Has Science Made Belief in God Obsolete?

I read this chapter about a year ago for Honors Colloquium, and this is the main reason I chose this book. I want to start out by quoting the very last part of the chapter.

If religion is fully humanized and open to the critical methods and established truths of the sciences, and if science is used in the service of human welfare and the flourishing of all sentient beings, there can be a long and positive future for human life and whatever forms of life may develop from it. That is only likely if scientists and religious believers engage in a serious, sensitive and inquiring conversation. For that to happen, both fundamentalist religion and fundamentalist atheism will have to be set aside, in favor of something more self-critical and humane. If that does happen, religion will not disappear, but it may, and it should, change. (243)

This is coming from Keith Ward, an ordained priest of the Church of England and a comparative theologist. I read over this many times because I was very confused. Religion should change? Is that what he meant to say? Yes, the only way practical science will be able to continue side-by-side with religion is if religion makes way for it.

The chapter beings by Ward describing the three ages of the world as we know it: the age of religion, followed by the age of metaphysics, and ending with the age of science. He talks about how in the age of science it is very difficult to "see" the transcendence of religious experience and of God as the Ultimate Power.  He says that scientists tend to lack the imagination or sense of metaphor that help others to see signs of divinity, and without this, Biblical faith is very difficult to find. He goes on to say that faith is not based on inferential reason, but rather, personal experience. That is why there is no proof of God's existence and there never will be. How do we find faith, then, in something that can never be proven?

Can the beginning of the universe ever be proven? As I said in my first blog post, the answer is pretty much no. Ward admits that it simply makes sense to believe in God as the ultimate creator. If we are able to see Him as a rational mind with a plan for the universe then our faith will follow. Ward writes that using reason to interpret scripture is very important. We must read and understand the teachings of the Bible. Reason, however, does not equal faith. Our faith is the application of what we gain from scripture in our everyday life. It is believing in God and his plans for us and relying on Him to get us from one day to the next. There is no way science can help us in this way.

In the past few years, I have come a long way in establishing my religious beliefs. I was raised Catholic but stopped going to church when I was around seven. I started going back to church on my own my senior year of high school and taught a faith formation class to kindergarteners during which I read common Bible stories, played games, and sung songs about Jesus. Since I have been at Baylor I haven't gone  to mass much, usually only when I go home once a month. Obviously, I am interested in the sciences. I study biology and chemistry. I never realized how much the Biblical story and science conflict, I guess because I hadn't thought about it much before I took Biblical Heritage and Contemporary Ethics. It is difficult to answer the questions discussed in this book because you basically have to choose a side, there is really no feasible combination of theories. As far as creation and evolution go, I have pretty much stated my answers already. God created the universe, and evolution followed and continues due to natural selection. God does, indeed, exist and we can say so by using personal experience and scripture as the basis of our faith.


Because I am still working on shaping my faith, the integration of science and religion is very easy. For those that are solid in their "sides" that they choose (either religious or scientific), Ward is right, a conversation between the two does need to occur. Interpretation of the scripture should allow for science to interweave and play a role in one's understanding of the universe. And if it does, the world will be in perfect harmony. In addition to being a Christian and a scientist, I am also an optimist. We will leave it at that.

Can Science Provide and Wholly Naturalistic Explanation for Moral and Religious Beliefs?

Whenever I think about the origins of morality, the field of science never crosses my mind. I stopped going to church for a very long time (I started going back within the last 4 years), but when people asked me why I acted "good" or made altruistic decisions, I could only think "because it is the right thing to do." What makes it right or wrong? Where do we get this universal sense of goodness/badness in actions and what powers our decision making process?
In this chapter, Ward seeks to answer the same question that we have been tackling all semester. How does morality relate to religion? We all wonder where human beings gain their sense of morality. It could be tradition, religious practices, or sociological factors that contribute to our decision making process; we cannot actually define the source. What Ward confidently claims, though, is that morality is not based in biological factors or the sciences. He explains, the "sciences are concerned with how things are, and morality is concerned with how things ought to be" (197).

However, there is an upcoming theory that counters that claim, and it is called sociobiology, or evolutionary psychology. In 1975, E. O. Wilson published a book about his study of sociobiology in which he connected moral thought with genetic inheritance. He claimed that we believe and act the way we do because all other (negative) tendencies are wiped out in evolution. Altruism exists because the chances of DNA propagation and survival are higher when one acts towards the common good and is self-sacrificial. Ward thankfully turns this theory down. This scientist was drawing his beliefs out a little too far. There is really just no way our morals are genetically implanted in our DNA. It is possible that we "inherit" our sense of good and bad, but only because it is something that is taught at home.
*I will reiterate what I talked about last time though. Although morality is not based in science, it is required IN scientific practice! 

