Under the Microscope: Science and religion tend to chafe against each other, although in principle there is no need for conflict. Science and religion represent different ways of knowing about the world and can happily co-exist so long as neither tries to do the other's job.
Science is materialistic in its operation, but it is not necessary to be a materialist in order to be a scientist. Most of the greatest scientists who ever lived, and many scientists today, were/are religious.
Science is a very successful way of knowing about the natural world, and over the last 400 years has unveiled an amazing story. We now know how the world began about 15 billion years ago in a massive explosion called The Big Bang and how it has since been expanding outwards from that point origin. Two elements, hydrogen and helium, were created in the explosion. We know how the stars were born and how the other 90 naturally occurring elements were forged in stars. We know how planets formed and how our solar system was born about five billion years ago.
We know, in principle, how life began on earth about four billion years ago, and how it evolved into the myriad life forms that live on earth today. We understand the four basic forces - gravity, electromagnetic, and the strong and weak nuclear forces - that determine all physical events in the universe. We know that 5 billion years from now our sun will die and life on earth will no longer be possible. We can project into the dim distant future to a time when all stars have died and the entire universe is a freezing barren wasteland. And, apart from this wonderful basic knowledge, science is of intense practical and economic use because modern economies run on science-based technology.
But, despite its power, science can operate only in the realm of the natural physical world. There are other realms, realms of the human spirit, in which science is not competent. The arts, humanities and religion provide us with important knowledge in these other realms, knowledge that we cannot access through science.
Consider literature and paintings and the type of knowledge they provide. The works of Shakespeare alone are an encyclopaedia of knowledge about human motivations, strengths, weaknesses, desires, actions, reactions, consequences, and much more. This type of valuable knowledge is not accessible through science.
Paintings allow us to explore our feelings, whether these be of admiration, revulsion, awe, horror, tenderness, love and so on. For example, you could learn more about man's inhumanity to man from a five-minute perusal of Goya's painting The Third of May than from listening to a hundred news bulletins. Scientific analysis of the painting would be restricted to a catalogue of dimensions and chemical composition.
Much scientific progress has used a reductionist approach. Complex problems are broken into sub-components and each is studied in isolation before being reassembled into the bigger picture. This approach discovered that our hereditary information is encoded in the chemical DNA. The laws of physics and chemistry explain how DNA works. The theory of evolution through natural selection has shown how structural design automatically develops in biological organisms. But I feel sure that the laws of chemistry and physics will never explain the human spirit (concepts of freedom and beauty for example) and I doubt that natural selection alone will ever explain language, thought, artistic experience, and so on.
Reductionist materialistic scientists such as Richard Dawkins believe that physics, chemistry and evolution will eventually explain everything about humanity, but this belief is more an act of faith than an act of science.
Religion fulfils a basic need of the human spirit and has always co-existed with human society. Religion deals with questions that are not dealt with by science - the purpose of human life, how to live a moral life, concepts of God, life after death, and more. I admit that it is possible for materialistic atheists to develop a decent code of ethics based solely on rational grounds. However, many people experience an inner knowing that behind the outward appearances of the world lies a powerful and loving force that we refer to as God. The only way we can nurture this human instinct is through religion.
Religion has frequently erred by providing explanations of the natural world that conflict with science. Religion has always lost out in these confrontations.
Let me finish with a story. Einstein died and went to Heaven where he was met by St Peter. Peter said, "I'm sorry Albert, but your room is not ready yet. Would you please sit in our waiting room for a short while."
Three others were also waiting and Peter introduced Albert to them. "This is Michael, who has an IQ of 170."
"Wonderful," said Einstein, "We will discuss mathematics and physics."
"And this is John," said Peter, "who has an IQ of 150."
"Lovely," said Einstein, "we will discuss literature and music."
"And this is Pat," said Peter, "who has an IQ of 90."
Einstein looked puzzled for a few seconds but suddenly brightened up and said to Pat: "And how is Manchester United doing in the league?" William Reville is associate professor of
biochemistry and director of microscopy at University College Cork