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.