The dichotomy of man: Religion vs. science

Abstract

The dialogue and often the dispute between religion and science can be said to have started, in its modern form, in the controversy between Thomas Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce concerning Darwin's theory of evolution.1 Prior to that point, and ever since the Renaissance, the scientist was likely to whisper those of his views that might be considered heretical,2 and the power of the church carried the day in differences of opinion. Since that time, there have been scientists who have lived comfortably with their religious views and whose expositions of these principles have probably met with ready acceptance by theologians; William James and his The Varieties of Religious Experience is a good example.3 There have been scientists who have expounded their religious views in such a way as not to obtain the support of other scientists; thus while Albert Einstein says that "only individuals of exceptional endowments" rise above the anthropomorphic conception of God, in his own exposition of "cosmic religious feeling" he uses anthropomorphic analogies and speaks of the superior intelligence revealed in the "harmony of natural law."4 On the other hand, his opinion that the man of science cannot accept the concept of a personal God is not likely to be greeted with enthusiasm by theologians. Other scientists, such as James B. Conant, say that religion and science cannot have a dialogue, since they are on different levels of discourse; they "constitute incompatible universes of inquiry"; this leaves little room for rapprochement and mutual understanding.5 There are scientists who, in their efforts at reconciliation of the two bodies of thought, merely reiterate their religious teachings and beliefs, and so bring no new viewpoint for consensual enlightenment.6 When the religious man says: "It is never a matter of objective propositions amenable to verification. By its very nature, religion demands our participation rather than proof or verification," he speaks ana thema to the scientist; what cannot be objectively verified to an independent observer is poppycock to the scientist.7 When the illustrious John Dewey says: "any activity pursued in behalf of an ideal and against obstacles and in spite of threats of personal loss because of conviction of its general and enduring value is religious in quality," his word carries no cogency for the scientist who, by this definition, is being religious every day of his life while perhaps maintaining that