Science or Religion: Why can't We have Both?
Posted: Monday, December 01, 2008
by Dianne Lehmann
Artisan Jewelry from SyZyGy
I had the good fortune to have several very fine teachers in high school. But one stands out beyond all the rest. I will call him Mr. W. I first had the good luck to get him as my basic science teacher and then for both years of biology.
We covered it all in his classes; anatomy, botany, photosynthesis, insects, fish, mammals and birds. We talked about the cycle of life and death and decay and what powers the cells of our bodies. He taught us about paleontology and evolution. He was a model for me of a rational, well-educated man of science. Imagine my surprise when I found out he was also deeply religious.
My father died of cancer the summer before my senior year. I prayed to God every night to cure his cancer and let him live. I also prayed for a quick end to the Vietnam War. Well the war dragged on and on and Dad died anyway. I was never all that convinced that the Christian God of my mother's church existed and yet I felt betrayed any way. It all seemed so unfair. Hadn't I been diligent? Did I deserve this? So I was finished with God. At seventeen, you do not yet know that life is not fair. The universe doesn't really give a hoot about what you think is fair and not fair and that fairness has little to do with God. When I asked that question of Mr. W, I was fairly certain what his answer would be. Instead of answering though, he asked me a question of his own.
What makes you think that believing in God is incompatible with evolution and scientific pursuits? He always did know what was on my mind.
So I asked him what about the Big Bang Theory? Didn't that explain where the universe came from? His point: what made the Big Bang? Why did it happen? Couldn't God have set things in motion? Couldn't God have arranged the initial conditions such that life had no choice but to develop? Couldn't God be so long seeing that he saw we would result and attain self consciousness? Obviously, he had a much broader definition of God than my mother's church ever provided me. He was giving me something I could wrap my rational mind around at a time when my belief in any kind of God was lacking. Even so, he made it clear that he did, indeed, believe in the Christian concept God.
None of his questions can actually be answered, just as the ultimate question of whether or not God exists can not be answered. There are those of us for whom faith is enough and others of us who must question everything. There is a place for everyone in this universe and a place for every philosophy. One is no more right than the other.
Mr. W had more to say to me and it made a funny kind of sense to me at the time and has colored how I think about God to this day. I say that we can indeed have both religion and science in our lives; that spirituality need not be exclusive of science or vice versa. That they should compliment and temper each other. All you need is tolerance and a willingness to entertain other ways of looking at things without feeling threatened in your beliefs.
Peace to us all.
This Article has been viewed 1,309 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentshi dianne,this was a well written, and interesting article. i think they should have used you as the model for the statue of "the thinker" no? :)everyone thinks they have the answer because they read it in a book, or think it in their mind, but the truth is, none of us know anything for sure. we believe whatever makes sense to us and carries us through our trials and tribulations. thanks for a good article, that makes us "think!"my best to you,sueHi Sue.All I have are questions ... so many questions. They might be my downfall. According to my sister they are. Oh well, it won't stop me.Thanks for reading and commenting.Hugs,Dianne
Hi Dianne,
Your main point is well-taken. "Tolerance." We should be more tolerant of differing viewpoints and beliefs. I do not agree with some of what you said but that does not mean: 1) You get one star because you do not think like me on topics. 2) I will no longer leave you hugs when I feel stirred to do so 3) I think you are a moron or an idiot 4) I have less respect for you. It means none of these or anything else other than we differ in opinions and beliefs about some things. I still enjoyed reading your thoughts and getting to know you better from this article. I think we can have Science and Religion. I think we do have them but not agreement about them.
So, I don't think what you asked will happen. Tolerance of one another differences, should happen.