So, is our sense of morality based in religion? What about those that do not believe in a higher power? At the beginning of the chapter, Ward talks about morality in the Semitic religions as well as with Eastern traditions. For the Eastern traditions, like Buddhism, for example, there really is no law and no Supreme Being to serve, but the goal is to realize that we do not own anything on this earth and pass beyond material desire until nirvana is reached. The unattachment from the material world helps one to act for the common good. There are no absolute commands, just natural moral precepts based on the human condition.

For Semitics, the focus in life is to serve the Divine Goodness, so actions are in accordance with religious law. As Christians, we do not use the laws dictated by God to Moses directly, but instead use Jesus' life as an example of how to live. Some may act "good" because they don't want the punishment that is promised otherwise. It is better, though, that we live for the ultimate good because eternal happiness is promised when one acts in accordance with God. Why not live in happiness to serve God when we are promised the best gift in return? We should still fear God, no doubt, but fear shouldn't consume our lives. Instead we should make decisions that promote our own happiness, as well as the general happiness of others, as a way to serve God and fulfill our covenant as human beings.  It is easier to think about it this way than it is to think about the punishment we would receive if we were to transgress.

Ward does not really offer much concerning the morality of those that are atheist. He mainly just says that altruism resonates more with those that believe in a god than those that don't, but I think that atheists are still able to act towards the common good. They know what is right and wrong based on common societal values. Because most associate with a religion and act a certain way in society, it becomes a social norm to make decisions that promote the good of all. Morality, then, has a basis in religion and is reinforced by norms set up in society: at home, at school, etc. Moral behavior is contagious. If one is acting justly towards you, then it is right to return the kindness. Again, this takes root in the Bible and is practiced by most in society.

Is Science the Only Sure Path to Truth?

Or can religious experience count as evidence?

This was a very difficult chapter to get through. It almost felt like I was interpreting Aristotle again. It is very confusing, but I'll go ahead and give it a try.

Ward begins this chapter discussing experience as a basis for modern religions. He writes, "most religions are distinctive in the experiences they favor and seek to sustain, in their myths or stories, in rituals, doctrines, ethical codes..." most of which have a basis in authoritative experience (162). Jesus and Moses, for example, directly hearing God's words; the prophets and their interpretation of Jesus' teachings; Hindu scriptures learned directly from the gods by ancient sages: all of these are religious experiences and are what make each religion distinct from the next.

What do scientists have to say about the Objective Reality given by religious experience? In essence, science and religion are based upon the same type of claims, founded on sensory experience and apprehended as objective reality. "Many philosophers," Ward says, "agree that all knowledge begins with experience. But what they do not agree on just what 'experience' is" (167). The difference between religious experience and scientific experience rests in the proof, as discussed in the chapter about miracles and their validity. In order for a scientific measure to be universally accepted, it must be experimentally proven. Experience cannot serve as an objective reality. A better place for experience to reign is in the literary arts, not science.

Ward then discusses the values in science, which relates to what we are discussing in class (cloning, medical technology, etc.) He states, "For anyone concerned with human values, value-free science is something to fear" (173). He is right. The field of science as a whole does, indeed, take values into consideration. More specifically, the values of truth, compassion, and responsibility. Without taking these to heart, science is capable of mass destruction. How do these values in science tie into one's faith? Ward establishes that not all "factual beliefs are scientific beliefs," and, "there are no objective values that would exist independently of human beings" (175). This is a fact. Facts that aren't scientific can be historical, mental, or goal-oriented. This is where the argument gets confusing. Ward has defined experience and where it is best served; he has defined the term fact and how it is used in our lives; however, how do these concepts all tie in together?

The answer  to the original question is that religious experiences cannot be factual or universally accepted, but they can serve as Supreme Spiritual Reality. There are limits to the methodology of science, and there are questions dealing with fact and reason that science cannot answer. This is where religious experience comes in. It can be trusted if, and only if, the merits of the experience (the character and conduct of the experient), are worthy of belief.

Is it Still Possible to Speak of the Soul?

