Science and Religion - Templeton Essay

http://www.templeton-cambridge.org/fellows/2006

ESSAY FOR TEMPLETON CAMBRIDGE JOURNALISM FELLOWSHIP

Thirteen years ago Pope John Paul II expressed optimism for science and religion's happy co-existence. Speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences he said that although they formed two realms of knowledge they: "Are not foreign to each other. They have points of contact."

His optimism was echoed in a book published in 1999 from the other side of the divide. In "Rocks Of Ages - Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life" scientist Stephen Jay Gould argued for the co-existence of what he termed the two non-overlapping magistera of science and faith.

"People of good will wish to see science and religion at peace," he said, "I do not see how they can be unified, or even synthesised under any common scheme of explanation or analysis, but I also do not understand why the two enterprises should experience any conflict."

Nevertheless, in 2005, things look less rosy. Science and religion seem to be in growing confrontation. And this is seen most sharply in the world's most developed nation.

Last year the U.S. Union of Concerned Scientists issued two reports accusing the Bush administration of distorting scientific fact in pursuit of policies on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weapons.

His re-election prompted the scientific community to forecast increasing difficulties in this relationship. Likely areas of conflict are science education, climate change, stem-cell research, and renewable resources.

Why should this be? After all, US funding for the sciences grew significantly during the first Bush administration.

In part it is politics as usual. But a deeper cause is a more fundamental conflict about the constitutional principle of separation of church and state in an increasingly religious nation.

Many in the wider intellectual community see the deepening right-wing social revolution in the US as symptomatic of the growing influence of the religious right which challenges values which have shaped the intellectual landscape of the West since the Enlightenment.

These challenges find parallels in the developing fundamentalist impulse among other world religions and are further strengthened by post-modernist arguments presenting science and religion as belief systems of equal value.

At the heart of all this is a challenge to the scientific world view and its philosophical corollaries.

In the "Critique of Pure Reason" Kant offered seemingly conclusive refutations to both the ontological and cosmological arguments for the existence of God. Darwin meanwhile seemed to have nailed the lid on the "woefully anthropomorphic nature" of intelligent design in the natural realm.

In the 19th century the poet Matthew Arnold wrote in "Dover Beach" of the "melancholy long withdrawing roar …of the sea of faith". But where Nietszche once heralded the death of God and 20th century neuroscientists expected advancing brain science to bring about the parallel demise of the notion of the soul, that sea of faith is now in full flood again.

The post-Enlightenment world proved that, where faith and science can co-exist, the gains to humanity are immense. It led to a modern world shaped by a constantly evolving technology with, in the West, an intellectual climate where human inquiry could move forward within a moral and ethical framework increasingly unhampered by the constricts of religious power.

This decline of faith left a vacuum filled to some extent by the utopian visions of socialism which, in its fullest efflorescence, enslaved or perverted intellectual enquiry for political ends.

Where faith had offered moral structures and meaning and, especially, answers to eschatological questions, the new ideas of scientific socialist focused on the apparent realities of living in "this world". The absence of a deity was increasingly taken as a given.

Now the collapse of these 20th century utopian ambitions has seen the resurgence of values thought anachronistic - fervent nationalism and the reassertion of religious ideas as a way of explaining our lives.

But some things are irreversible. Technology has both created and revealed a world of increasing interconnectedness. The tsunami at Christmas symbolised this with tragic force. It revealed both the strengths and shortcomings of science, faith and politics.

Scientists can explain the mechanics of the Tsunami and explore ways of limiting the future impact of such events. And politicians know how to react in practical terms.

But it was left to spiritual leaders to help us all to make sense of the tragedy. But, with scientists and politicians, they too failed to answer the question asked by so many: Why?

When human agencies are the catalysts of the unspeakable - the Holocaust, 9/11 or Beslan - notions of evil are evoked. But religions fall mute in explaining natural catastrophes.

Most united in calls to look forward. The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams said that terrible events like this will shake faith, but Christians must focus on a passionate engagement with the lives that are left.

Britain's Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks, said asking why was pointless and that Judaism's priority was to inquire: "What should I do? How can I help?" He added: " We must put our efforts into saving life. We believe God needs our help to help those who suffer."

A leading British Hindu said it was a reminder that we exist to serve the world, not vice versa. "To blame God is infantile. It is about accepting personal responsibility and the truth which is that you are not the centre of the universe."

So how are the fundamental questions about who we are, why we exist and what things mean to be answered? Take for instance this question of almost childish simplicity. "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

The follow-up question is probably: "What is the purpose and meaning of creation?" The scientific community has no answers. Religion, in marked contrast, offers a seemingly simple explanation. "Because of God."

The argument flows into the realm of philosophy. The German thinker Friedrich Schelling asked: " Has creation a final purpose at all and if so why is it not attained immediately? Why does perfection not exist from the very beginning."

