Science and Religion

Beliefs are usually shared by a group, and exist under official banners as part of religious institutions. They are often connected to ritual. Faith helps explain the world and answer untestable questions—where the world came from, why it exists, and where everything is ultimately going.

Science is a method of pursuing truth that involves forming a hypothesis, testing it through experiments that can be empirically observed and repeated by others, and thereby providing evidence to support or refute the hypothesis. Much has been said about the tension between these two general fields of human thought. Both have strengths and legitimate uses in various spheres. To delay action till knowledge is certain would be paralyzing, and so faith moves us forward; to act without imagining possible outcomes, learning from the results, or recording them for future use would leave us in a culture of ignorance and duplicated failures.

Faith and science are two paradigms, lenses through which we can view questions or explore the natural world. It is healthy and worthwhile to use both mindsets. They are not always contradictory. The perceived tension between them is actually between people, not ideas—theists, who rely solely on faith while discounting science, and atheists, who discount the value of faith in favor of pure empirical data.

Atheism itself is not science; it is also a belief system. Atheism is the firmly-held belief that there is no God. The only way to demonstrate that there is no God would be to become God, because one would need to be all-knowing and all-seeing to scour the vastness of space and time to prove no such being ever did, does now, or ever will exist. The hypothesis that there is no Supreme Creator of the universe does not lend itself to easy experimentation outside the laboratory of the mind. Until it can be tested experimentally and empirically, it is a belief, suspicion, hunch, or inkling held by its proponents. A belief must bear the burden of repeatable, empirical experimentation before it qualifies as science, and atheism has not yet cleared that bar. Atheism is a belief, not a tested scientific theory.

There are people spearheading a broader movement of aggressive evangelistic atheism. There are those who are actively attempting to force religion from the arena of public discussion and policy-making. At the same time, atheism is being surreptitiously established as the de facto state religion. School textbooks are forbidden to mention God for fear of offending someone, either religionists or atheists, who might consider it an attempt to force another’s religion onto them. Yet no one worries about offending theists by asserting the unproved belief in the non-existence of God, or interfering with public prayer, or forcing an atheistic belief system on others. Some claim that avoiding all mention of God in public institutions is merely avoiding preferential treatment of any one religion or faith structure. But the narrative required to replace any mention of God is typically the one that presupposes there is no God—atheism. Using tax dollars or state institutions to teach the belief that God does not exist is no different from using state funds to support Hinduism or Catholicism. Just because atheism lacks a hierarchy, ritual, or official organization does not keep it from being a faith—an untestable belief about God. This is not freedom of religion; this is freedom from all religion except atheism. True fairness would mean allowing all viewpoints to be included, rather than giving one of them preeminence while silencing all others.

I have no problem with institutions conducting themselves according to a particular belief system, but it would be useful if the nature of that guiding paradigm would be clearly stated at the outset by some of them, specifically institutions of higher learning. Instead of implying, "We teach nothing but the real, objective, scientific truth, undiluted and unswayed by personal belief," it might be more honest to say, "We prefer the atheistic world-view flavor of belief, and teach accordingly, while welcoming those of other faiths to examine our belief system."

Indemonstrable Beliefs

Secular humanists lack scriptural canon, but many promote widely-held articles of faith that directly influence public opinion and the creation of laws. Many of these widely accepted secular doctrines have poor foundations in empirical evidence.

The need for population reduction is one such belief. If population control is passed on as a virtue to the next generation, there may not be a next generation; those for whom it is not a virtue may simply replace them (which is actually happening in Europe and some places in North America today). If the richest, healthiest, best-educated people stop having children, what will be the result? The advantages of education, health, and wealth are most effectively transferred from parents to children—not laterally. If a person's presence makes the world a better place, passing on genetic advantages and values from that person to children who take his or her place in the world is a good thing. The wealthier, healthier, and wiser a person, the better it is for them to have more children.

Not everything in the hazy canon of modern secularism is founded on reason or evidence.

Creationism Versus Blind Chance

There are many items in the scriptures that do not seem harmonious with scientific theories about geology, biology, or paleontology. Some categorize all religious beliefs and the scriptures of every religion into one library, apply the sweeping label of "mythology" to it all, and walk away without having to do the tedious work of examining any of the texts. Contradictions between various religious creation stories do not make all of them false.

One skeptic stated that the “onus,” the burden of proof that God is real, is on believers. Life and the orderly nature of the cosmos is pressing evidence that Someone designed and organized them.

Many vehemently, angrily refuse to even admit the possibility that life is not an accident.

