THE SCIENCE AND RELIGION DEBATE Basil Mitchell challenges some common assumptions

Most of us make assumptions about science and religion which we never think of questioning. The purpose of this article is to shake some of them. Broadly speaking we think science is a matter of reason, religion is a matter of faith. In science things can be proved. In religion we have to take things on authority. Let us look at this broad contrast in greater detail. We can break it down into two sets of constrasts: 1) Science deals with literal fact. Religion is like poetry. It deals with metaphors and expresses emotions. 2) Science deals with questions which can be definitely decided. Religion is a matter of personal choice. 1(a) Science deals with literal fact A familiar feature of physics is the way it explains phenomena by reference to entities which cannot themselves be observed, such as protons, electrons, etc. I once asked a distinguished physicist at an 'Open Day' in his laboratory how he thought of electrons. He took me aside out of hearing of his colleagues and said, 'Don't tell anyone, but I always think of them as tiny little billiard balls'. And this was, of course, how Robert Boyle and others in the seventeenth century first thought of minute particles when they developed the atomic theory. Sub-microscopic particles are not literally very small billiard balls, but they can be thought of as like them in certain respects. Experiment will show what the resemblances and differences are. As physics develops it gets further away from the billiard ball model but it does not escape from such 'models' altogether so as to get a literal description of what the physical reality is like. Sometimes the reality is found by experiment to be like one model in one respect and another model in another. Light is best understood in some respects as like waves, in others like particles. In biology we have something similar when trying to describe the workings of DNA in the mechanism of heredity. If we say it operates as a 'blueprint' or a 'programme' we are using a model which explains the process better than if we simply describe its biochemical structure. 1(b) Religion is like poetry and deals with metaphors It is of course true that religion uses metaphors like poetry. We see this most obviously in hymns:

Jesus! My shepherd, husband, friend, My prophet, priest and king, My Lord, my life, my way, my end, Accept the praise I bring.1 John Newton's hymn piles one metaphor upon another as he tries to express his praise of God, and this is recognizably poetry. But the metaphors are there also in the much more prosaic language of the Creed: I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. 'Father' and 'maker' are both metaphorical, since God is not a male parent, like a human father, and he does not make the world just as a potter makes a pot. The Creed is much more like a scientific statement than it is like a hymn of praise. Although it does, doubtless, express in a rather muted fashion the believer's gratitude to the Creator, it does not merely express emotion. It makes a series of statements which are either true or false and which Christians believe to be true. But it is a mistake in any case to talk of poetry as if all it did was to express feelings: How many loved your moments of glad grace, And loved your beauty with love false or true; But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you, And loved the sorrows of your changing face.2 The poem does indeed express the lover's devotion but it tells us also how he thinks of the woman he loves. 'Pilgrim soul' is a metaphor. In loving her as a 'pilgrim soul' he is doing more than love her physical beauty. He thinks of her as journeying through life and perhaps beyond it (with overtones of Pilgrim's Progress). There is a whole philosophy to be found in that metaphor. The contrast between science and religion in respect of their use of metaphor breaks down on both sides, and with it the underlying assumption that the sole function of metaphor is to express emotion. This does not, of course, mean that science and religion are the same thing, but before we consider how they differ we must look at the other false contrast. 2(a) In science questions can be definitely decided. In a great deal of science this is true, especially the sort of science one learns at school and which is applied in practical life, in designing machines, constructing bridges and so

forth. It is astonishing what accuracy can be achieved in observing, measuring and predicting phenomena. Since this is the sort of context in which most of us encounter science, it is natural for us to suppose that, unlike other disciplines, science can always provide precise answers to any questions we like to ask it. But two distinctions must be kept in mind: (i) between questions which arise within a body of agreed theory and questions about choice between fundamental theories; (ii) between exact and less exact sciences. (i) In an influential book on the philosophy of science T. S. Kuhn3 drew a distinction between normal and revolutionary science. Normal science is carried on within a set of basic assumptions about which there is no dispute. Kuhn calls these 'paradigms'. Given the prevailing paradigm scientists can produce definite answers to the questions raised. But, he argued, there occur at intervals scientific revolutions in which there is a struggle between the currently accepted paradigm and another which threatens to overthrow it. The disputes which arise between the supporters of rival paradigms are not capable of being settled in the same cut-and-dried fashion. Kuhn gives as examples the transition from an Aristotelian to a Newtonian conception of science and from Newton to Einstein. Kuhn has been criticized on two main grounds; that he exaggerated the difference between normal and revolutionary science, and that he is unclear whether there can be a rational choice between paradigms. But his main thesis stands: there is a distinction to be drawn between the sort of research which is done when the fundament laws and central concepts of a science are not in dispute, which accounts for most everyday scientific work, and the kind of thinking which takes place when what is at stake is precisely what organizing concepts should be employed and what basic laws acknowledged. A famous example is provided by Darwin's theory of natural selection at the time of the publication of The Origin of Species. Here was a fundamental theory which was ultimately to revolutionize the study of biology. But there were serious scientific objections to it at the time which Darwin himself acknowledged: 'A crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered, but, to the best of my judgement the greater number are only apparent; and those that are real are not, I think fatal to my theory'.4 Darwin trusted to his judgement, which was to be vindicated by subsequent developments, but there was a scientific debate of fundamental importance which could not be settled by knock-down arguments. 2(ii) The distinction between exact and inexact sciences When we talk about 'science' we usually have in mind the so-called 'natural sciences' and forget about the 'human sciences' such as psychology and sociology. It is characteristic of these latter that they involve a greater or lesser degree of controversy not just

