From Chapter 21—Are Science and Religion in Conflict? © 2020 by Emory Lynn.
Science and religion are often seen as separate realms of human understanding with neither having the tools to encroach on the other’s turf. Science investigates the natural world to determine what it’s made of and how it works. Space and time, matter and energy, and cause and effect are the prerogatives of science. Religions deal with the spiritual and supernatural world and related topics such as intention, moral values and the ultimate meaning of life—topics that science seemingly isn’t equipped to investigate. So it would appear that science and religion are so different in their scope that conflict would seldom be a problem. They might even be considered complementary. Eminent evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) popularized the notion that by their very nature science and religion should not be in conflict. In his 1999 book Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, Gould, who considered himself an agnostic, urged his readers to understand that science and religion represent different magisteria. He defined a magisterium as “a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution.” Gould promoted his belief that the magisterium of science and the magisterium of religion are completely separate and do not overlap, though their borders bump up against each other. Gould championed the principle of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) that many theologians and scientists have found easy to embrace because it reduces unwanted tension between the two. In Gould’s words, “NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hardline traditionalism.” NOMA is a “sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria.” Is there truth in NOMA or is it wishful thinking?
– – – – –
All three of the Abrahamic religions are based on a God that is said to be transcendent.1 In theological terms, God is transcendent when his existence and activities are independent of the material universe and the laws of nature. (Other definitions of transcendent are not relevant to this discussion, such as “exceeding or surpassing” or “different or unfamiliar.”) A transcendent God is said to be otherworldly or wholly other. Unfortunately for theological transcendence, otherworldliness and worldliness are symmetrical properties. A symmetrical property can be expressed this way: If A = B, then B = A, or if A ≠ B (A does not equal B), then B ≠ A. In relation to the theological definition of transcendence: If A is other than B (e.g., A is otherworldly and B is worldly) then B is other than A. Otherworldly and worldly are mutually exclusive, in whole and in part; they don’t overlap, interact or communicate. If A can create, communicate or share information with B, then A is not transcendent to B, and vice versa.
Any god that is truly transcendent is unknowable to humans. Furthermore, we are unknowable to this kind of god, and he has no relevance to our lives. Relevance is also a symmetrical property. A transcendent god is not relevant to us, and we are not relevant to him. For us, he might as well not exist, and for him, we might as well not exist.
Theists and theologians who hide behind the concept of God’s otherworldliness to explain God’s hiddenness and to avoid criticism of other inexplicable and unprovable beliefs, don’t seem to understand that they are peddling nonsense. If this is upsetting to theologians, they should change their characterization of God.
The God of the Abrahamic religions is a personal God who is also said to be immanent. In being immanent he manifests himself within the material universe by physically interacting with it and by communicating and interacting with humans. Consequently, the worldly actions of God should leave observable “fingerprints” that are within the purview of science through the testing of empirical evidence. It is through these purported acts of immanence that science has made numerous discoveries that contradict the dogma, doctrines and traditional claims about the God of the Abrahamic religions. This has often been the case in spite of scientists having no intention of damaging the credibility of these religions. Science is more than an accumulation of knowledge about the natural world; science is an assemblage of systematic methodologies for determining truth and reality in the natural world, and in the case of an immanent and personal God, the truth and reality of evidence that would have been left behind while God was allegedly creating, communicating with and otherwise interacting with us.
To claim that God is immanent should come with a reasonable understanding of what immanence means. Here is how the Catholic Encyclopedia defines immanence:
Immanence is the quality of any action which begins and ends within the agent. Thus, vital action, as well in the physiological as in the intellectual and moral order, is called immanent, because it proceeds from that spontaneity which is essential to the living subject and has for its term the unfolding of the subject’s constituent energies. It is initiated and is consummated in the interior of the same being, which may be considered a closed system.
I swear to you I did not make up this eye-crossing jabberwocky, someone else did. Go online and see for yourself, provided it hasn’t been changed by now. Thankfully, as I write this, the Catholic Encyclopedia hasn’t conjured up a definition for transcendence.
Notes:
1. My discussion of transcendence, immanence and symmetrical properties in this and the following paragraphs was influenced by Professor James Hall in his Great Courses lecture series Philosophy of Religion, Lectures 26-28 (The Teaching Company, 2003).
