Science and Religion - A Unitarian Universalist Perspective (priest, ritual)

[Green Gaia]

Science and Religion - A Unitarian Universalist Perspective

by Helen Lutton Cohen

Link here

Stem cell research, reproductive technology, cloning, death with dignity, ever faster and more complex means of communication—the successes of science help us to understand ourselves and our world and make many new things possible, but they also challenge our sense of what it is to be human beings, our ethical understanding, and our priorities.

Though the popular media often presents these questions as science vs. religion, Unitarian Universalists have historically viewed science and religion as compatible. Growing up in the First Unitarian Congregational Church of Cincinnati, Ohio, I was proud that members of my religious faith embraced knowledge of all kinds, were ready to learn and change, and wanted to hold an understanding of the nature of the universe (their theology, I would call it) in harmony with the latest scientific understandings.

One of my favorite Sunday School curricula was Sophia Lyons Fahs’ How Miracles Abound, which explored everything from leaves to the solar system and celebrated our world and our ability to learn about it. My first truly spiritual experience, I think, was looking at the solar system that my Sunday School teacher had drawn on the blackboard and feeling both overwhelmed and lifted up; I was beginning to grasp the immensity of things, my own smallness, and a sense that I was “held” by the immensity.


Embracing Science

In order to understand ourselves as a religious movement, to know our roots, we need to understand how vital to its formation this openness to science and all new knowledge was. Both Unitarianism and Universalism emerged out of Calvinist Protestantism at the end of the eighteenth century, embracing the sense of human possibility, progress, and reason that had developed during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Our movement was founded in the context of a growing curiosity and optimism about the world. We believed with Unitarian minister Samuel Longfellow that “revelation is not sealed.”

Scientist and theologian Joseph Priestley, one of the British founders of Unitarianism, said,

Let us examine every thing with the greatest freedom, without any regard to consequences, which, though we cannot distinctly see, we may assure ourselves will be such as we shall have abundant cause to rejoice in. . . . We scruple not to plant trees for the benefit of posterity. Let us likewise sow the seeds of truth for them. . . . Distrust all those who require you to abandon [reason], wherever religion is concerned.

Unitarians and Universalists alike worked to adapt their religious understanding to the growing, sometimes astounding discoveries of astronomy, geology, and biology.

But even for nineteenth-century Unitarians and Universalists, there were questions about the proper use of science: Would it destroy religious faith? Does it neglect or dismiss the spirit? Can its discoveries undermine as well as support human morality? The first great Unitarian preacher, William Ellery Channing, passionate advocate for reason and education that he was, wrote,

In truth, nothing is more characteristic of our age than the vast range of inquiry which is opening more and more to the multitude of men. Thought frees the old bounds to which men used to confine themselves. It holds nothing too sacred for investigation. . . . Undoubtedly this is a perilous tendency. Men forget the limits of their powers. They question the infinite, the unsearchable, with an audacious self-reliance. They shock pious and revering minds, and rush into an extravagance of doubt more unphilosophical and foolish than the weakest credulity.

In addition, over these two centuries, groups have risen up within our movement that have found science inadequate and sometimes arrogant in its limited picture of what is true. Transcendentalists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, feminists, and recent advocates of spirituality have argued that science ignores the immeasurable truths of the spirit. A divide has arisen in Unitarian Universalism between deductive and intuitive approaches to truth, leading many to question whether science and religion are always compatible.


The Challenge of the Twentieth Century

A general acceptance of science, and of the technology it makes possible, continued to grow among us, however, well into the twentieth century, along with a belief in the goodness of human nature and its continuing improvement through education. These beliefs led to the bold Unitarian affirmation of progress onward and upward forever. In the mid-twentieth century, the theologian Henry Nelson Wieman argued in The Source of Human Good that science and technology will eventually solve the major problems facing humankind.

But at that same moment, human beings were facing the horrors of twentieth-century technology made possible by science. The great Universalist minister Clarence Skinner wrote in 1947,

We have seen in Europe how education can be prostituted and made to serve the ends of destruction. . . . Our culture has trusted too much in facts. It has let science go where it will, serving heathen gods. But we are suffering for our sins. We are enslaved in an age of enlightenment because our enlightenment is not total. We are one-eyed philosophers and have lost the ability to see more than one thing at a time.

