One thing that Creationists seem to continually bring up, in response to the mockery of evolutionists who claim that science has disproved religion, is that evolution is a religion too because it is not a proven belief. But of course it’s not. Science cannot be proven; it can only be disproven. No scientific theories about anything can be “proven,” but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a large body of evidence to support them and that we shouldn’t accept them tentatively, while continually searching for better answers. But still, many Creationists claim that evolution is a religion because it is an expression of philosophical naturalism—the idea that nothing exists outside of the material universe and that only natural explanations can be used to explain the natural world. Scientists who are atheists are deeply offended by the statement that they are religious, and this Creationist claim only serves to create a wider gap between the two sides of the argument. This again brings us back to the debate of how to define religion. In this case, to avoid the many connotations that the word possesses, I think I will use the word “worldview” instead of “religion,” to mean a set of beliefs about the world that cannot be proven.
In my opinion, it seems that philosophical naturalism is a religion/worldview in that sense of the term. Claiming that nothing besides the physical, material world exists is a very valid explanation of the world, but in my opinion, it is not something that can be proven, and it is religious in the sense that it dictates how one relates to the world and to others, and how a person can find meaning in life (or not find it, as the case may be). I think most scientists would be willing to admit that they do have a worldview, and in this way, I think that it is appropriate to discuss religious and non-religious worldviews on the same level—as worldviews that are of utmost importance, but that contain beliefs that cannot be proven. If we are all trying to find truth, then shouldn’t we debate the advantages and disadvantages of both belief systems (which, of course, requires admitting that there are advantages and disadvantages to both)?
In that sense, I agree with the Creationists that philosophical naturalism is a form of religion (because it is a worldview or ultimate concern that dictates how one should live his/her life), but what does that have to do with evolution? Evolution simply means the change in allele frequencies over time. It can be seen happening through genetics on a smaller scale. On a larger scale, the evolution of humans cannot be observed, but it is still something that can be supported (or not supported) by evidence. It is simply a way of explaining why species exist as they do in the environments that they do today. Evolution is science because it uses observations about the natural world to explain how it works. As long as that science is not used to dictate how a person should live and interact with others and find meaning, it is not by itself a worldview.
Science itself is certainly not religious, but it can be turned into a religious belief/worldview if it is used to answer questions of meaning and purpose, and if it is extended to explain ALL areas of life, rather than just to explain how the physical world works. It can become that, as we have seen when people use evolution to support the theory of Social Darwinism, but it seems to me that most scientists do not approach science in that way. All of the scientists that I have met are willing to admit that things like literature and art are valuable and that they can express different forms of truth. I would argue that it is a perversion of science to use it to claim truth about other areas of life, and I think that both sides—the Creationists who claim that science is a religion, and extreme evolutionists who claim that they have disproved God—both need to make sure that they are staying within the narrow limits of science. Viewing the issue in this way, I think, allows people to debate their views of Christianity and philosophical naturalism, recognizing that both are arguing on the same level of religion, not between religion and science. And more importantly, it also removes evolution from the religious debate. But of course, that is just my opinion ;)
This statement from your blog post really got me thinking.
ReplyDelete“In that sense, I agree with the Creationists that philosophical naturalism is a form of religion (because it is a worldview or ultimate concern that dictates how one should live his/her life).”
I find it very interesting that during these debates morality comes into the picture. Though I believe that morality should not be influenced by the search for universal truths, it always seems to be mentioned. We all know right from wrong; killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. Our parents teach us how to live our lives very early on. We must share and help others, not because someone told us to or because there is a reward, but because it is simply the right thing to do.
Growing up I learned the Ten Commandments; I even had a tape with a song on it going through each commandment. But I don’t treat others well because God told me to; I do it because it makes me feel good and because I like helping people. I feel bad when I do something wrong not because God told me it was so but because I hurt some one. If tomorrow God is disproven I will still strive to be a god human being. If tomorrow God comes down from heaven and shows his face to mankind, I will still be the same person with the same goals.
When people like Ken Ham claim that people who are religious are better more moral people than those who don’t believe in God it makes me angry. It is not the religion in the person but the people themselves, regardless of their belief system, which makes the world a happy place. Religion has done many evil things in the past yet they claim to be the blameless ones.
People need to not use religion as a crutch to be good people. They just need to be good people. People also shouldn’t use evolution or atheism as a free pass to not be a good person. Religion sets forth rules on how to behave to be a good person but at the end of the day you need to do it for you regardless of whether you believe in evolution or creationism.
This topic really addresses one of the most fundamental misunderstandings of the whole evolution/creation debate. I remember reading Philip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial for my book report, in which he regularly equated evolution with philosophical naturalism, thereby discrediting the discoveries of science in general simply because naturalism is the worldview of choice for a great number of scientists. I have the feeling that creationists use these kinds of claims as ammunition against evolution, which seems credible to the lay observer, but falls apart once you observe the real philosophical differences between the two.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with your argument that naturalism, like any religion, is essentially a worldview. It cannot be proved or disproved; it is simply a way of looking at things and interpreting the workings of the universe, that also happens to be heavily influenced by science. But in attempting to answer fundamental questions, it goes way beyond the purview of science. By claiming that the universe is exclusively governed by material relationships, it delves into the territory of religion.
The purpose of science is not to disprove God, and the assertion that scientists have somehow managed to disprove God is not only incompatible with their discipline, but generally not something that is in most scientists’ interest at all. Scientific data evolves regularly, old discoveries and assumptions are replaced by new ones—this fluidity is a hallmark of scientific discovery. While the range of answers provided by science is much smaller than that claimed by materialistic naturalism or any other religion, we can be certain that the limited answers it does provided are verifiable, testable, and address matters of certainty rather than metaphysics, observable facts rather than abstract ideas.