It reveals the deep gulf between those who seek to understand the nature and workings of our universe via scientific method and in humanist philosophical terms and those who believe the truth stands revealed already through the major religions.

Science abounds in theories about how our universe came to exist. But not why. Although the Big Bang is evidentially established, what preceded it? Science is seeking answers - a theory of everything with no loose ends. But it is an elusive and some say unattainable goal.

The cosmologist Stephen Hawking concluded in his best-selling book "A Brief History of Time" that if we succeed: "We shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would the ultimate triumph of human science - for then we would know the mind of God."

Since he wrote that 18 years ago, theoretical physics has moved into increasingly speculative areas with such ideas as string theory, dark matter and parallel universes. All require leaps of faith as large as that required by those who see the truth is revealed in holy text.

Novelist Salman Rushdie recently defined us as meaning-seeking organisms with a "God shaped hole" yearning to be filled. It is little wonder in the face of such bewildering scientific theories and a world of increasingly intractable difficulty that much of humanity has returned to the affirmations of faith.

But since disengagement with science is no longer an option, the troops of faith have entered a new redoubt of explanation - armed with ideas about intelligent design and the anthropic principle.

So can there then be a harmonious co-existence between resurgent faith and science as scientists enter the 'sacred realm" of experimenting with life itself. Stem cell research, cloning, genetic manipulation and chemical modification of behaviour bring religious and scientific imperatives into confrontation.

But there is another area where it is perhaps more crucial that such conflict be resolved. In a forthcoming book scientist Jared Diamond explores why societies collapse. He concludes that it is usually where tradition and ritual, cultural or religious, are allowed precedence over intelligent application of scientific knowledge.

Clear parallels can be drawn between the fate of vanished peoples like the Anasazi or the inhabitants of Easter Island with our now globalised culture. Are we the crown of creation, made in God's image, or a part of nature, a contingent species, that could be snuffed out by our own ignorance if we turn away from the accumulating evidence about the fragility of our sustaining ecosystem.

The Tsunami was not a man-made disaster but the mounting evidence suggests we are moving towards one that could be irreversibly catastrophic . The arguments now forming are between continuing our odyssey of seeking to understand via scientific inquiry or turning back to the comfort of faith. The challenge is achieving a compromise for our crowded and perilous times.

Ideas that can change the world - brochure

“If scientists could prove we are all related,
would that stop wars? “
Katie aged nine

Original ideas can come from all kinds of places.

Young people often have the best ideas of all.

They see solutions where others see only problems and imagine ways to make our troubled world a better place.

They might be ideas about confronting environmental problems, of making businesses benefit everyone or ways of making their homes, schools, neighbourhoods and the wider world a better place.

In short, ideas that might change the way we all live.

But most have no way to see if their ideas can really make a difference.

Until now.

IDEAS THAT CAN CHANGE THE WORLD is a project in schools across England that will tap into the fresh and exciting ideas of young people and help the best of them become reality.

It will give the young people access to the knowledge and tools that can make their ideas happen.

Its aim is to connect these bright young people with the industries, policy makers and planners that can turn their ideas into reality.

It is being run by Creative Partnerships and will launch in schools across Britain in 2007. The young people taking part will come from areas of significant economic deprivation. Young people have chosen five key themes for the programme:

• Compassion
• Environment
• Money
• Technology
• The Impossible Dream (blue sky thinking)

How will it work?

Businesses, policy makers and planners have the expertise and knowledge that young people in schools need to help them develop their ideas.

Young people in Creative Partnership areas will work with their teachers to submit ideas.

Then a panel of young people and experts will then choose the ideas that can be developed into projects. Businesses and experts will be identified to help.

The experts will come many different fields: artists, scientists, designers, engineers, industry experts, philosophers, writers and more. They’ll engage in dialogue with the young innovators to discuss the ideas and develop them.

Organisations who take part will give the young people access to the most cutting edge thinking, processes, and materials.

By creating these forums for the discussion and development of ideas, IDEAS THAT CAN CHANGE THE WORLD will support schools to embrace innovation and enterprise.

Who will benefit

Business and organisations will be associated with a dynamic nationwide creative project. Their partnership may produce ideas that will benefit them and the world. They’ll be nurturing the future and working with schools in a collaborative and unique way. Scientists, designers and engineers will gain a fresh perspective by working with young people.

Teachers will work creatively and strategically with local, national and global businesses. By working in partnership with entrepreneurs, businesses, designer and scientists, teachers will have the opportunity to develop new and exciting content for their lessons. New partnerships between business and schools will give teachers from different disciplines opportunities to collaborate across the curriculum.