Hugs,
AvisHi Avis.Chances are there will never be agreement about them. I just wish there were more openness to differences. Here's what my faith in mankind tells me: It will happen one day. I may not live to see it, but I believe it.Hugs to you,Dianne
Science & Christianity goes together hand in hand. God created everything naturally. He is not a unnatural God but a supernatural God.Good writing....Keep it up...Hi The Candles.Thanks for the encouragement. But I'm not often inspired to write about religion. It's a subject I tend to shy away from due to the many very "lively" discussions I have had in the past with people of the Christian faith.The issue I feel most strongly about isn't actually whether or not God exists, but how we treat one another, i.e. tolerance. Oh well, I've already spent too much time on my soap box. I'll get down now.Thank you for reading and taking the time to comment.Dianne
BoyHowdy! Your courage is growing in leaps and bounds, Dear Dianne! I'm giggling as I type. I love your piece and your subtle way of inspiring tolerance. I could (and am!) write volumes on this particular subject, but I'm going to do it in book form. This way, people will have to pay to read what I think...and then they won't be able to "blame" me for disagreeing. (gee. does that sound naive or WHUT?!) Anyway, thanks for the lively article. I think you're pretty terrific, whether we crawled out of some ooze or we were 'made by the hand of god'. Either way, it sure makes for some fun meandering, huh?Hugs and Giggles~CamilleHi Camille.I have to admit that I was a little worried about the comments this article might receive. Well, not so much the comments themselves, but how well I might be able to handle them. I am more fragile than I like to admit to myself and am easily sent off my center into self doubt.I am not so sure about "fun meandering" but it certainly makes a lot to think about.Thanks so much for reading and for your kind comments.Dianne
Dianne,It is interesting that you should have to feel defensive and have doubts about an issue that the mainstream scientific community and believers of all faiths find compatible - the evolutionary process and the Bible. The Bible was not mean't to me a geological textbook, but rather God's revelation to man. Genesis 1 does not indicate that the world was created in 7 literal days. Days in the Hebrew are interpreted by Christian scientists as "periods" or time frames. As you say, I believe that God breathed life into this planet and at some point in the evolutionary process, He imparted a spirit into mankind. Sounds reasonable to me, and it meets the criteria of the scientific method. There is nothing controversial about your article. It makes sense in light of one's experience and current scientific evidence. Thanks for great work.Hi James.You know that if the universe is about 15 billion years old (newest estimate based on string theory) and you divide that by seven "days", you get each "day" equal to about 2.14 billion years. Those are some looong days! :) I'm not making fun really. I just don't really know how to respond to your comment.I'm sure Sue Thom would just advise me to thank you for taking the time to read it and comment on it. So, thanks.DianneDianne,You obviously missed my point! This was supposed to be a spoof about the literal translation of Genesis by some creationists. Please re-read my comment. I was indicating that the evolutionary process did take billions of years and if you wanted to build a case for Genesis you would have to look at it from the perspective of looooooong periods of time. I'm not saying that looking at it that way is accurate. I believe in the scientific method. That's one of the reasons why I went to college. Peace.Hi James.Thanks for the clarification. I was confused. Unfortunately, as good as we writers are supposed to be at using words, our true intent doesn't always come through. I know that it really is almost impossible to accurately predict how any given person will perceive the words that I write. Actually, I was just being silly with my response to your comment. Bad me! :)Call me thick headed, but I re-read your first comment and I still don't see in it what you clarified in your second comment. But that's okay with me if it's okay with you.Thanks, James, and I wish you peace also.Dianne
Dianne I have no problem with science and God. God was pretty smart about it all. Let me see, everything in this universe is made of ATOMS. The single smallest element. Then again we have bio metrics which differentiates us each from one another. Can we speak of being formed from the dust of the earth? Well let me see, what do we eat and drink? What are we made of. Have you taken your vitamins today? Well it is right on the bottle. Then again our very bodies inside and out and how they function. No Dianne, no problem with God and science only men. Good article.Hi Robert.Thanks. I think I really needed that. And that's all I'm going to say. :)My best regards,Dianne
