Science & Religious Experience

These books attempt to reconcile science and religion. The manner of their failure illustrates the cultural dilemma of the 21st century. The most persuasive is Grahame Miles. The author states that it is the result of 40 years work, and it reads like it. The result is a history of the epistemology of science and religious experience at length. He argues that reductionist materialism fails, and that therefore mind and all its values cannot be reduced to an analysis of material behaviour. He follows Michael Polanyi in pointing out that the objective "facts" of science are the product of an elaborate process which depends on the personal commitment of the individual scientist to honesty and truth. Scientific knowledge therefore depends on the structure and workings of human consciousness. Just as science is a structure which makes sense of scientific experience , so religion is a structure which makes sense of religious experience. This experience has many grades including nature mysticism, participation in ritual, and various transcendent ecstatic states. Science works through a hypothetico-deductive system. Theory predicts an experimental result which either confirms the theory or refutes it. In the same way the interpretation of religious experience is confirmed by the display of greater compassion, a sense of transcending the material world, an awareness of the numinous "other", and what can only be described as "holiness". Science is an open self-correcting system, and Miles clearly considers that formal religion has, or ought to have, the same relation to religious experience as science has to experimental observation. He is quite critical of dogmatic rigidity and fundamentalism. The argument is persuasive. The problem is why anyone should have ever thought that there is a conflict between science and religion in the first place. The answer is that science and religion are not as similar as has been argued. Science is "bottom-up". It starts from raw sense experience, ascends to sophisticated theory, and then descends again to practical observation. Any good 6th former can perform experiments illustrating the fundamental ideas of modern physics. In contrast, the ultimate spiritual experiences that confirm religious ideas are fleeting, uncertain, and unpredictable even for those who spend a lifetime in contemplation. Science is developed by scientists, and scientists seek that description which is true for all possible observers. Religions are served by priests, and priests proclaim the unique truth of their own particular cult. Miles demonstrates the reality of religious experience in all its forms, but the question remains as to whether it has any transcendental reference beyond the human mind. Paranormal experiences are not necessarily spiritual: indeed many traditions regard them as "siddhis" which distract from the true upward path of enlightenment. Even so telepathy, telekinesis, and psychic phenomena all do demonstrate in concrete reality that the human mind can operate beyond the material. This issue is not considered. Nancy Morvillo's "Science and Religion" covers much the same ground. Since I intend to be severely critical of this book, it is only fair to state its good points first. If a good survey of modern cosmology, relativity, the workings of DNA, or an excellent exposition of the evolution of life are required, then the book can be read for that alone. Morvillo is anxious to display her scientific credentials, but the declared intention is to prove the total compatibility of science and religion: by religion she means the Christian religion, and by Christianity she means the Roman Catholic Church. The history of the development of science given here is adequate: the history of the church is not. The explanation for the Protestant Reformation is incomplete, and the Great Schism between Eastern and Western Christianity is totally ignored. The reason is that Papal authority is taken for granted without justification, even when the advance of science has forced it into U-turns. The condemnation of Galileo is explained away as a failure to understand that the account of the Creation in Genesis is just a myth. The volte-face over evolution after the death of Pius XII in 1958 is merely recorded, not discussed. A whole section is devoted to "Ethics in an Age of Science" which has wise and thoughtful words on climate change, pollution, genetic engineering and similar topics. It notes the hyperbolic rise in the Earth's population in the 20th century, and the problems of political conflict, exhaustion of natural resources and pollution that this is about to pose. What then is the answer? The fact that the Catholic Church is opposed to contraception is noted in exactly one sentence without further examination. Since the birth rates of Catholic Ireland, Spain and Italy have dropped to the levels of their Protestant or Agnostic neighbours, there is an obvious disconnect between the teachings of the church and the practice of the faithful. To say that the absence of any discussion is disingenuous is to be polite. Another problem in relating Catholicism with modern science is the dogma of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary as proclaimed by Pius XII in 1950. This means that she ascended to heaven physically body and soul. This plainly relates to the mediaeval belief that Heaven is somewhere just above the bright blue sky. How it relates to a relativistic universe of 13.6 billion light years has yet to be explained. Morvillo's book has been judged harshly, yet it is learned, clearly written and well intentioned. The problem is that any book will fail which seeks to prove the total compatibility of modern science with any religion or cult be it Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other. The open self-critical process of science is incommensurate with accepting the authority of any scripture, teacher, or church. On the other hand the argument put forward by Miles is strong. The material reality that modern science explores so successfully seems to be enfolded in a wider reality which human consciousness only dimly apprehends. It is this that gives the deepest meaning and purpose to human life. This then is the dilemma of the 21st century. Can an agnostic spirituality based on a vague perception of the unity of religious experience have the emotional power and dynamic social nisus which dogmatic religions possess?