At the end of his essay, Skinner concluded, “Righteousness must be founded on truth. It must square with reality. It must harmonize with what we know of the universe. But truth must be righteous. It must serve the good and not the evil. It must seek the Kingdom of Ends. It must serve the moral law.” He was clear, as Channing was, that the scientific search for provable facts and their applications should be guided by our ethical understanding.

Human nature has not changed significantly, and it can still turn any tool or cause to evil. Science cannot be our religion. We need all our ways of knowing—love, reason, experiment, history, psychology, ethical understandings developed through human history—to figure out how to live our lives. We need them all to decide if something is good or bad, whether it is done in the name of science, religion, patriotism, or any other worthy but limited allegiance.


Learning and Wonder

I continue to believe passionately that science and religion are compatible. Individually we may be more comfortable with one approach or another, but we can still recognize that any one approach is limited and needs others. We can rejoice in what they accomplish together.

One meaning of unitarianism is the belief that all that exists is ultimately one, whatever form it takes: matter and energy, body and soul, mind and heart, all living and non-living things, deduction and intuition, emotion and intellect, love and reason, science and religion. We may prioritize our loyalties by the things we feel closest to, but then we use our reason to remember that we are all one. The Big Bang, while we cannot claim it as proven scientific fact, is a metaphor that harmonizes with a belief in unity.

Universalism entails a belief that everything belongs. Science has uncovered enough about genetics to show us that we belong together within the human family, among primates, among all living things, among the stars. We are at once so small and so securely held by and connected with a vastness beyond our comprehension. I felt as a child, and I feel now, the attachment between me and each thing I encounter. In some sense, I love the whole world. God is in the details. When we live in the world with this understanding, there are few simple answers and fewer absolutes. We must be ready to open our minds and hearts to change, however convinced we are. We must also be ready to act, according to our best understandings and with humility.

Science and religion together reveal to us a world of wonder. They make us grateful to be part of it, even in the face of the fear, pain, loss, and evil that are also part of it. So it is that the Unitarian poet minister Robert Terry Weston wrote, at the end of his poem on the evolution of the universe,

This is the wonder of time; this is the marvel of space; out of the stars swung the earth; life upon earth rose to love. This is the marvel of life, rising to see and to know; Out of your heart, cry wonder: sing that we live.


Helen Lutton Cohen is minister emerita of the First Parish in Lexington, Massachusetts, which she served from 1980 to 2002. She is a life-long Unitarian Universalist and the daughter of a research chemist and history teacher.

[(Q)]

But even for nineteenth-century Unitarians and Universalists, there were questions about the proper use of science: Would it destroy religious faith?

Probably not because there are those who will always refuse to listen to reason regardless of the hard evidence put right in front of them.

Does it neglect or dismiss the spirit?

Considering science has not found one iota of evidence to suggest spirits exist, why would they bother to pay it any attention at all?

Can its discoveries undermine as well as support human morality?

Undermine? Science has nothing to do with human morality - it simply answers the question, "How."

The first great Unitarian preacher, William Ellery Channing, passionate advocate for reason and education.

Thought frees the old bounds to which men used to confine themselves. It holds nothing too sacred for investigation. . . . Undoubtedly this is a perilous tendency. Men forget the limits of their powers. They question the infinite, the unsearchable, with an audacious self-reliance. They shock pious and revering minds, and rush into an extravagance of doubt more unphilosophical and foolish than the weakest credulity.

... found science inadequate and sometimes arrogant in its limited picture of what is true... advocates of spirituality have argued that science ignores the immeasurable truths of the spirit

This is not a man who advocates education and reason.

[Runt]

Does it neglect or dismiss the spirit?

Considering science has not found one iota of evidence to suggest spirits exist, why would they bother to pay it any attention at all?

Spirit, hun, not soul. UUs are concerned with THIS life, not the one to come. "Spirit" in this case refers to mental and emotional well-bring, not to an eternal soul. It does generally dismiss the spirit (except in the study of psychology... which is very impersonal).

Can its discoveries undermine as well as support human morality?

Undermine? Science has nothing to do with human morality - it simply answers the question, "How."

You're not thinking broadly enough. Think more in the lines of scientific advancement, rather than scientific study. One example is cloning. Science tells us HOW we can clone. Yet scientific advances in this area can very well undermine human morality. Scientific process itself is neutral... but the "Science" referred by the author is not just a process, but the minds behind the process as well as the developments coming out of the process. Morality has everything to do with Science.

The first great Unitarian preacher, William Ellery Channing, passionate advocate for reason and education.