Hi Dianne,I used to struggle with this too, but evolution is still a theory. I believe that the animal kingdom did evolve. That in itself does not conflict with the Bible. What does conflict with the Bible is the idea that human beings evolved from apes. Now, you can believe that or not, but I think that many Christians do not believe that because the story in Genesis states that God made man out of his own image and likeness. With that in mind, and other creation stories in the Bible that follow, many Christians believe that Man and Woman were Holy creations. And because evolution is not proved to be a fact, however it seems more rational in the animal kingdom, Christians are hesitant to believe it. It isn't that Christians are ignorant. They just have a deep respect for God and feel that God wouldn't have created a monkey "in his own image and likeness" The creation of mankind was a separate event than the creation of the animal kingdom in Genesis. I think what it comes down to is whether or not someone believes the Bible to be the Word of God or not. It has nothing to do with education or lack thereof. The evolvement of the monkey to man has not been proven, and it is still a theory, not a fact.However as I said..I do believe that the animal kingdom did go through this evolution process, yes.As far as the Big Bang theory, there is no contradiction at all. In fact, it supports it.Another thing too is that although we know of prehistoric man..they were still not homo sapiens. They were different, not nearly as intelligent, and they did not have dominion over the earth at that time.Or if you say well, they were man and woman. You could also call them male and female. There are male and female animals..but God makes no reference to them.Also, homo sapiens do not have any inherent instincts. Even a baby need to be taught to " latch on" to a woman's nipple; but animalssomehow do not need to be taught this. ( or atleast as far as I know) Or what about cats? They have an inexplicable instinct that tells them to go wee wee in the litter box. ( lol )Now, I would never pull my kids out of schools that taught the evolution theory. If we ever were to determine that it was indeed a fact ; let's say..homo sapiens begin to change over time into something else. Then of course the matter would be indisputable.So, all I'm saying is that there is another idea out there that also has yet to be proven or disproved. I don't know. If it were, then Chrsitians who refute evolution will have to rethink the story in Genesis. It could be a metaphor..for example.Humans have tons of inherent instincts. A human baby absolutely knows how to latch on to the nipple. Our central difference is that we cannot survive unless someone takes it upn themselves to nuture us.Hi Anonymous.Thank you for reading and slogging through all those comments. It's been pretty lively hasn't it?And here I go again. We just need more nurturing and longer care than do other animals due to the load of things we have to learn. The size of our brains and heads require that we are born "sooner" and less fit for survival on our own than we might be otherwise. Baby animals are better suited to becoming independent sooner than we because they have less to learn, smaller heads and can develop more fully in the womb or egg. But they still require someone to care for them for a time ... mammals and birds at any rate ... or they might not survive childhood.None of this means I don't believe in God. I just have my own ideas about it.Thanks again for reading,DianneHi again, Jennifer.As anonymous said, humans have tons of instincts and yes, there is much that we must be taught, but even kittens do actually need to be taught to bury their urine and feces. Also I have watched a new mother cat push her little kitts toward her nipples. Until she did, they did not know what to do. Once there, luckily, they did know how to suckle as do human babies. And they returned to the same nipple they started with based on the presence of their distinct scent.And yes, Homo erectus, etc. were not Homo sapiens. And actually (here I go again) we classify ourselves as Homo sapiens sapiens, which does allow that early man was also intelligent and self aware.We are still changing over time. Some young people I know do not have wisdom teeth. Not because they have been removed as mine were because there was absolutely no room for them and there were growing directly under my last molars, but because there is no need for them any longer and they are proving not to be an asset, but a detriment.I'm sorry. I didn't actually write the article to get into debates about whether or not evolution is a valid theory or whether or not God made man and woman whole and complete as we are today. I really only wanted to make my usualy point about tolerance. Wah, Wah, Wah. But this certainly has been interesting.Because I preach tolerance I do my best to live it as well. I am not adverse to entertaining other ways of looking at things. In this I am nothing like the character Sheldon on TV. I am very capable of changing my mind and beliefs when I feel it is warranted. And I would never try to convince someone that they should believe other than how they believe. That's their business, not mine.So thank you again for your thoughts.DianneHi Jennifer.This is a lot to take in and respond to. So I will take it comment by comment.Those who are supposed to know never say that humans evolved from apes. They maintain that a split occurred in the genetic tree and one branch lead to humans and another lead to apes. I know, I'm picking nits. Do you ever watch the TV show, "The Big Bang Theory?" If you do, well, I tend to have a lot in common with the character named "Sheldon."I don't believe I have ever said that people of the Christian faith are ignorant. Because you brought that up, I am imagining that this is something you think others think about such people. And indeed, there are some who might think