Ward asks, does science allow for the possibility of life after death? He defines in this chapter the meaning of a human person. We are composed of two bodies: the material body (the flesh, blood, bones, etc.) and the spiritual body. The spiritual body, or the soul, can only be defined with negatives. It is not the material body. It is not seen and cannot be defined in a certain realm. What, then, is a soul? In a relgious sense, it is what transcends our body after death. Those that believe in reincarnation believe that the soul is moved from body to body and, when they reach moksha, their souls are united with the gods.

The main question posed here is, we always speak of the soul as if it is part of our makeup, but can we really define that as part of human person? Science originally pointed toward the negative. We cannot find our soul anywhere in our body, therefore it does not exist. "You, your joys and your sorrows your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve-cells and their associated molecules," Ward writes (143). According to prior thought, believing that such parts of our nature are spiritual and transcendent is bizarre because there is really no existing basis to prove so. Lately, though, scientists have been warming up to the idea of a soul through proof of the existence of a conscience in brain wave activity.

Ward then addresses artificial intelligence in both a religious and secular point of view. We are very close in mimicking the human person with a computer. The only thing that computer lacks is a conscience. Some may argue for technological superiority: A computer can do everything we can do, but does not have a conscience, therefore, we are not conscious beings. Ward seems to argue a different perspective: We are conscious beings and we are making the computers to be just like us, so we must give them a conscience. To me, the whole idea of artificial intelligence is odd. Why should we try to make something just like us when God put humans on the earth to rule over it and live in his name. Is it possible for robots to have feelings, beliefs, or spirituality? If they have a conscience, I guess they could, but how can we know if the conscience is transcendent? The spiritual being is something of HUMAN nature, and I think human nature is where it will stay. Trying to create something as great or greater than us will only bring us failure as human beings.

Do the Laws of Nature Exclude Miracles?

I loved this chapter. Not because it gives a specific answer to any question, but because it made me think. A lot. Ward asks, "Are the laws of nature absolute?" As a scientist, I would say yes. The "discovery" of the laws of nature in science took away the ancient spirituality of the world, in a sense. Before physical and mathematical laws were understood (before Descartes, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, etc.), the world was a playground for the spirits of the universe. If something were to fall from the sky, it would be because the gods wanted it to fall, not because gravity brought it towards the earth. The revolution in human thinking based on laws of nature turned the world into more of a mechanical function rather than the workings of supernatural presence. Contrary to thought, this revolution did not take away from religion. In a sense, it made belief in the higher power stronger, and it made miracles more evident, thus, God more powerful.

God created the world as a perfect machine and has the power to intervene. Any transgression from natural laws can be seen as divine intervention and purposeful, at that. Laws of nature, then, ARE absolute; anything that defies the law of nature can be defined as a miracle. Philosopher David Hume, in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding gave a secular insight. He did not believe in God, but took a more rational approach to defining a true miracle. His was based on primarily probabilities, or, rather, improbabilities. For example, if someone were to say they witnessed a miracle, then there are two improbabilities that should be weighted before determining whether or not the event actually occurred: The miracle itself is improbable, and the falsehood of the story is also improbable. So one must take into account which is more improbable, whether or not the person would lie, or the event itself.

Now, is the resurrection of Jesus a miracle? The event itself is improbable. Highly improbable, actually, considering no one has been resurrected from the dead since. But, the probability that the mass of people (who saw Jesus at different places and times after his resurrection) lied about his reappearance is far less probable and can thus be considered a miracle. We know that Jesus is capable of performing miracles; we have all read the New Testament and have heard of his miraculous actions. In this case, God is intervening, as he promised he would in the Old Testament.

Miracles are prominent in many religions. In fact, the Qur'an is considered a miracle because "no ordinary human poet could have created a text of such beauty and power" (83). Defiances in the laws of nature are possible and do occur, as with people that hear divine spirits or have visions of the dead. Some may not believe in these situations, but why limit God's power? If things are not going according to His plan, he will intervene.

Is Evolution Compatible with Creation?

In the third chapter, Ward asks how the "cruelty and waste" of evolution can be reconciled with creation by a good God. He first contrasts the medieval view of evolution with the modern form, then explains the differences between Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Darwinistic Evolution.