Thought frees the old bounds to which men used to confine themselves. It holds nothing too sacred for investigation. . . . Undoubtedly this is a perilous tendency. Men forget the limits of their powers. They question the infinite, the unsearchable, with an audacious self-reliance. They shock pious and revering minds, and rush into an extravagance of doubt more unphilosophical and foolish than the weakest credulity.

... found science inadequate and sometimes arrogant in its limited picture of what is true... advocates of spirituality have argued that science ignores the immeasurable truths of the spirit

This is not a man who advocates education and reason.

Wrong, this is a REALIST who advocates education and reason. The truth of the matter, which he touched on, is that science, although it is the most valid way of exploring what is, cannot EVER reveal the whole truth of reality. It concerns itself solely with physical reality, and ignores mental/psychological reality completely. It can tell you HOW to clone a man, but not whether or not you SHOULD. It can give you a list of effects of cloning, but the decision of whether those effects are "good" or "bad" is a question science cannot answer. Furthermore, science IS arrogant, just like the article suggested Channing believed. Every present age of scientists arrogantly believe that they have a superior understanding of the universe compared to other systems (religion, philosophy) of their time, and yet future scientific communities regard the "science" of the past as NO BETTER than the religion they so scorn. And yet these future communities will always repeat the cycle. There are two things you can count on in science; science will use its every facilities to test to make sure what it thinks may be truth IS truth, and most"truths" of science will be rejected as nonsense by future generations.

Furthermore, the scientific community of each generation, including our own, is convinced it has a pretty complete picture of reality, with only a few gaps left to fill in, and yet in truth we cannot possibly make this claim--we have no proof, something which science values so highly, and therefore this belief is no more reasonable than "religious nonsense". We CANNOT have proof that we know almost everything, because in order to do that we would have to know how much there IS to know, and how much we don't know. We have no way of measuring the quantity of that which we do not know, nor do we have a weay of measuring the quantity of that which there is to know. Therefore, while science thinks it knows pretty much everything, it may really only know an insignificant, minute fraction of the truth.

Again, the referrance to Science's arrogance, and the reasonable doubt expressed toward Science, make Channing a realist who still advocates education and reason.

[(Q)]

"Spirit" in this case refers to mental and emotional well-bring, not to an eternal soul.

Then they should say, 'mental and emotional well-being' as their use of the word spirit is disingenous, babydoll.

Yet scientific advances in this area can very well undermine human morality

Oppenheimer invented the a-bomb, but it was a politician who ordered it dropped on a city. Science had nothing to do with it.

It concerns itself solely with physical reality, and ignores mental/psychological reality completely.

What is mental/psychological reality? And the only reason why science concerns itself with reality is because reality is all that has been shown to exist.

It can tell you HOW to clone a man, but not whether or not you SHOULD.

You just supported my argument.

Furthermore, science IS arrogant

No, people are arrogant - science is a methodology devoid of emotion.

Every present age of scientists arrogantly believe that they have a superior understanding of the universe compared to other systems

I don't think they 'arrogantly believe' they have a superior understanding, maybe some. But if they are experts in their field, would they not have a superior understanding over others who are not?

science will use its every facilities to test to make sure what it thinks may be truth IS truth, and most"truths" of science will be rejected as nonsense by future generations

Science continues to test evidence and observations and is set up so that future generations MUST have the ability to reject current theories. That is the entire fundamental idea behind the scientific method. It must be falsifiable.

Furthermore, the scientific community of each generation, including our own, is convinced it has a pretty complete picture of reality, with only a few gaps left to fill in

Sorry, I've never heard a scientist make such a claim. Those claims usually come from theists.

Again, the referrance to Science's arrogance, and the reasonable doubt expressed toward Science, make Channing a realist who still advocates education and reason.

Your argument could not be further from this conclusion.

[Runt]

"Spirit" in this case refers to mental and emotional well-bring, not to an eternal soul.

Then they should say, 'mental and emotional well-being' as their use of the word spirit is disingenous, babydoll.

No, sorry. "The Spirit" is generally used to refer to "mental and emotional well-being", not to the soul. Why elaborate upon an already perfectly understood term?

Yet scientific advances in this area can very well undermine human morality

Oppenheimer invented the a-bomb, but it was a politician who ordered it dropped on a city. Science had nothing to do with it.

