17. Fusing Science and Religion

Those who speak of the incompatibility of science and religion either make science say that which it never said or make religion say that which it never taught. Pope Pius XI (1857 - 1939)

If asked to picture the quintessential scientist, many of us would probably imagine the almost-archetypal Albert Einstein, his fluffy white hair a-tangle; brown eyes warm with wisdom and good humour. Scientists, we hope, are like him: humble, highly principled mental-powerhouses searching for answers that will benefit all humankind. We can hope, but the fact is that scientists are of every stripe. Virtually all accredited scientists are employed or funded by commercial backers who expect results: new sources of profit.

If a pharmaceutical company is researching depression, for instance, the knowledge gained is being channelled through the intellect of the chemist, not the biologist or the neurologist, not the nutritionist, theologian, or the psychiatrist, but the druggist (though all may contribute data). How that information is disseminated depends on the ethics of each person involved. That is not cynicism, nor is it a criticism of pharmacists. Research costs money. Very, very few people are funded if no monetary gain can be imagined from their research.

Evolution means trying new possibilities, making mistakes and correcting them. One of the most fundamental blunders was the belief that questions of ethical excellence belonged in a separate category and therefore had no right to infringe on other categorized inquiries. To restrict the issues of morals and values to narrow jurisdictions of theology, philosophy, and metaphysics was plainly absurd. But that was the inferred premise of the old science: a belief that beliefs (and values) could be stripped away from science and its methodology, and that the Truth of Reality could be reached through “objective” observation. Ignored was the fact that scientists carry with them to their chosen field, their own blend of ethics and values, whatever they are, determining the very avenue of inquiry and affecting the direction and evolution of knowledge.

• "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature." Niels Bohr, Physicist

Old, Newtonian, or classic physics viewed the scientist as an observer who existed apart from, and had no affect on the object of observation, whereas quantum physics recognizes the scientist as an indivisible part of any observation. The “new physics” (new since 1900) hints at a universe so perfectly created that all knowledge and all potential is enfolded in underlying symmetries that give rise to the physical, tangible world. And yet, nearly a century later, many scientists and most non-scientists still think in causal and reductive terms. But the tide is turning; and the scientists of tomorrow are on their way. Let us hope that most of them have strong values.

As the late Carl Sagan wrote in his 1995 best-selling book “The Demon-Haunted World”, “... I know that the consequences of scientific illiteracy are far more dangerous in our time than in any that has come before.”

It is important that we are familiar with the trends of scientific knowledge, so that we may have an informed and confident voice as to how they are applied. Otherwise, we risk becoming little more than ignorant peasants who must dance to the beat of corporate technology's drum, no matter how frantic or erratic the pace.

Crack-the-Whip

It is as if we are playing “crack-the-whip” on an ice-skating rink. We are all at the end of Reality's rope with Science in the lead, searching for the First Cause, and the smallest component of Reality. Suddenly Science reaches the inescapable conclusion that it must change its perspective, its direction. Crack-the-whip! As the wave of change spirals out to Reality, pity those on the very end of the rope, who have ignored both science and religion.

Next: Mind Over Matter - Part I