The war between science, religion doesn't have to be faught

Recently, Becky and I sat and listened to respected evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins talk about the wonders of science. Unfortunately, the event was just as much an atheist revival as it was a science lecture.

Rather than leave with a greater love and appreciation for science, I left feeling more angry than I have ever felt toward a person with a British accent.

How Dawkins got us all riled up

Even before Dawkins stepped up to the stage, the event took a vitriolic tone toward religion. Sean Faircloth, an employee of Dawkins' foundation that seeks to rid religion from public life, spoke about his book Rise of the Theocrats: How the Religious Right is harming us all, and what we can do to stop them. His presentation was chock full of slides where he showed the most embarrassing or goofy picture he could find of a Christian, followed by a really nice picture of an atheist.

He verbally attacked Liberty University for being devoted to its religious and conservative political values, and for receiving millions of dollars in federal aid. (He failed to mention that the aid is actually federal Pell Grant money that only goes to LU because students chose to enroll there.)

I could feel my blood start to boil. Even though I disagree with the stances of some of the Christian politicians he berated, and even though I am one person against whom LU discriminates (job applicants there must sign a statement that essentially denies my belief in The Book of Mormon), I wholeheartedly support people's right to choose their religious beliefs, live according to them, and even apply them to their political stances.

Additionally, I felt angry because I saw the world Faircloth proposes. In his ideal secular world, people who hold and live by religious principles not backed up by a secular interpretation of science would find themselves discriminated against in various ways as they search for jobs in medicine, education or government.

Take his ideas far enough, and a person's rights to follow some religious principles in raising their children could be threatened.

The government would fund anti-religion indoctrination while religious values are shoved to the side.

Do open-minded people call Christians stupid idiots?

Then Dawkins took to the stage and talked about his new book, The Magic of Reality: How we know what is really true. It's a children's book that walks through various questions about our universe---ranging from rainbows and evolution to seasons and aliens---discussing myths and science.

He showed off the book's illustrations and an accompanying iPad app that lets users learn about science interactively. It was a fascinating presentation.

But it really bothered me that during his talk, and during a question and answer session that followed, Dawkins repeatedly referred to religious people (particularly young-earth creationists) as "stupid" and called them "idiots." How open minded of him!

He acted very pleased when people announced to him that his words have helped them become atheists. I realized that this was not so much about promoting science as it was about mocking religion and promoting atheism.

It was, indeed, an atheist revival. After Dawkins preached for a while, I wondered when he would pass the collection plate and ask people to come forth and profess atheism to be saved.

Religion and science can get along

Too often, people on either side of the aisle act as though science and religion must be at war. Atheist scientists focus a lot of research and energy explaining why faith is foolish and unnecessary, and act as though anyone who accepts something without full scientific evidence is stupid. (Meanwhile, they exercise a lot of faith in the conclusions they have reached through science.)

Then, there are religious people who consistently ignore and berate science, as though scientific inquiry and discovery were itself the anti-Christ. They spend a lot of time and money explaining away science.

I feel it is unwise for people on both sides of the argument to view science as the anti-religion and religion as the anti-science. The two can coexist, and they do so beautifully.

Latter-day Saint scriptures emphasize the importance of learning, including learning about science. We are commanded to learn:

Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass... (Doctrine & Covenants 88:79)

I take that as a commandment to study astronomy, geology, and the past, current, and future state of the world. Science gives us those tools.

Becky attended Brigham Young University, which is owned and sponsored by our church. There, she learned a lot about evolution. The school had many speakers come and speak about the science of evolution.

This article on The Daily Beast elaborates on the relationship of Mormonism and science. It quotes Brigham Young, a Latter-day Saint prophet in the 1800s:

“In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular… whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or as many millions of years.”

Evolution has been hotly debated in the Mormon community. Some church leaders and members have concluded that it is heretical. But the church has had no doctrinal statement on the topic, other than in 1931 when this statement was released:

“Leave geology, biology, archeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the soul of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.”

This is consistent with scripture. Jesus says several times in the Bible and the Book of Mormon that his doctrine is, essentially, that God sent Jesus, his only begotten son, to sacrifice himself for the sins of the world, and whoever has faith, repents, is baptized, and receives the gift of the Holy Ghost will be cleansed from sin and have eternal life.

And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. (3 Nephi 11:40, Book of Mormon)

So it is not the job of the church to tell us the exact processes that God used to make the earth---only that He made it and that He has this plan of salvation for us. Apparently, believing science does not disqualify one from salvation, unless science specifically claims that God does not exist.

Becky and I both believe that science is amazing. Of course, we both are devoted to faith and religion, too.

And we believe science and religion can co-exist quite comfortably---in fact, they complement each other and give each other richer meaning.

While we differ slightly in our opinions about various science-and-religion topics, we both agree that a study and belief in evolution does not require a disbelief in God, Jesus Christ, or scripture. We both believe science can open our understanding about how God works, how He made the world, and how we can become more like him, as he commanded.

When science becomes a religion...

Science only has to cast out religion when science becomes a religion...when it becomes atheism.

Dawkins said the other night that he doesn't believe atheism is a religion. I disagree, because atheism is a belief about God (that He doesn't exist) and an associated world view.

Dawkins said that some people ask him what it would take for him to believe in God. He said that he sometimes things a booming voice out of the clouds shouting, "I exist!" might do the trick. But even then, he said, that could be a hallucination, so he is not sure he would even believe that.

In other words, he would explain away any reason for believing that is presented to him.

One argument used against religion is the idea of the "invisible gardener," in which people continually redefine God whenever facts seem to counter their beliefs about Him. Some philosophers say that you don't reasonably believe in God if you cannot also name the circumstances in which you would stop believing in Him.

In the case of Richard Dawkins, the lack of God has become the invisible gardener, because he cannot name the circumstances in which he would stop believing atheism. I believe atheism would require just as much faith as belief in God.

Science doesn't have to be atheism. It can be the process by which we learn more about our world, while religion is the process by which we learn more about God.

I hope more people on each side will learn that the two are not mutually exclusive.