Young people will have a unique opportunity to work alongside forward thinking external partners and experts. They will develop their thinking and increase their understanding of current developments in science, technology and engineering. They will learn about finance and intellectual property. Young people will work in teams and understand the processes required to turn ideas into reality. Ideas that can change the world will promote global awareness amongst young people and give them the knowledge they need to better understand global issues

Happiness

Happiness – Times Education Supplement June 2006

Adults have an annoying habit of telling young people that childhood was the happiest time of their lives - and enjoining them to take advantage of this fleeting era of well-being. We can forget the heartaches and the thousand natural shocks that childhood and adolescence are heir to - the sheer awfulness of bullying, adolescent relationships, rivalries and acne, and the misery that some can feel at school.

The more realistic among us do recognise the challenges of childhood and the new difficulties faced by today's young. As Sue Palmer puts it in her new book Toxic Childhood: "In a global culture whose citizens are wealthier, healthier and more privileged than ever before, children grow unhappier each year."

So do the grown-ups. A BBC poll found that the proportion saying they are "very happy" has fallen from 52 per cent in 1957 to just 36 per cent today.

There is a growing revival of interest in the idea that adulthood could be made easier if we can find ways of making schooldays genuinely happier - by educating young people to be happy.

Nel Noddings, the influential American educationist, has this to say:
"Happiness and education are, properly, intimately connected. Happiness should be an aim of education,and a good education should contribute significantly to personal and collective happiness."

Everyone is surfing the happiness zeitgeist. David Cameron has announced that promoting happiness will be part of Conservative party policy. He said: "It's time we admitted that there's more to life than money, and it's time we focused not just on GDP but on GWB - General Well-being."

Labour shares the vision. Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell says progressive politics has to make room for "fun, laughter and play".

Both were perhaps influenced by the arguments of such academics as Richard Layard, founder-director of the LSE Centre for Economic Performance, who called for a "happiness-based public policy" in his recent book Happiness: Lessons from a new science.

And so educationists are thinking harder about how to make schools happier places and to educate young people in ways to achieve this most elusive emotion.

One leading independent school has put happiness on the curriculum. Anthony Seldon, new head of Wellington college, says: "Helping to produce happy young adults when they leave the school at 18 is my highest priority as head. I have been saying this for 10 years, but only in the past year have I begun to realise this isn't just an airy-fairy aspiration, but that one can in fact learn happiness in classes."

The Wellington lessons are devised by a former forensic psychologist, Nick Baylis, founder of Cambridge university's Well-being Institute, and are aimed at improving their pupils' chances of leading a fulfilling life. At first there will be one 40-minute lesson per week for pupils aged 14 to 16, teaching the skills of how to manage relationships, physical and mental health, negative emotions and how to achieve one's ambitions. A-level students at the boarding school in Crowthorne, Berkshire, will also attend happiness seminars.

Professor Noddings says one reason she wrote her book Happiness and Education "is to counteract a narrow emphasis on test scores - we have really made schools quite grim places.

"We put such a tremendous emphasis on academic achievement for economic success and children take this to be the meaning of happiness and there is no discussion of all these other wonderful sources of happiness.
"What I'm talking about really is quite a strong intellectual programme that helps kids to understand there are many strong sources of happiness - home is a source, so is love of place, relationships, parenting, character, spirituality and finding congenial work."

But the idea of putting happiness on the curriculum also attracts criticism. Katie Ivens, vice chair of the Campaign for Real Education, says: "The duty of a school is to enable children to achieve. That is the contribution that schools are going to make to the children's happiness as children, and also to happiness in their future lives, and if schools don't focus on this, children will become aimless and lack self respect."

Can we actually teach happiness anyway? Understanding it is challenging enough. It has been a theme of philosophical inquiry for millennia.

As one sage reflected: "The search for happiness is one of the main sources of unhappiness in the world."
Most parents when asked what they want from school, say they want their children to be happy. And all around us our culture proclaims short cuts to that end.

Spiritual gurus beguile and neuroscience has found it a subject fit for study. Positive Psychology, a class whose content resembles that of many a self-help book but is grounded in serious psychological research, is now the most popular subject at Harvard university.

The godfather of such studies is American psychologist Martin Seligman, who found that one key to happiness is good friendships. Some London 10-year-olds interviewed recently by the BBC confirmed this, agreeing that they were at their happiest when "with their friends".

They said that schools could help them understand the meaning of happiness - though they could not create it.
However the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham had ideas about how happiness could be fostered in the young. This is the advice he offered the daughter of a friend:

"Create all the happiness you are able to create: remove all the misery you are able to remove. Every day will allow you to add something to the pleasure of others, or to diminish something of their pains. And for every grain of enjoyment you sow in the bosom of another, you shall find harvest in your own bosom; while every sorrow which you pluck from the thoughts and feelings of a fellow creature shall be replaced by beautiful peace and joy in the sanctuary of your soul."