Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200- Seminar in Composition
6 December 2008
The Science of Religion
If I told you I was religious, I would be lying. When I was little, I went to church every Sunday and as I got older, my family and I slowly developed into “Creasters,” only attending church on Christmas and Easter. As of today, it has been years since I have stepped foot in a church. However, this is the story for a number of people now days. For many, time is an issue and attending church seems to be last on their to do list. For me, it was a decision made by my parents, which I then grew accustomed to. But then there are those individuals who have personally made the decision because they have stopped believing in the church and its teachings. My Aunt, for example, stopped attending church in her teen years after researching religious truth and deeming it to be fictional. Now a biology professor, she always invites the Jehovah’s Witness knocking on her front door inside, just so she can banter with him. Although my aunt’s enjoyment in arguing with the Jehovah’s Witness may be taking it a step too far, she is correct in her thinking; religious truth is fictional. Despite the fact that many continue to follow their religious beliefs, science clearly disproves religion.
In Lee M. Silver’s novel Challenging Nature, Silver blatantly challenges a valued religious belief; heaven. He states, “Although billions of people may not know it, the physical reality of heaven was shattered by the Copernican revolution, which began in 1543 with the publication of the ironically titled On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies” (Silver 39). Copernicus proposed that the earth orbited the sun, just like all the other planets, and was not the center of the universe. In addition to this, in 1609 it was discovered that several moons orbited the planet Jupiter, which proved that not all “heavenly bodies” circled our world. Then in the twentieth century, it became understandable that our solar system was part of a much greater galaxy and our galaxy was one of at least a trillion (Silver 39). So, as Silver questions, “Where could heaven possibly be located within this new scientific scheme? If the blue sky is an optical illusion, where do spirits fly when they leave dying or dead bodies?” (Silver 39).
Unfortunately, there are really no logical answers to Silver’s questions. So many of us believe in the reality of heaven, but we cannot seem to give specific answers to questions such as those stated above. To include some of the statistics Silver provided, “When asked specifically whether heaven is an ‘actual’ or ‘real’ place, not just an ‘idea,’ up to 80 percent of Americans say yes, as do 50 percent of the English and 62 percent of Canadians” (Silver 38). Considering America alone, 80 percent is a large amount of believers; believers who are unable to point out heaven on the map. “It is remarkable that residents of western countries think such things, because we are bombarded at school and by television and movies with images of planets that are larger than earth, stars that are distant suns, and dinosaurs that lived eons ago” (Silver 38-39). Even though we are told not to believe everything we see and hear, scientific data is difficult to argue against.
To add to the list of questions we have already compiled, there are several questions surrounding the topic of the human soul. In addition to the Copernican revolution, Aristotle also rebutted religious views, specifically focusing on the soul. As Silver stated, “Philosophers in the classical world made no distinction between the concept of soul and that of the life principle – the thing responsible for animating living organisms” (Silver 41). However, Aristotle was assumed to be the first world-class empirical scientist to offer a practical account of nature. Based on the principle that “…every physical object is defined by a combination of its material substance and the form taken by the substance,” Aristotle expanded his proposal by saying, “…the soul was simply the dynamic form assumed by a living organism” (Silver 41-42). To explain this, Silver added, “In current technical language, the soul is integrated information processing – mediated by software and data – carried by, and in control of, living hardware” (Silver 42). Silver continued by stating, "Just as software cannot exist in the absence of hardware or some other material substance, the animated form or soul of an individual creature or human being cannot exist apart from the material substance of an organic body. When the organic body ceases to function, the soul disappears. Organic material is essential to both life and soul" (Silver 42). In simplest terms, Aristotle was claiming that when you die, your soul dies. So much for life after death.
At this point, whether you are religious or not, things are not quite adding up. Since Aristotle claims that the soul dies with the body, this implies that there is no such thing as afterlife, which completely diminishes the idea of there being a heaven, proving Copernicus’s theory to be true. So why is it that people continue to believe all of this religious nonsense? Two plus two equals four, it is proven mathematically and cannot be argued against. Theoretically, if the bible stated that two plus two equaled five, would everyone who was a strict follower believe it even though the sum mathematically equals four? Now, of course, simple math problems like this are not included in the bible, but generally speaking, the numbers do not add up. As Frederick Turner states it in his book Natural Religion, “If Jesus is literally, as he says, the door to the sheepfold, where are his latch and hinges? Who decides which of the scripture’s words are metaphors, which literal truths? Only authority can, and who certifies the authority?” (Turner 47). Scientific data clearly disproves numerous religious beliefs. Science is supported by facts. What facts support religion?
There is, however, another outlook on this argument. It is clear to see that science refutes religious beliefs and yet science and religion continue to coexist. Nonetheless, many hold the opinion that science and religion simply cannot be compared. Science cannot disprove religion because the two reside in different domains. Or, as George F.R. Ellis states it in When Worlds Converge, "When we compare science and religion, one viable view (Ellis 1993b; Murphy and Ellis 1996; Barbour 1997) is that they explore different aspects of the same underlying reality, together enabling us to attain a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the fundamental nature of things that is both consistent and viable. Either science or religion is incomplete without the other, for providing an adequate worldview" (Ellis 163). By focusing on specific quantifiable issues, science is virtually precise. However, science cannot look at many issues important to human beings. Ellis believes that as more and more scientific discoveries unravel, we begin to forget what science cannot do. He includes a list of several scientific boundaries, which include: aesthetic issues, moral issues, and metaphysical issues. “Science cannot deal with aesthetic issues, because there can be no scientific criteria for ‘beautiful’ or ‘ugly’; no experimental apparatus can scientifically prove a greater aesthetic value in one painting than in another. Art lies outside the domain of science” (Ellis 166). Ellis continues by saying that science cannot take on moral issues because “…no experimental test can prove that some action ought not to have been taken, because ‘ought’ is not a scientific category” (Ellis 166). And, as far as metaphysical issues are concerned, science cannot answer questions, some of which underlie science, such as, why is there a universe? These boundaries that limit science exemplify how science and religion are incomparable.
