Does there truly exist an insuperable
contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded
by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise
to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind,
there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration
can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however,
is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by ‘science’,
they are likely to differ on the meaning of ‘religion’.
As to science, we may well define
it for our purpose as ‘methodical thinking directed towards finding regulative
connections between our sensual experiences’. Science, in the immediate,
produces knowledge and, indirectly, means of action. It leads to methodical
action if definite goals are set up in advance. For the function of setting
up goals and passing statements of value transcends its domain. While it
is true that science, to the extent of its grasp of causative connections,
may reach important conclusions as to the compatibility and incompatibility
of goals and evaluations, the independent and fundamental definitions regarding
goals and values remain beyond science’s reach.
As regards religion, on the other
hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals and evaluations
and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting,
as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition
of the human species. Religion is concerned with man’s attitude toward
nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and
communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals religion
attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and
through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts
and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation
and action along the lines of the accepted ideals.
It is this mythical, or rather this
symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into
conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas
contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the
domain of science. Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation
of true religion that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects
which, in fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious
aims.
When we consider the various existing
religions as to their essential substance, that is, divested of their myths,
they do not seem to me to differ as basically from each other as the proponents
of the ‘relativistic’ or conventional theory wish us to believe. And this
is by no means surprising. For the moral attitudes of a people that is
supported by religion need always aim at preserving and promoting the sanity
and vitality of the community and its individuals, since otherwise this
community is bound to perish. A people that were to honor falsehood, defamation,
fraud, and murder would be unable, indeed, to subsist for very long.
When confronted with a specific case,
however, it is no easy task to determine clearly what is desirable and
what should be eschewed, just as we find it difficult to decide what exactly
it is that makes good painting or good music. It is something that may
be felt intuitively more easily than rationally comprehended. Likewise,
the great moral teachers of humanity were, in a way, artistic geniuses
in the art of living. In addition to the most elementary precepts directly
motivated by the preservation of life and the sparing of unnecessary suffering,
there are others to which, although they are apparently not quite commensurable
to the basic precepts, we nevertheless attach considerable importance.
Should truth, for instance, be sought unconditionally even where its attainment
and its accessibility to all would entail heavy sacrifices in toil and
happiness? There are many such questions which, from a rational vantage
point, cannot easily be answered or cannot be answered at all. Yet, I do
not think that the so-called ‘relativistic’ viewpoint is correct, not even
when dealing with the more subtle moral decisions.
When considering the actual living
conditions of present day civilized humanity from the standpoint of even
the most elementary religious commands, one is bound to experience a feeling
of deep and painful disappointment at what one sees. For while religion
prescribes brotherly love in the relations among the individuals and groups,
the actual spectacle more resembles a battlefield than an orchestra. Everywhere,
in economic as well as in political life, the guiding principle is one
of ruthless striving for success at the expense of one’s fellow men. This
competitive spirit prevails even in school and, destroying all feelings
of human fraternity and co-operation, conceives of achievement not as derived
from the love for productive and thoughtful work, but as springing from
personal ambition and fear of rejection.
There are pessimists who hold that
such a state of affairs is necessarily inherent in human nature; it is
those who propound such views that are the enemies of true religion, for
they imply thereby that religious teachings are utopian ideals and unsuited
to afford guidance in human affairs. The study of the social patterns in
certain so-called primitive cultures, however, seems to have made it sufficiently
evident that such a defeatist view is wholly unwarranted. Whoever is concerned
with this problem, a crucial one in the study of religion as such, is advised
to read the description of the Pueblo Indians in Ruth Benedict's book,
‘Patterns of Culture’. Under the hardest living conditions, this tribe
has apparently accomplished the difficult task of delivering its people
from the scourge of competitive spirit and of fostering in it a temperate,
cooperative conduct of life, free of external pressure and without any
curtailment of happiness.
The interpretation of religion, as
here advanced, implies a dependence of science on the religious attitude,
a relation which, in our predominantly materialistic age, is only too easily
overlooked. While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent
from religious or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe
great creative achievements of science were all imbued with the truly religious
conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible
to the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been
a strongly emotional one and if those searching for knowledge had not been
inspired by Spinoza’s Amor Dei Intellectualis, they would hardly have been
capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his
greatest achievements.
|