Thomas Aquinas believed that something could only become hot if it were heated by something at least as hot. In essence, something could only come into existence if something greater were to create it.  This medieval view made it seem that, "stupid people can only be caused by even more stupid people and that God must be the most stupid, as well as the cleverest being there is...But God should also be the reddest and bluest and greenest of all things or perhaps the most brightly colored thing there is" (60). This differs from the modern view of evolution in that we believe that species grow upwards toward perfection. We evolve to stay alive; therefore, we technically develop from a lesser species.

There are many takes on the modern perspective of evolution. Creationism is a belief that the world was created exactly as described in the book of Genesis. Evolution, then, does not exist. According to the creationist theory, humans are not derived from a lesser species. It is important to distinguish creationism from the theory of Creation, which is highly compatible evolution. God created the universe to allow for mutation and change in species. There arises a problem, though, when considering the complexity of biological systems that could not have developed from evolution. Ward uses the bacterial flagellum as an example. This organism could not have evolved from a step-by-step process; therefore, it must have been intelligently designed. With the theory of intelligent design, God is the ultimate creator and allows for evolution to take place, but also guides the process. The specification of species is not completely random.

As an intermediate, Ward explains the view of Theistic Evolution. "What science shows is that evolution happened," he says, "Whether it is accidental or inevitable, blind or goal-oriented, is not conclusively decided by science" (75). He quotes a physical biochemist that takes a theistic approach to evolution: "God, he suggests, is 'an Improvisor of unsurpassed ingenuity' setting up a system in which chance and necessity interweave so that 'the full gamut of the potentialities of living matter could be explored'" (75). God does not merely watch, then, as species evolove (like Darwinian evolution suggests), but he does allow for chance to play a role in the development of species. Some things are created for a purpose, while some arise through natural selection. This, I believe, is theistic evolution.

Ward also briefly brings up an interesting point about suffering on earth. Why would God create a world in which there was suffering amongst his "perfect creations?" Because humans cannot live a perfect life. Theologians suggest that it is because we come with original sin. Scientist blame it on the laws of nature.  He writes, "if God arranged for perfect moral justice in human affairs, there could be no laws of nature at all" (73). Humankind cannot and will not exist without suffering. As a Christian, I believe that we are to endure suffering on earth so that we may be freed at the time of our death, just as Jesus did for us.

How Will the Universe End?

"If you think that the laws of physics are absolute and universal, it will, in fact, be true that, given the complete set of physical laws and the initial state of the universe, nothing will be merely random or accidental. Whatever happens will inevitably happen- or, allowing for quantum fluctuations, at least the general course of things will inevitably go as it does" (39).

In this chapter, Ward explores the different theories concerning the purpose of the universe and how it is going to end. In the first chapter, he stated that Christians believe in one creator and His manifestations on earth as purposeful, good works. Therefore, most Christians believe that the universe and humankind do serve some purpose. God would not have created us for no reason. We will fulfill our purpose on earth as God wishes and then the world will end at his command. Jesus prophesied that no one will know the day or the time the world is to end, but when it does:

"the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other (Matthew 24:29-31)."

This is the Christian mindset about the second coming of Christ and the end of the world to come. Ward also explores the end of the world in Indian beliefs, like Buddhism, where the physical end of the universe, similar to it's beginning, is of no religious relevance and the individual should focus only on the life here and now in the search for enlightenment.

The scientific view of the purpose of the universe and it's ultimate end is very pessimistic. As the opening quote implies, scientists do not believe that the universe serves an ultimate purpose. The world will end just as it began: as unconscious emptiness. It is inevitable and therefore our life on earth is irrelevant. The answer to the question, "How will the universe end?" is basically the same as, "How was the universe created?" It depends on one's belief in God as the primary consciousness. If one does not believe in God and instead relies on scientific evidence and physical understanding to shape their theory of the universe, then purpose and it's creation and destruction remain very unclear.

I am still trying to figure out how these first two chapters connect to ethical issues. One's sense of morals, in essence, is based on whether or not the individual believes in a higher power. Can science play a role in ethics if scientists believe that our universe doesn't have a purpose? If humanity is ultimately irrelevant, then why do we even care about how we act? Why do we have morals? The first two chapters give such vague answers to the big questions posed by Ward. I'm hoping for more concrete theories in the next chapters! I hope every question isn't answered by, "Either you believe in God or you don't." I want more connection between the two and explanation why one theory may make more sense than another so that I can figure out how science contributes to the ethical beliefs of a Christian scientist. The basis of our morals is obviously the teachings of scripture, but, if we lived on scripture alone, the field of science wouldn't exist.