In addition to George F.R. Ellis, Frederick Turner, as mentioned earlier, shares a similar attitude toward the comparison of religion and science. On the relationship between scientific truth and religious truth, Turner questions, "Are they two alternative and contradictory explanations of the same universe, one true, one false? Do they describe, without contradiction, two completely different universes? Or do they describe the same universe, in different ways? If the last, how are we to describe that difference, so as to avoid bringing the two views into unnecessary conflict?" (Turner 47-48). The idea of there being two different universes is a difficult concept to grasp. And, as if Turner’s ideas were not already complicated enough, he later proposes, "…if God or the gods of the Ground of Being or the Tao exist, then by definition they are within the universe in this larger sense. If ‘in the universe’ means ‘having existence’ and ‘having existence’ means ‘in the universe,’ then a God who was outside the universe would not exist and an existent God would be inside the universe" (Turner 98). Confused yet? The bottom line is this does not and should not make sense. According to Ellis and Turner, religious truth and scientific truth combined do not make sense because they cannot be compared. They are, as Turner stated, “two alternative and contradictory explanations” of the same truth.
Although dismissing the question of how science and religion coexist by simply stating the two cannot be compared makes things a whole lot less complicated, we are actually only avoiding the truth. Reality is as we know it and only one reality exists. And, as much as we would sometimes like to escape this reality, unfortunately, it cannot literally be done. As I stated earlier, the idea of there being two different universes is hard to imagine; so how is this even thought of as a possible reasoning? Ellis and Turner are respectable authors, but their ideas on this topic are ludicrous. Not only are they agreeing upon these unimaginable concepts, but they are arguing against some of the most honorable scientists we know today. Science is supported by facts. What facts support religion? One cannot reference the bible on this question because so many stories have already been refuted. Along with Copernicus disproving the existence of a physical heaven and Aristotle contradicting life after death, the Great Flood is also fictional. William Ryan and Walter Pitman spelled it out in their book, Noah’s Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event That Changed History. In their book, they mentioned the occurrence of the catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea basin, which broke through the Bosphorus about seven thousand years ago. This flood drove human civilizations residing on the coasts of the lake to disperse. So, as Turner points out in Natural Religion, “…the Biblical literalists are faced with a flood that was not a worldwide event,” which is what the Bible proposes (Turner 49). There was never a “Great Flood” that covered the earth. In concurrence, since the Great Flood never existed, this implies that the story of Noah’s Ark is completely fictional; just another fun tale to keep kids coming back for more in Sunday school.
In addition to these scientifically verifiable falsities in the bible, the idea that science disproves religion is supported by the previous attempts of censoring Copernicus’s work years ago. Although by the end of the sixteenth century Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was securely recognized as an important book, and even the most significant astronomical writings since antiquity, the book received harsh judgment from the Inquisition before this time. At first, many, including Lutheran universities, were tolerant of Copernicus’s new ideas about this radical heliocentric cosmology simply because it was viewed solely as theoretical and fictional. However, when Kepler and Galileo came along to further study Copernicus’s theory, they challenged the instrumentalist view of astronomical methodology. “Each of them adopted the Copernican doctrine not as a fictional, geometrical hypothesis but as physical reality…” (Gingerich 272). During their time period, this idea was unacceptable. As Gingerich explains, "Heliocentrism as a device or model was not at fault, but in the eyes of the churchmen it was essential for Copernicus’s work to be perceived as hypothetical and not as physical reality. Therefore, an obvious place to draw the battle lines was on the interpretation of Copernicus’s doctrine" (Gingerich 274). To attempt to deflect any criticism or interrogation, Kepler and Galileo stated that “…the new interpretation of nature did not violate the inerrancy of Holy Writ” (Gingerich 272). Continuing with this statement, “Galileo quoted from Tertullian, who said ‘We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again more particularly, by his doctrine; by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word’” (Gingerich 273). Despite this assertion, the Holy Congregation in Rome suspended Copernicus’s book until adjustments were made to the text. “Decree XIV on the Holy Congregation of the Index, issued 5 March 1616, placed the De revolutionibus on the prohibited list donec corrigatur, ‘until corrected’” (Gingerich 274). These “corrections” were made when Decree XXI spelled out ten explicit alterations to the book. Today, censored versions of Copernicus’s De revolutionibus are scattered throughout the world, but only a few original copies remain in existence. The Holy Congregation’s actions in censoring Copernicus’s work clearly show that Copernicus’s ideas were recognized as a threat to religious truth. The fact that Copernicus’s discoveries had to be censored and edited in order to protect religious beliefs reinforces the idea that scientific facts ultimately falsify religious truth.
In conclusion, science disproves religion. Copernicus and Aristotle, two of the most respectable scientists in history, supported this argument by scientifically contradicting the physical reality of heaven and revealing the truth behind the human soul. And, although many followers continue to hold on to their religious beliefs, or just ignore the facts and come to the conclusion that science and religion cannot be compared, scientific facts reveal the falsities behind religion. Science is supported by facts. What facts support religion?
Works Cited
Ellis, George F.R. “Cosmology and Religion.” When Worlds Converge. Ed. Clifford N. Matthews, et al. New York: Carus Publishing Company, 2002.
Gingerich, Owen. The Eye of Heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler. New York: The American Institute of Physics, 1993.
Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007.
Turner, Frederick. Natural Religion. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2006.
No comments:
Post a Comment