The Illusion of Choosing Between God and Science
Written on
Chapter 1: The Nature of False Choices
Humanity has long grappled with misleading dichotomies. Whether it’s the one versus the many, the clash of Western and Eastern thought, or the choice between sustenance and liberty, these oversimplifications abound. This tendency to seek simplistic answers to intricate dilemmas often leads us astray. The reality we seek frequently eludes us.
One of the most significant false dichotomies is the one posed between God and science. This dilemma encapsulates the conflict between empirical evidence and the belief in a transcendent force within the universe. This struggle has haunted humanity since the inception of rational thought, culminating in pivotal moments such as 1600, when Giordano Bruno was executed by the Roman Catholic Church for advocating the Copernican model of the cosmos.
In a bid to avoid persecution, Nicolaus Copernicus delayed the publication of his groundbreaking work, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, until he was on his deathbed. Published in 1543, this text revealed that the Earth orbits the Sun, contrary to the then-accepted view of a geocentric universe.
Bruno was not the first to challenge this long-held belief, nor would he be the last. Galileo Galilei, using the recently developed telescope, confirmed Copernican theory in the early 1600s. However, he too faced the Inquisition, which compelled him to recant. Despite such pressures, the truth eventually prevailed, and the Copernican model gained acceptance.
By the time Isaac Newton released Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687, which outlined his Law of Universal Gravitation, science had triumphed over traditional religious views. The false dichotomy between God and science has persisted ever since.
Section 1.1: Evolution and Religious Texts
In 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, detailing the process of evolution. In this work, he posed a critical question:
“Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?”
The answer is evident to anyone who has engaged in horticulture or animal husbandry. Domesticated varieties arise through human selection, while wild species evolve via natural selection, adapting to environmental challenges.
A mere dozen years following The Origin of Species, Darwin released The Descent of Man, asserting that humans evolved from more primitive ancestors, namely great apes. This assertion directly contradicts the creation narrative in Genesis, the sacred text of Judeo-Christian traditions. Consequently, many religious adherents reject evolution, believing that divine inspiration invalidates it. Thus, the conflict between scientific understanding and religious belief continues.
Subsection 1.1.1: The Challenge of Secular Thought
For secular individuals—those who do not subscribe to any religious framework—the choice between science and belief in a deity seems straightforward. They align with philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who famously declared:
“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”
Modern rational inquiry has led to a dismissal of superstitions and myths that once shaped human understanding. Secular reasoning posits that since scientific progress has discredited many sacred texts, no form of deity could logically exist. Like their religious counterparts, secular thinkers also gravitate towards simplified solutions for complex issues.
The renowned evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins differentiates between the conventional notion of "God" as a supernatural being and its looser usage among some scientists. He refers to the latter as an "Einsteinian religion," named after the physicist who held a more abstract view of divinity. In The God Delusion, Dawkins asserts:
“The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible.”
Yet, Dawkins critiques this conflation further, denouncing it as an act of “intellectual high treason.”
Section 1.2: Embracing Nature’s Mysteries
Some scientists reject this flawed dichotomy between faith and science. Figures like Chet Raymo, Stuart Kaufmann, and Ursula Goodenough embrace a perspective akin to that of Albert Einstein. Goodenough, in her book The Sacred Depths of Nature, articulates:
“As I allow myself to experience cosmic and quantum Mystery, I join the saints and the visionaries in their experience of what they called the Divine.”
For these thinkers, the term “God” serves merely as one of many expressions to acknowledge the profound mysteries of nature, perhaps not even the most effective one.
Scientific exploration begins with a sense of wonder. By scrutinizing our surroundings, we unveil facts about the world. Each scientific inquiry reveals a piece of the puzzle, yet the totality of the universe remains elusive. Each thoughtful scientist recognizes this limitation, as does every contemplative individual who gazes at the stars in awe.
The Yankee philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson encapsulated this sentiment in his work Nature:
“The stars awaken a certain reverence, because though always present, they are always inaccessible; but all natural objects make a kindred impression, when the mind is open to their influence.”
Similarly, the Romantic writer Edmund Burke explored this idea in A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of the Idea of the Sublime and Beautiful:
“The passion caused by the great and sublime in nature...is Astonishment.”
Indeed, astonishment unites us all—scientists and non-scientists alike—as we confront the natural world with unyielding curiosity. Many aspects, such as evolution itself, remain profound mysteries. What propels it? The simplest answers, whether theistic or atheistic, are often the furthest from the truth.
Chapter 2: The Pursuit of Truth
I do not claim to be a scientist; rather, I view the world through a philosophical lens, expressing my thoughts as I wander through the wilderness. My exploration of both religious and scientific texts has led me to understand that humanity is often ensnared by misleading choices, with the dichotomy between God and science being the most absurd. The former grapples with the Absolute, a concept that is inherently elusive, while the latter is simply a method of understanding.
When it comes to grasping the fundamental truths of the universe and its underlying forces, humanity often finds itself out of its depth. What truly constitutes nature? As the saying goes: only God knows.
A century ago, naturalist John Burroughs contemplated this very question in Accepting the Universe, concluding:
“Men of science do well enough with no other religion than the love of truth, for this is indirectly a love of God.”
I echo this sentiment. As I observe a flower shimmering in the sunlight, I realize that understanding its truth brings me closer to the divine. Science gradually unveils this truth. If Albert Einstein were beside me, kneeling to admire that flower, I am certain he would wholeheartedly concur.
In this first video, "Oxford Mathematician DESTROYS Hawking's argument (BRILLIANT!): God or Science - Why the Choice?", we explore the clash between faith and scientific reasoning, showcasing the brilliance of mathematical thought in this debate.
The second video, "God vs Science: Which explanation is correct? | John Lennox at SMU," presents a compelling discussion on the intersection of faith and scientific inquiry, providing insights from a renowned thinker in the field.