if our only access to evaluating it is ultimately subjective? After all, neuroscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran has documented countless reports of self-deception where the mind paints a false picture of reality such as the case of anosognosia, in which a paralyzed patient consistently denies her own paralysis, or with schizophrenia, where the patient cannot distinguish certain auditory and visual hallucinations from reality. Again then, how do we know for certain that something like a spiritual experience is real if our only basis for determining its reality is itself questioned? Such a dilemma has led many philosophers of the mind to rethink the realistic extent of certain knowledge. Some, like Daniel Dennett who espouses a rather materialist perspective, have entirely embraced the likelihood of science “solving consciousness”; whereas others, like David Chalmers, Paul Ricoeur, and so-called “mysterians,” feel that a complete explanation is much less tenable. They instead suggest that science may never really be able to afford us complete certainty.
This claim characterizes the prevalent reaction of religion in response to what is perceived as an “invasion” of the self and soul by science. Religion has begun to shift from lamenting a “lost unity” to insisting on the separateness of scientific and religious truth. In the face of science’s apparent effort to objectify traditionally religious concepts like “soul,” religion now embraces the idea of an irreducible distinction between its outlook and the scientific. In relation to Ken Wilbur’s claim, preserving a distinction between science and religion may actually enable a constructive interaction between the two. Efforts which otherwise seek to completely merge them will neglect their important differences, whereas efforts to further divide them will neglect their potential similarities. And so, to seek any relationship between religion and science other than that of ‘dialogue at a distance’ may jeopardize the possibility of their eventual integration.
Ultimately, science seems unable to ever confirm or disconfirm religious claims, and so they will likely both continue to exist. The question remains how they will exist in relation to the other. Will it be a predominantly combative or collaborative relationship? If they should not and cannot ever assimilate the other, how then will they interact? One suggestion is that although religion and science will likely never share any specific, static “point of convergence,” they might be able to share a general, fluctuant “area of convergence.” That is, the two may never be united once and for all, but they may be able to continually challenge and contribute to each other in a significant dynamic way.
Nonetheless, science will (and should) seek to identify the neurobiological correlates of consciousness. Similarly, religion will (and should) strive to uphold the ideas of an irreducible soul. From both perspectives, the issue of reducibility may be finally a moot point however. As Dennett notes, “The question is, is there always a residue left over that the other side [mysterians and religion] is right about, that is simply unreachable by objective science? They say yes, I say no, and in a way it’s a point of faith.” Admittedly, concluding on the inconclusiveness of knowing sounds paradoxical, like the claim that religion and science must remain distinct in order to interact. Yet this understanding may bear the only semblance of truth accessible to our minds. Although the question of reality and knowledge may be unanswerable despite (and somewhat as a result of) scientific understanding, both religion and science can still potentially interact in this uncertainty. Neuroscience may continue to make many advances about brain activity even during spiritual experiences. However, it might also continue to discover a residual uncertainty in determining the reality of such experiences. It is in this questionable uncertainty that science and religion may importantly be able to acknowledge each other’s legitimacy and interact more constructively.
As science endeavors to understand more, it may continue to encounter an arguably fundamental uncertainty in the world. In other words, science may repeatedly recognize that something seems to remain continually uncertain even as science increases its knowledge of the world. If this is the case-this perpetual encounter with uncertainty-and if science further acknowledges this to be the case, then religion possibly can assert some of its claims about truth and reality alongside science’s claims. However, religion can legitimately do so only as long as it acknowledges the validity of scientific claims in turn. Thus, science and religion would both be attempting to speak about reality in their own way, while respecting the other’s attempt as well and acknowledging the uncertainty beneath both their claims.