Life comes from life. It is silly for anyone to claim that all life is a massive, cosmic accident when biochemists are incapable of creating even single-celled organisms from raw materials. When they demonstrate the ability to create a living thing from raw materials capable of reproducing itself with no pedigree of procreative descent from other living things, then they will have a foot to stand on when they make imperious pronouncements about the presence or absence of a Creator. Re-enacting an accident should be easy; if it is complicated instead, that is evidence that the accident did not happen. Repeatable results are the essence of science, the burden of any idea that wishes to qualify as science. A hypothesis must be tested in the laboratory before it can be acceptable. If life is an accident, then blind chance or rolled dice are smarter than some of the smartest people on earth, because no one is yet capable of deliberately duplicating the creation of life from raw materials.

Because only life can generate life, it is more plausible that life has always existed; that it came from somewhere else (whether accidentally or more likely on purpose); that it transcended the Big Bang. Life may also be evidence that the Big Bang never happened.

While three-dimensional living things are still too complex for humans to manufacture from raw materials, some have tried to make simpler computer simulations of life. One scientist developed a computer program (called “Life”) in which squares on a grid would follow simple mathematical rules for lighting up or deactivating other squares next to them. Depending on which rules he entered into the computer, when he set it in motion it could sometimes generate and animate two-dimensional objects that would behave like organs or bacteria. He concluded from this that his computer program had demonstrated that there was no Creator. Yet he seemed unaware of the fact that the program itself had a creator—him. If he had not designed the program, set parameters, and put things in motion by hitting ENTER, nothing would have happened. If any lesson should be drawn from what he did, it should be that random chance is not as effective at generating life as intelligence applied in deliberate action.

Scripture and Archaelogy

Many note differences between the scriptures and geological, archaeological, and even paleontological evidences of creation. My response is that the Bible is not a primer in biology (or any other branch of science). It is meant to teach us about history and man’s relationship with the Creator, not the exact number of years the earth has existed, or other knowledge unnecessary for salvation. The purpose of the account is to inform us of our spiritual dilemma (among other things), and how we can deal with it. “Six days” of creation has been taken literally, or transposed to a more comfortable six thousand years by some creationists. Modern leaders of my faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have referred to six creative periods, symbolically called “days” in the Genesis account. In six days or billions of years, the account is written for comprehension by the simple, not comprehensive scientific explanation of the complex.

The Creation account gives us context, meaning, our place in the grand scheme of things. God makes the earth, fills it with living things, puts humans on it, and gives it to them as a wedding present. They live in ignorance and innocence until Satan tempts them to acquire knowledge in a forbidden way. They give in; they gain new knowledge and realize they are naked. Satan gives them inadequate clothing to accommodate modesty. They have more knowledge than they are able to live up to. God solves their problem by providing adequate clothing to cover them, and eradicates the disparity between their level of education and how they ought to be living. This story is applicable to each human on a deeply personal level. It helps us understand our relationship to God, and informs our behavior here and now. All of us can see a difference between what we know we should be doing, and what we actually do; the Atonement of Jesus Christ covers this disparity and protects us from justice.

This narrative instructs the reader about the human predicament, and the solution, more than it tells us where the earth came from. It teaches more about why God made the earth than how. This account applies to each person on earth in a personal, meaningful way. The same cannot be said for a clinical description of geological time frames or cosmic evolution. And there are indications in (LDS) scripture that all accounts of the creation are still incomplete.

In 1833, the prophet Joseph Smith received a revelation from Jesus Christ about His Second Coming, and some events that would transpire then. Jesus will bring new information: “Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and end thereof...” (D&C 101:32-33). I take this scripture to mean that no one, whether atheist or believer, scientist or creationist, has the full picture of how the earth was created yet; that God is aware of that information gap; and that Jesus Christ will fill in the gap after His return. No one knows everything the formation of earth entailed. Perhaps this verse means Jesus will explain how the scriptural accounts of Genesis overlap with geological evidences. Perhaps He will explain the fossil record and what role, if any, evolution played in the creation. No one is required to pretend that all knowledge is currently in his or her possession, or be offended when new information contradicts personal interpretations of scripture.

Evidence and Proof

Science as a system of acquiring information does not declare anything to be permanently "proven," or provide a stamp of once-and-for-all certainty to any concept. In science, the closest an idea can come to being firmly proven is a well established, well-tested hypothesis, a theory. Experience has shown that long-held beliefs can be rewritten or even upended by new discoveries. While many things are improbable, true science never completely rules out anything. The door is always open a crack, even for the most implausible ideas. This is a strength, because it makes the corpus of scientific knowledge susceptible to advances and adaptation. It is also a weakness, because it denies a firm footing, absolutes from which to build a system for morality, to those who subscribe exclusively to science. Today’s incontrovertible laws are obviated by tomorrow’s updates.

To be scientific is not only to admit the possibility of error, but to embrace it enthusiastically. It includes a kind of nomadic inclination, an eager anticipation of the next big innovation that will change everything and require adherents to pull up stakes and relocate. Each new discovery necessitates reeducation and new textbooks. Inconvenient revolution is the price of scientific epiphanies. Researchers actively attempt to cause such upheavals; aside from contributing to the sum total of knowledge or sharpening our collective focus, those responsible for massive revisions achieve a kind of immortality, legendary status.

Recent scientific advances and theories have demonstrated that just because an idea does not harmonize with everyday experience does not mean it is false. Einstein theorized that the faster you move, the more you weigh and the more slowly you age, that time itself is flexible. This makes little sense to me; I have tried to wrap my mind around it many times. Occasionally I feel like I have a grasp on the general concept, then it slips away. But evidence supporting his assertions pops up in extreme circumstances. Adjustments must be made for slight relativistic effects that influence the accuracy of GPS systems. So Einstein’s weird assertions that do not line up with common sense or everyday experience were right.

"Proven" is a subjective term. It says more about the observer's state of mind than it does about reality. Something is “proven” after an individual accepts it as such. Proof only exists on a person-by-person basis. Consensus or rejection by any community is evidence, not proof, that something is true or false. There are massive layers of human interpretation on top of any belief or idea. The most we can say about an idea and remain objective is that it is true or false. Every description beyond that becomes an editorial commentary about the idea's originator. Brilliant, deceptive, clever, genius, revolutionary; these descriptions conflate the subjective interpretation of an idea with the accuracy of the idea itself.

Science is adept at explaining the WHAT; it is less versatile in explaining the WHY. Faith attempts to explain the meaning of life, WHY we exist, and morality begins to emerge from its assumptions that cannot be proven. If the planet and all life are merely accidents, then there is no objective right or wrong. Why not depredate the planet? Because God made it, gave it to us out of love as a gift and stewardship, and expects us to treat it with the same kind of parental kindness He shows us. We are accountable to Him for the use of such gifts.

Accountability For Knowledge

There are good reasons why God hides from us in general, rather than walking down the street in public.

Some people demand absolute proof before they will believe in God. What would be the outcome if their wish came true? The restored gospel is about more than finding truth—it is about behavior, desires, what we choose to do. Scripture describes numerous people who witnessed miracles and refused to change their ways in response to them. These accounts are strong evidence for the validity of scripture. A fictional account would invent miracles as compelling people to believe, and depict a mighty change in the behavior of the witnesses. (Advertising agencies depict healthy people eating junk food and drinking alcohol; a made-up scriptural account would be equally optimistic.) Instead, we find the people in scripture rebelling and rejecting miracle-working messengers. This is consistent with modern human behavior.

There is not as strong a correlation between behavior and knowledge as some purport or suppose. Donuts and cigarettes are evidence that this is true. Almost no one wants to shorten their lives, yet these popular products shorten life demonstrably in almost all cases. People who consume these things want to be healthy and live long lives. Yet photos of rotted lungs do little to stop smokers from smoking. Threats of obesity and heart attacks do little to deter donut consumption. Miracles, however irrefutable, also have limited impact on long term behavior patterns. They tend to confirm what believers already believed, not transform unbelievers into saints.

Regardless of how compelling evidence may be, it does not force anyone to conform their behavior to it. Jesus performed many miracles, but the scriptures record that the general response was underwhelming, especially when He asked people to change their behavior. Many people went right on doing what they were doing.

Ignorance is innocence. Choices bring natural consequences, like burning a finger in a flame, whether we understand fire or not. But God will also administer justice sooner or later, and the gap between what we know and what we did is the degree to which we will be culpable, the degree to which God will administers justice. When we do what we know to be wrong, we are heaping condemnation on ourselves. To give people absolute certainty without giving them power to live up to that knowledge puts them in danger of incurring justice. It makes them more answerable for what they are doing wrong. A declaration from the sky proclaiming God to be real would set most of the human race up for condemnation; we are not ready yet.

Ignorance is not a permanent shelter; we are meant to learn and grow, but that learning and growth only happens as we conform our behavior and intentions to our level of knowledge. The Lord gives us knowledge after we exercise faith and demonstrate that we are willing to live up what He has in store because then it is safe to do so.

Miracles and amazing displays lack power to convert behavior in the long run; what is needed instead is a way to change our nature so that we can then conform our behavior to new knowledge. Then it will be safe for us to witness or learn anything, miraculous or otherwise. And the gospel of Jesus Christ not only makes provisions for such a personal change, it demands it.

We are not required to dangle permanently in suspense, forever relying on faith without valid, tangible confirmations. But these things are administered by God, who is trying to teach us lessons in the laboratory of uncertainty. Character develops here; courage and other virtues can only be displayed when not everything can be comprehended. Perfect certainty would eliminate the chance to grow. Such growth precedes having important questions answered in God’s plan. But to those who are ready for it, who are able to make behavior conform to knowledge, God will withhold nothing.

“We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things...” (Articles of Faith 1:9).