Another Argument in Science vs. Religion

For those of you who don’t know, in July of this year, particle physicists at the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland have reportedly found evidence of the long sought after Higgs Boson. The Higgs is the particle within the Standard Model of particle physics that is believed to give everything in our world mass. Pretty heavy stuff, I must admit. But in all seriousness, this discovery is monumental for modern science. It truly pushes the boundaries of what humans are capable of discovering and understanding. However, the controversy with the Higgs is that it is often deemed “The God Particle”, and many scientists and lay people alike, believe that its discovery can push aside the idea that God has any credibility in the world. This argument is very strong, due to the two vastly different ways that science and religion use to explain our existence and the beginnings of the universe. In his article “Sometimes science must give way to Religion,” Daniel Sarewitz attempts to prove that religion and science must exist together, however his argument is flawed due to the separate ways religion and science explain the world. Religion is focused on the emotional and ethereal, while science concerns itself with empirically proving and determining the origins and ways in which our world works, and when compared with Science, religion’s argument falls by the wayside.

The way that science comes to value knowledge is through empirical and theoretical means. To determine something empirically all one has to do is go out and observe it. It doesn’t get much easier than that does it? Particle physics, in particular, tries to understand the origins of our universe and the mechanisms by which it works through this empirical style. This is why the discovery of the Higgs Boson is so unbelievably important, because it is finally a rational explanation for one of the most baffling questions in science, “where does everything obtain mass?” The Higgs is the one particle that gives every single other particle in our entire universe the mass it has, including me and you. In Sarewitz’s article, he claims that “For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality” (Sarewitz 2012). While the intended effect of this statement is to draw a similarity between the religion and science it does quite the opposite. To state that if someone is unable to understand something they are showing faith of a certain type is an incorrect assumption. The math behind the explanation of the Higgs, while not known to everyone, can be taught and made understandable. Someone can learn from the very base of math and reach the point where they understand where the theory of the Higgs came from, and how the tests were devised. Just because something is most easily explained through metaphor does not mean it is one and the same with something that must be simply believed without empirical evidence to support it.

Seeing that religion and science both have markedly different ways of understanding leads us next to the idea that one is inherently more credible than the other. In Sarewitz’s article, he uses a specific example of a metaphor that likens the effect the Higgs boson has on other objects to an invisible field of “molasses” (Sarewtiz 2012), “weighing down” particles (giving them mass). This description does make the Higgs sound a bit ridiculous, but Sarewtiz’s logic falls apart because he is using the very metaphor for understanding the Higgs that he said makes belief in it an act of faith. He is ultimately constructing his argument on a false assumption, as stated in the above paragraph. Sarewitz compares an ancient Hindu representation of spirituality as a “sea of milk” (Sarewitz 2012) that gives the gods immortality, to the field of “molasses” which quite frankly sounds fairly unbelievable. The comparison of a “sea of milk” to a field of “molasses” (Sarewitz 2012) serves the purpose to make them both seem highly uncredible, but because the field of “molasses” is a phenomenon that can be characterized mathematically through empirical experimentation, it is in fact, inherently more credible than a “sea of milk” (Sarewitz 2012).

Religion has an entirely different approach to knowledge, namely that there are things we cannot understand and we must accept the way they are because someone made it that way. While many would say that this is by no means a poor view of the world, it is incompatible with the way science seeks to know the world. Religion seeks no answer for why things are the way that they are, apart from accepting they were created that way. As John Shook says “science must be incompatible with religion’s distinctive method of knowing” (Shook 2009), because science is incapable of compromising with religion. The truth’s that science discovers are irrefutable, and are easily proven to be absolutely correct, which is summed up by my favorite astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, when he says “the good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” (Goodreads) This quote single handedly sums up the incompatibility of the two ways of knowing, because it shows that science cannot compromise to accommodate religion. Religion, however, can accommodate science, which according to Shook, is further evidence that they are actually incompatible. This may seem contrary to common sense, but if one school of thought (religion) is constantly adapting to recount their steps as another school (science) continues to put holes in the original school of thought, can they be said to exist together? Shook illustrates this accommodation when he says, “religion, by contrast, can accommodate science without surrendering its own method through some combination of (a) faithfully holding beliefs about matters immune from empirical inquiry; (b) adopting science’s conclusions by simply appending the conviction “and God made it so”; or (c) adapting science’s conclusions to fit spiritual intuitions and inspirations” (Shook 2009). So keeping this in mind, it is hard to say that the two can exist simultaneously in equal importance.