Therefore, perhaps we can never know for certain whether what we perceive is real and true. With the help of science, we are coming to understand that what we conceive of as meaningful can be very subjective, or at least inter-subjective. For instance, we don’t know whether a spiritual realm exists or is projected by the mind, itself arguably a mere illusion of the materially-evolved brain. Like Dennett observes though, it is somewhat a matter of faith, at least for now. In some ways, science almost points to the inevitability of some uncertainty. Religion then typically ‘fills in the hole,’ as it were, although its claims, since based in this uncertainty, cannot be confirmed one way or the other. Ultimately, it may depend on the individual according to specific life experiences and societal influences. In light of such pragmatism, William James probably best articulates the factor of individual predisposition in belief and unbelief in The Varieties of Religious Experience. Acknowledging the question of the origin of a religious experience-whether we know if it’s materially-derived or divinely-mediated-James instead emphasizes its unequivocal value to the individual. He writes, “Like love, like wrath, like hope, ambition, jealousy, like every other instinctive eagerness and impulse, [religion] adds to life an enchantment which is not rationally or logically deducible from anything else. …Religious feeling is thus an absolute addition to the Subject’s range of life. …If religion is to mean anything definite for us, it seems to me that we ought to take it as meaning this added dimension of emotion.” Admittedly, the value of religion may not insure its validity. Again however, validating a particular spiritual experience may simply be out of our minds’ reach. Perhaps then, we should acknowledge the uncertainty but also challenge it. We can challenge it by questioning the extent of it and in turn possibly expand our understanding. But perhaps we question not just in order to understand more but because the mere asking is part of who we are. Robert Torrance remarks on this need to question and “quest,” calling it, “[one’s] uncompletable endeavor…to be fully [oneself] by becoming continually more.”
If the present uncertainty is inevitable, need we still cease our questions, our hope for greater knowledge and meaning? Maybe not. The presence of the unknown might instead potentially encourage our understanding further. Perhaps we need the sense that the knowledge and meaning we lack do exist but are on the horizon. The horizon then evokes in us a sense of wonder akin to religious feeling, which might be profoundly part of being human and further may uniquely facilitate the interaction between religion and science.
Even if we are just a chance conglomeration of chemicals, we still yearn for a sense of worth and meaning in the universe. Some scientists even, like Goodenough, admit, “Humans need stories.” Our struggle to realize meaning, even if it isn’t verifiable, may be a universal aspect humanity. As Albert Einstein knew well, it is our capacity to wonder, to feel awe in the face of the unknown, that is the most beautiful and potentially mystical experience we can have. It is the source of all our creativity and understanding. In turn though, the wonder itself can be inspired by the fruits of such understanding and creativity. Returning to Goodenough, even scientific understanding can evoke religious feeling like awe and wonder, which she calls “religious naturalism.” Therefore, a potential reciprocity exists between wonder and understanding. Wonder not only can summon the drive to know and understand more but also, conversely, can itself be intensified by greater knowledge and understanding. Such a relationship between wonder and understanding might greatly enhance the dialogue between religion and science. Moreover though, it could even foster a deeper sense of connection with and appreciation for the natural world.
And so, especially with the advent of neuroscience, the future relationship between science and religion is uncertain. The basis of spiritual experience and meaning is being examined in ways never before possible. Some neurobiological findings suggest that religious feeling arises simply from material processes in the brain and evolved for survival and social cohesion. The question prevails though: Is God just in our heads or do our heads simply connect with a God, or spiritual reality, “out there”? The silence of the unknown for now is the only sincere response, although we should continue asking this question. Whether religious or not, we encounter the uncertainty when we ask, and perhaps, like Torrance claims, it’s in asking or “quest”-ing that we become more ourselves.
Religion and science most likely cannot converge. Most likely they should not. Each is rich and contributes more to our worldview in remaining distinct. However, perhaps the best way to contribute is by collaborating in some way or another-even if it be criticizing the other. They should at least speak to one another, acknowledging the other’s presence and influence, even if it be only argumentative. A static point of intersection between them may not exist, but at least an area of interaction may still be realizable. This area of interaction may change from time to time, but as long as it exists, science and religion may gain from the other and be more effectively integrated. In order to do so, they will have to continually confront the challenges each poses to the other. As in any relationship, each encounter is always a new challenge because those encountering are ever changing and growing individually. What may be crucial, however, is a degree of humility from both science and religion in each encounter and exchange. This means that each should remain open and respectful to the other and should moreover honor the universe whose mystery each uniquely seeks to probe. The role of humility need not belittle the significance of this human endeavor though. Instead, this humility can be balanced by a sense of empowerment and the celebration of human achievement. Both the combination of wonder & understanding and humility & empowerment in the face of uncertainty, therefore, are potentially vital ingredients to the integration science and religion.
Scott Phelps is from Kingston Springs, Tennessee and currently attends The College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. He has created his special study are called ‘Neuroscience and Religious Experience’ through the Interdisciplinary Program at the College. He loves to hike in the mountains, listen to Irish music, and read poetry. Scott hopes to continue his education and perhaps to become a professor and study the relationship between neuroscience and religion or religion and ecology. This essay was a joint winner of the 2002 Student Essay Competition supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation.