The multi-dimensional character of "science" and "religion"

We should pause before we dive into discussions that have names such as science and religion, science and the Bible, science versus faith, creation and evolution,  theology and science, Science and Christianity, ...

The words used often mean different things to different people, reducing communication, understanding, and meaningful dialogue. 

Previously, I have discussed how I prefer "science and theology" to "science and faith", particularly because science involves faith.

In Territories of Science and Religion, Peter Harrison shows how through history the nature of science and religion, and their boundaries, have been understood very differently from today.

With regard to both "science" and "religion" I suggest it may be helpful to consider four different dimensions: the life and experience of individuals, communities and institutions,  bodies of knowledge, and underlying realities.

I now expand on each of these four dimensions.

1. The life and experience of individuals

Professional scientists go to their laboratory, do experiments, write computer code, read journals, discuss with colleagues, and write articles and books. They do all this within a framework of a particular way of "thinking" and "doing". People who are not professional scientists also take on some elements of this "thinking" and "doing" with regard to their interactions with nature, technology, and others.

A "religious" person also has ways of "thinking" and "doing". This affects their beliefs, values, priorities, and behaviour.

In both science and religion we are talking about humans with all their potential, brilliance, creativity, honour, love, flaws, limitations, contradictions, and tragedy.

2. Communities and institutions

Science is not just an individual endeavour and individual experiences take place in the context of a community. Communication, collaboration, and consensus are essential. Over history, these scientific communities often evolve into institutions such as professional societies, research institutes, and university departments. (An institution is an entity that has the potential to endure beyond the lifetime of any of its current participants.)

Similarly, "religion" is manifest in communities such as home groups and local churches. They form based on commonalities of belief and practice. Over time such communities may evolve into institutions such as denominations, seminaries, universities, publishing houses, and mission organisations.

3. Bodies of knowledge

This concerns both the content of that body of knowledge and the methods that are used to gain that knowledge. Over time communities and institutions may produce new bodies of knowledge and usually engage significantly with prior knowledge. This is concrete information that is accessible (with enough education) to anyone and provides concrete things for investigation, interpretation, and discussion. The current state of knowledge is often recorded in "textbooks".

For science, these bodies of knowledge consist of (generally accepted) laws, theories, methods, and observations. Examples include the laws of thermodynamics, Einstein's theory of special relativity, the genetic code, protein structures, taxonomies of biological life forms, data bases, telescopes, radioactive dating, and computer codes.

Religion involves sacred texts, creeds, doctrines, and theologies. 

4. Underlying realities

The bodies of knowledge are believed by the communities to be the best possible representation of underlying realities. These realities reflect the absolute and objective truth, that exists independent of subjective human observers and interpreters.

For natural sciences the reality is the material world. For social sciences that reality is groups of people.

For Christianity, that reality is the triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the Creation (the material world in which we live).

Conflations of the different dimensions

Discussions of the true nature of science and of religion become confused or unhelpful when they conflate the four dimensions above. For example, many practicing scientists subscribe to a "naive" realism that conflates current scientific knowledge with objective reality. Advocates of the "sociology of knowledge" claim that science is nothing more than the communities and institutions of scientists. Some pentecostal Christians may conflate their own individual experience and intuition with the underlying reality of God and the Holy Spirit. Some conservative Christians may make a rigid identification of their own reading and understanding of the Bible (and/or the doctrines of their denomination) with the underlying reality of God.

The whole concept of "religion" is a construct of the Enlightenment. The academic approach of much "religious studies" is to define religion solely in terms of the beliefs and practices of individuals and communities. Sometimes it is claimed that all "religions" are in essence the same and all just different reflections of one underlying cosmic reality.

Now it becomes even more complex.

What are appropriate methods to relate science and religion?

Are the two in conflict, harmony, dialogue, complementary, or independent of one another? This is where considering the four distinct dimensions may be helpful. I suggest that there may be less confusion and the most insight to be gained when each is compared with respect to the same dimension.

For example, one can contrast and compare the life experiences of a scientist and of a follower of Jesus (possibly the same person). This is done very nicely in Let There Be Science by David Hutchings and Tom McLeish. These life experiences both involve very human experiences: faith, hope, pain, love, and suffering. There are many similarities and resonances. Hence, there is a strong and positive correlation, between the two spheres of science and religion.

If we consider the two bodies of knowledge, the nature of the dialogue and interaction, between science and religion may be quite different. The contents of a physics textbook and of the Bible do not have a lot in common. On the other hand, the relationship between the philosophical interpretation of the content of that textbook and of the Christian doctrine of creation is a rich and fruitful area to explore.

In summary, to have a meaningful discussion about science and religion, at least two things may be helpful. First, the respective dimensions of each that are being discussed need to be defined. Second, the discussion should focus on relating the same dimension in each. An exercise in contrasting and comparing may elucidate  similarities and differences.

I thank Charles Ringma for comments on Let There Be Science, that stimulated this post.