This is an extended and developed version of the overview essay by Professor John Hedley Brooke found in the guide.

Overview

Among the daunting challenges that confront human societies there are many that arise from our relationship with the natural world. Political debates about the reality of global warming and the steps that might be taken to control it, about the most desirable sources of energy and about the consequences of environmental pollution are frequently in the news. Risks associated with new technologies, such as those associated with the genetic modification of crops, and ethical concerns about the use of embryonic stem cells for scientific research have attracted widespread comment and appeals for caution. Anxieties about the implementation of new scientific techniques are often expressed in language that has religious roots. Journalistic references to scientists ‘playing God’, however simplistic, remind us that for an informed participation in public debate, a balanced understanding of both science and religion is a pre-requisite. But then there is an immediate problem. What for one person is a balanced view would, for another, be biased – perhaps in favour of atheism or in favour of one of the major faith traditions. Since the European Enlightenment there have been vociferous advocates of the view that scientific knowledge threatens and supersedes religious belief. Others have argued that, properly understood, a religious perspective may complement the picture of the world we derive from the sciences. As Einstein famously put it, science without religion is lame, religion without science blind.

But then the question arises, what do we mean by ‘religion’ and what do we mean by ‘science’? In both cases we usually mean more than a particular set of beliefs. Distinctions are routinely drawn been different forms of practice, different forms of knowing, different ways of constituting authority. These differences are sufficiently marked for some analysts to argue that the two spheres of scientific and religious discourse are best kept apart. The case for complete independence was stated by the Harvard zoologist and historian of science Stephen J Gould in his book Rocks of Ages (New York, 1999). His principle that the respective magisteria should not be allowed to overlap is attractive in many ways. It grants freedom to scientists to pursue their research without interference from religious pressure groups and it also respects the claims to moral authority deriving from the faith traditions. Many would see this separation of science from religion and from theology as the balanced view.

The trouble is that it, too, oversimplifies the issues. It is difficult to resist the view that the great scientific revolutions of the last four hundred years have had a profound bearing on how we see our place in the universe. For Sigmund Freud, the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions had diminished human significance, first by dislodging us from the centre of the cosmos, then by affirming our continuity with the animals. The fact that Freud’s own system of psychology meant that we no longer had control of our own minds delivered a further blow to human dignity. Conversely, it is difficult to resist the view that some of the greatest scientists have been devout religious believers who have seen in their study an exploration of a divine creation. For Isaac Newton the beauty of the solar system testified to the existence of a God ‘very well skilled in mechanics and geometry’.

The quest for a balanced understanding, however elusive, becomes deeply fascinating because questions about how best to interpret the great shifts in our understanding are not easily answered. They leave much that is still open to debate. For example, there is a sense in which the Copernican innovation, far from diminishing human status, enhanced it by placing the Earth in the heavens – in the region that, in Aristotelian philosophy, was perfect and immutable. There was an elevation, too, in that the astronomers of the seventeenth century could see, as Kepler saw, that in their knowledge they now surpassed the ancients. Darwin’s affirmation of continuity between humans and animals certainly appeared degrading to some, but Darwin himself wished to emphasise that it corresponded to an appropriate attitude of humility, which was, after all, one of the Christian virtues. And in all scientific and technological advances, as in the analysis of the human genome, it is the human mind that has proved capable of unravelling some of the most complex of nature’s secrets. It is sometimes said that the new biotechnologies have the effect of objectifying, instrumentalising or commodifying human beings, but at the same time the scientist as subject would seem to be elevated by virtue of new powers of manipulation and control.

One very good reason for encouraging young people to study the ways in which the sciences and the main world religions may be relevant to each other is that this is a field often occupied by extremists. Their strongly held opinions can so easily lead to a polarisation in which each extreme feeds off the other. The battle, particularly in North America, between young-earth ‘creationists’ and dogmatically atheistic proponents of ‘evolution’ would be an obvious example. There is a real need for guidance in seeking a reasoned response to the many loud voices clamouring for our attention on matters that have a profound bearing on our conduct and values. The teaching resources developed here should help young people to appreciate the importance of certain distinctions that help to create a maturing understanding of the issues. Where scientific knowledge is said to entail certain conclusions for religious belief, it can be helpful to be reminded that the cultural meanings we give to scientific conclusions are matters of interpretation that may depend on a whole range of assumptions and preconceptions. The distinction between scientific methods and a worldview that permits no other form of knowing is also important. The claim that from a scientific understanding of nature it is possible to demonstrate the existence and attributes of a deity – a claim that in the past was sometimes used to justify scientific study – is very different from the more modest claim that consonance can be achieved between (at least some) scientific and religious beliefs.

It is a common perception that there must be some definitive account of the relationship between ‘science’ and ‘religion’. This is very difficult to justify in the light of the many ways this relationship has been constructed both in the past and in the present. While it may be difficult for pupils to appreciate the sophisticated political purposes for which these different constructions are used, it is possible for them to grasp that there is a range of options and that it is not necessary to buy into one as if there were no others. For example, there is often reference in the press to ‘religious’ reactions to new biotechnologies, as if the only reactions are ‘religious’ in character and as if the main faith traditions are unavoidably reactionary. In fact there have been resources within them for accommodating new techniques, especially in medicine, for improving the quality of human lives. In contrast to popular suspicions of an illicit ‘interference with nature’, technological innovation has often been sanctioned through a model of human collaboration with the deity. One thing that is clear, and has become even clearer as the SRSP materials have been used in schools, is that students enjoy discussing such questions and relish the opportunity to express their own ideas.

This last point needs to be stressed because a common complaint about the delivery of a syllabus is that the learning process can become too heavily mechanised and over-prescribed, denying students the excitement of discovering that some issues are more open-ended than they had supposed. In preparing the resources to which this booklet is a guide, the writers have been discouraged from adopting approaches that might elicit charges of indoctrination. It is recognised that this can be a sensitive issue and one that lies at the heart of concerns in North America about the teaching of ‘religion’ in state schools. To be aware of debates in the philosophy of science and in the philosophy of religion is, however, one of the best means of protection from doctrinaire assertion. In the United Kingdom, examination syllabuses for Religious Studies require that attention be given to issues on the interface of cosmology and religion. These are intended to include reference to different concepts of creation and how these might be affected by a scientific cosmology, such as that enshrined in the Big Bang. They are also intended to include questions that, in the past, would have been addressed in the discourse of natural theology: whether, for example, it is possible to infer anything about a creator from the appearance of design in the natural order. While it is hoped that the SRSP materials will help teachers to engage their students on such topics, they have been designed to constitute a larger, more wide-ranging resource, at once respectful of scientific methods and understandings and at the same time sensitive to what religious believers find valuable in their faith traditions and commitments.

John Hedley Brooke - November 2005