Science had everything to do with it. Science is more than just the scientific method or scientific knowledge. It is a process of men using the scientific method to gain the scientific knowledge about the universe necessary to manipulate the universe. Therefore it is perfectly appropriate to question Science's involvement in issues of morality.

It concerns itself solely with physical reality, and ignores mental/psychological reality completely.

What is mental/psychological reality? And the only reason why science concerns itself with reality is because reality is all that has been shown to exist.

Mental/psychological reality is everything that is a part of a human's perception of reality that is ignored by science: morality, value, symbols, emotions. Is human life important? Is there such a thing as right and wrong? What is beauty? What is ugliness? What is quality? These things play a role in the daily life of every human, and yet are ignored by Science. Does this mean they do not exist? If not, then why do you so passionately think science is a much more valid way of knowing than religion? This is a question of value, of quality, and emotion, none of which are even a part of the physical world explored by Science. If they do not exist, then we shouldn't even be having this conversation... and if they do exist, then Science does not deal with the totality of reality.

It can tell you HOW to clone a man, but not whether or not you SHOULD.

You just supported my argument.

No, I supported mine, which is that science doesn't have an answer for everything.

No, people are arrogant - science is a methodology devoid of emotion.

Science doesn't exist without people. It is used by people to achieve the desires of people. People are full of emotion. Scientific knowledge may be devoid of emotion, but scientific pursuit is not.

I don't think they 'arrogantly believe' they have a superior understanding, maybe some. But if they are experts in their field, would they not have a superior understanding over others who are not?

Very true. However, you took my comment out of context. The next sentence talks about how future generations reject the "expert knowledge" of past generations. Which is to say that perhaps present generations should be a little less convinced that they really know anything, because they should KNOW that in the future scientists will probably be laughing at their "expert knowledge".

Science continues to test evidence and observations and is set up so that future generations MUST have the ability to reject current theories. That is the entire fundamental idea behind the scientific method. It must be falsifiable.

Obviously. But how valid can scientific knowledge really be when we know historically that everything but the most obvious of scientific knowledge may eventually be rejected, and that some of WILL be rejected? It means there is no real reason to trust present scientific knowledge, because you know in the future some, if not all, of it will be considered fallacious.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Runt

But how valid can scientific knowledge really be when we know historically that everything but the most obvious of scientific knowledge may eventually be rejected, and that some of WILL be rejected?

Given that "most obvious" is only most obvious in retrospect, the answer is: as valid as possible. Perhap you can suggest some other type(s) of knowledge verified to be be more "valid"?

Originally Posted by Runt

It means there is no real reason to trust present scientific knowledge, because you know in the future some, if not all, of it will be considered fallacious.

Absolute, disingenuous rubbish. You evince a trust in present scientific knowledge [sic!] enumerable times daily, including those times that you carry out a web-based dialogue without displaying the slightest hint of distrust in the broadbased science that makes it possible.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Runt

Mental/psychological reality is everything that is a part of a human's perception of reality that is ignored by science: morality, value, symbols, emotions. Is human life important? Is there such a thing as right and wrong? What is beauty? What is ugliness? What is quality? These things play a role in the daily life of every human, and yet are ignored by Science.

Are you sure science doesn't deal with these things? For example, we could take a scientific poll and figure out what percentage of the population think that "human life is important". We can use science to figure out that we are living organisms designed to procreate (it's in our genes to want to survive). We can carry out experiments testing how people respond to seeing other people getting killed...and we can look at all these results and make conclusions based on them as to whether or not "human life is important". Emotions can be studied and understood scientifically as well...just look at all the medications out there designed to curb depression etc. And neurological scientists certainly can be said to study the mental/psychological reality.

[sisjadie]

I heard somewhere that "science without religion is materialism and religion without science is superstition." This is a short version of the Bahá'í belief on this issue.
With such a vast ammount of studies out on different scientific aspects of life, and with the many religions in existence it is often hard to match up which ones truely follow science. Not to mention that in the scientific field, we don't know everything yet. So it could be that while a religion states one thing, our scientific knowledge may not be as advanced in that particular area yet.
Just my point of view.
~J

"Furthermore He proclaims that religion must be in harmony with science and reason. If it does not conform to science and reconcile with reason it is superstition. Down to the present day it has been customary for man to accept a religious teaching even though it were not in accord with human reason and judgment. The harmony of religious belief with reason is a new vista which Bahá'u'lláh has opened for the soul of man."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 247)