Another assumption Sarewitz makes is that there is no room for wonder or emotion in science when he claims “Science is supposed to challenge this type of quasi-mystical subjective experience, to provide an antidote to it” (Sarewitz 2012). This is not entirely true. Take for example anyone who has looked up at the night sky and been overwhelmed by the enormity of our universe; this feeling is natural, but by no means does science try to discourage it. In particular, my favorite astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson does a phenomenal job using science to invoke emotional response in his audience, very successfully I might add. The belief that science is meant to be devoid of emotion is a key point of argument in Sarewitz’s article, shown by his continual references to Angkor Wat in Cambodia. He makes the assumption that the LHC would provide no sense of awe if it were seen in a thousand years, like Angkor Wat does when seen now, which I think is a ludicrous assumption. I am in awe of the LHC right now, because of its sheer size as well as its complexity, which I believe easily takes the place of a sculpture or decoration at Angkor. There is no reason whatsoever that the LHC would be unable to fascinate a visitor like Angkor, or any other religious monument does in the present day. Just take the video below, I think you would be hard pressed not to have an emotional response to it.

The wonder that is cultivated by science is very much an emotional response, but it arises from a rational explanation of the universe, whereas religion is based in faith. The entire premise of Sarewitz’s argument is that the emotional aspect of religion, and the empirical aspect of science are two comparable, roughly equivalent schools of thought. However, comparing these two is to compare the result of one thing with the premise and cause of another, which are inherently non-comparable. His constant referral to a visit to Angkor Wat shows that he is elevating the personal experience of a sense of wonder at a temple to the level of empirically determined knowledge. He is stating that the emotions he felt have as much or more value than rational thought. Fundamentally where Sarewitz goes wrong is by likening religion to art. The emotion and “glimpse of the unknown” (Sarewitz 2012) that he feels and receives are typical of seeing a great work of art, which I’m sure almost every reader can understand. By equating the two, whether consciously or not, he is devaluing religion and undermining his own argument.

Science and religion seek to know and understand the world in two vastly different ways, and as such are incompatible. While science empirically searches for answers of how, religion pontificates on the why. The difference is important because religion does not seek an answer for how, so when science discovers how, religion is forced to accommodate and backtrack in order to keep itself relevant. Sarewitz puts forth a valiant effort to explain how the two are necessary in our world, but because of logical fallacies and shortcomings his argument falls flat, leaving science as the remaining way of knowing. Neil deGrasse Tyson sums it up quite well, saying “The more I learn about the universe, the less convinced I am that there's any sort of benevolent force that has anything to do with it, at all” (Goodreads). As a Christian, I must say that personally it is hard for me to refute Sarewitz, however it doesn't take much time to realize that the way he poses his argument is fundamentally flawed, allowing the argument I have presented.

Sarewitz D. 2012. Sometimes science must give way to religion. Nature. 488(7412). <http://www.nature.com/news/sometimes-science-must-give-way-to-religion-1.11244>. Accessed 2012 Sept 10.

Shook J. 2009 June 15. Science and religion are incompatible in two major ways. It’s Only Natural with John Shook: Center for Inquiry. <http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/science_and_religion_are_incompatible_in_two_major_ways/>. Accessed 2012 Sept 17

Easterbrook G. 1997. Science and God: a warming trend?. Science. 277(5328). <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/277/5328/890.full>. Accessed 2012 Sept 17.

Cray D. 2006. God vs. Science. Time Magazine. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-3,00.html>. Accessed 2012 Sept 17.

Neil deGrasse Tyson Quotes from:
<http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12855.Neil_deGrasse_Tyson> Accessed 2012 Sept 26.