occasionally but as a regular feature of their operation. This gives rise to 'schools of thought' with different conceptions of the aims and methods of the subject. Think of the continuing debate in the social sciences between 'nature' and 'nurture' whether human behaviour is best explained in terms of genetic or other biological factors or in terms of social conditioning. For example school 'league tables' have revealed that on the whole girls do better than boys at school. Why is this? One side argues that it has to do with the basic biology of the sexes. The biological changes which boys undergo during adolescence are more tumultuous than those which affect girls and make it harder for them to settle down to disciplined academic work. Girls mature faster and achieve an equilibrium earlier. The other side emphasizes instead the greater cultural pressures upon girls to conform and become amenable to authority. Both sides appeal to scientific evidence and adduce scientific arguments in favour of their position, but there are no hard and fast proofs available. It is worth noticing, as a corrective to the common stereotypes of the cool dispassionate scientist, that these debates can become very heated. Emotions are deeply involved and the participants may find it difficult to avoid accusing their opponents of prejudice and insensitivity. A sensible conclusion might be that there is truth on both sides. Both biological and social factors are involved and one should try to estimate their relative importance. Although there is no quasi-mathematical way of settling the dispute, it should be possible to arrive at a reasonable judgement. 2(b) Religion is just a matter of personal choice The idea that religion cannot be reasoned about we just choose what to believe or whether to believe is encouraged by the contrast with science which we have just been looking at. In science, we are told, it is always possible to get precise answers to definite questions; in religion it is never possible. But, as we have seen, even in the natural sciences there are fundamental questions which require the exercise of trained judgement, and in the human sciences there is a great deal of controversy between different 'schools of thought'. But, in addition to the sciences, there are other intellectual disciplines which are not scientific but involve reasoning of an appropriate kind. Two historians arguing about the causes of the Second World War may agree about the facts but disagree as to what they mean. Did Hitler in 1939 intend to conquer Europe or would he have been content to make only limited gains if Britain and France had not given their guarantee to Poland? Two literary critics may disagree as to whether in Pride and Prejudice the pride was all Darcy's and the prejudice all Elizabeth's or whether each of them was both proud and prejudiced. In these disputes each side may appreciate the force and relevance of the arguments the other uses, and one may eventually be persuaded that the other is right.

There is nothing surprising about this. It is the same sort of thing as we do every day in our dealings with one another. Is she indifferent to me or just shy? Did he intend to deceive me or was he genuinely mistaken? We all, as time goes on, learn to understand such matters better and some people are more perceptive than others. It is sometimes said that women are better at it than men, and this is just the sort of question that psychologists and other experts get heated about, because they affect our understanding of ourselves. If we accept that it is true and go on to ask why it should be so, we find ourselves embroiled once again in the dispute between biologists and sociologists. Biologists may claim that, in the long pre-historic period when human beings were hunter-gatherers, women needed to refine inter-personal skills in their care for families, whereas men had to concentrate their attention more narrowly on their hunt for prey. Sociologists, while not denying an element of truth in this, may argue that social and cultural influences within historical time have been much more important. What or religion? Religion turns on questions which deeply affect all our lives. Who am I? Where did I come from? Where shall I go? These are not just philosophical questions of merely theoretical interest. How we answer them is bound to make a difference to how we live and how we feel about things. They are not questions that science can answer but the answers that different religions give have something in common with large-scale scientific theories. They claim truth. They afford explanations in terms of what cannot be observed. They employ metaphors which do more than simply express emotions, although they do that too. And they are open to rational debate. People often resist this last conclusion because the word 'rational' suggests to them clearcut answers and the absence of such things as imagination and personal warmth and individual insight. It is unfair to scientists to apply this stereotype to science which cannot progress without imagination and intellectual excitement, but the main clue is provided once again by our relations with people. We cannot expect to understand other people, or even ourselves, without sympathy for them and without being able to imagine how they think and feel. We have to be prepared to trust them. And, if we are at all reflective, we are led into deeper questions not just about this or that particular person but about people in general. When the poet said 'But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you' he was thinking not just of this particular woman, but of any human being, as more than a physical entity, however beautiful. The implications of that are far-reaching and quite incompatible with thinking of human beings as, for example, elaborate computers. Ultimately we have to choose how we are going to think of people and that means using all our rational capacities to the full. Sources and texts quoted or referred to: 1. John Newton, 'How sweet the name of Jesus sounds' (English Hymnal 405).

2. W. B. Yeats, 'When you are old' (Oxford Book of English Verse, 863, 1st edn., 1900). 3. T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edn., University of Chicago Press, 1970). 4. Charles Darwin, quoted in Michael Banner, The Justification of Science and the Rationality of Religious Belief (Oxford University Press,1990, p. 182). Glossary of Terms Model - an aid to theorising about some phenomenon under investigation in terms of some simpler system whose properties are already known. Bohr's model of the atom as a miniature solar system is a classic example. Metaphor a word or phrase ordinarily used of one thing is applied to another. Paradigm a network of assumptions, insights and techniques which set the terms for scientific investigation and specify what counts as a solution. Natural science the sciences used in the study of the physical world, e.g. physics, chemistry, geology, biology and botany. Social science the scientific study of human society and social relationships.