that, but I do not.As for "in his own image and likeness," it's hard for me to take that literally. Rather, I think that is meant to indicate likeness in spirit, a goodness, compassion for others, love and kindness. Early man (supposing the fossil record is correct) at least demonstrated that they could live together in large groups. That they raised their children in a community that fostered cooperation.We have so much in common with the animal kingdom. Is it so hard to think that we evolved also if the animal kingdom did? And what is wrong with that? As I said in my article, couldn't God be so long seeing that he knew if he set the initial conditions just so, that we would result? Couldn't that have always been God's intention?Well enough of this one. I'll move to the next one and see what drivel it inspires me to write.Thank you, Jennifer, for taking the time to put down your thoughts for me. I really do enjoy looking at this issue from other people's perspectives. It helps me to figure out how I feel about it.DianneWee, the animal kingdom also live in groups and raise children in a community ( much morse so than humans, I must say) elephants, penguins, etc..Knowing this, there must be some greater difference between us.As far as Homo erectus ( wow, what a weird name, eh?) lol Anyway, I find it hard to believe that God thought of them as being in his own image and likeness, if even in spirit and intelligence. But, I know what you are saying.As I said, it really comes down to your spiritual beliefs, until it is proven with absolute certainity. Or how you interpret the story of Genesis. I don't have any problem at all with interpreting it metaphorically. :)Over all though, I don't know why people think that science disagrees with religion. I don't see it that way at all because of intelligent design.btw..Did you know that Nazism hailed Darwin as one its founding fathers? Their whole ideology was based upon its principals of "survival of the fittest".Just an fyi..I don't want to get into a huge debate over it.Best,JenniferHi Jennifer.It's true, anyone can take anything and make of it an excuse for behaving badly. It doesn't mean the thing itself is inherently bad.Take care and be happy,Dianne
I do believe God created the world, however the issue is how did he create the world. science can explain a lot about creation. Sometimes I wonder if the "sun" in the sky is God, an intelligence looking over us all.Hi David.Since the sun is the source of energy for life on earth, I can see why you might wonder that.Thanks for reading and commenting.Dianne
Hi Dianne, you are coming out of your shell, its great to see...or read rather.Very well written and I love the personal touch of including your experience with your teacher.Di you know that Science is in the bible? They are to go hand in hand. Some here already pointed out differences of how God chose to create according to Genesis, so I won't rehash that. I love how in Isaiah and Psalms we read about how the earth is round and a group of atheist scientists used that to prove the Bible wrong because they were still convinced the earth was flat.It is sad that there are extremes on both sides, I think Science and Religion can go together as I believe God intended it. It does boil down to tolerance and respecting differences of opinion.Another problem is that some people consider someone (such as my self) intolerant because I stand on my firm convictions of believing the Bible to be the word of God. Yet I do not consider someone who opposes me as intolerant. Agreeing to disagree and still be friends is what I believe we as human beings are suppose to be doing.Thanks for a well-written article. I am soooo proud of you :-)Love, TeresaHi Teresa.Thanks. But it may be a while before I take on another article like this one. It's been a bit exhausting.And thank you for realizing that what I really was writing about was tolerance. Or at least that was my intention. Unfortunately :) it is one of my "favorite" subjects and I thought it would be good to come at it from a different direction for a change. Imagine my surprise to get so many comments.I don't consider people who stand by their beliefs to be intolerant, just forthright and dedicated. To me, intolerance is an unwillingness to let others have their own views.Sleep well,DianneI think you generated wonderful conversation. No fighting or intolerant comments, just great perspectives and points of view.And I know you don't consider people like me intolerant--I love your definition of intolerant. It is a beautiful thing.You are a very special friend and person. Get some rest :-)I hope I sleep well. My antibiotic makes me nausous. I can't wait to be all done. But thankfully I'm doing better everyday.Hugs, Teresa
Nice article Dianne. I also have many thought on the subject (see my article "Who is God"). I have read many books pertaining Religion vs Science, as a matter of fact, I am presently reading The Field by Lynn McTaggart.A reporter that writes about many scientists, Astronauts, and laymen that have written and experimnted, verifying that there is a common thread that unite us all, called the Zero Point Field. It is very deep into science and appears that once you get into the subject you may enjoy it.Jose WerHi Jose.Thanks for the recommendation. I will look into it. It sounds interesting.Thank you also for reading and taking the time to comment.My best to you,Dianne
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.