Name: Episode 1: The Problem: Science & Religion Warfare
Uploaded: 2017-09-25T18:52:54.910Z
Duration: 9 min 9 s

Episode 1.

Hello everyone. I'm Denis Lamoureux,

Professor of Science and Religion at St. Joseph's College in the University of Alberta.

I'm delighted that you're interested in the topic of science and religion,

and in particular, in my course.

Since 1997, I've delivered this course over 100 times.

In students, both religious and non-religious,

I found it helpful in developing their own personal beliefs and worldview.

Hopefully you will too.

So let's get started, shall we?

Please turn to page one in your class notes and let's deal directly with

the problem that chronically plagues this topic,

Science and Religion warfare.

Many people today believe that the relationship between science and

religion is one that is marked by conflict,

and that there can never be any sort of peaceful relationship between the two.

If we study history,

we will find many examples of tensions between science and religion.

But where this warfare relationship magnifies and turns into outright conflict,

begins in the second half of the 19th century.

One of the best examples is Thomas Henry Huxley,

who was known as Charles Darwin's bulldog for his rather inflammatory language.

In a review of Darwin's most famous book,

on The Origin of Species published in 1859 and which outlines the theory of evolution,

we can see Huxley using the terms of conflict and

warfare to mark the relationship between science and religion.

In Quote One, Huxley writes,

extinguished theologians, that is,

TED professors of theology just like me,

lie about the cradle of every sciences,

the strangled snakes, besides that of Hercules.

And Greek mythology offers us this image of Hercules as a boy,

strangling a snake to death.

Continuing, Huxley claims, and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy,

the term orthodoxy here refers to religion,

in other words, whenever science and religion have been fairly opposed,

the latter, that is religion,

has been forced to retire from the lists, "bleeding and crushed,

if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain".

Now, you may not agree with Huxley but you have to give him

credit for having a mastery of the English language.

What we have with Thomas Henry Huxley in Quote One,

is a classic example of someone who accepts science and religion warfare.

According to this approach,

science and religion are entrenched in a never ending conflict,

without any hope of a peaceful resolution.

Please turn to page one in your class handouts,

for a diagram depicting science-religion warfare.

This warfare mentality produces what is known as the Science versus Religion Dichotomy.

The term dichotomy is made up of the Greek word "dica" which means "in

two" and the verb "temno", "to cut".

A dichotomy then, refers to the division of an issue into only two simple positions.

It involves thinking about issues in black and white and either or terms.

The problem with dichotomies is that it forces people into

choosing between one of two positions.

Therefore, according to the science vs. religion dichotomy,

you're either on the so-called "science" side and notice the scare quotes,

or you're on the so-called "religion" side.

In this way, you cannot be both a scientist and a religious believer.

This dichotomous either or way of thinking,

then develops into what we call the evolution versus creation debate,

which is also known as the origins dichotomy.

And I am certain that you see the problem with this debate,

it forces people into choosing between only two positions.

You are either on the so-called side of "evolution",

or you're on the so-call side of "creation".

Again, notice my scare quotes.

Therefore, according to the evolution versus creation dichotomy,

you cannot be both an evolutionist and also a believer in a creator.

Let's look more specifically at both sides of

these science versus religion and evolution versus creation dichotomies.

First, we will begin with an example of what many people

commonly understand to be the meaning of the terms science and evolution.

Julian Huxley was the grandson of Thomas Henry Huxley.

He was also a world class evolutionary biologist during the middle of the 20th century.

At the Centennial Celebration of Darwin's most famous book,

On the Origin of Species,

at the University of Chicago in 1959,

he contributed a paper outlining the meaning of evolution.

In Quote Two, Huxley writes,

in the evolutionary pattern of thought,

there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural.

In other words, there's just no place for God.

Huxley then states, "The earth was not created; it evolved."

So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it,

including our human selves,

mind and soul as well as brain and body.

Amazingly, Huxley is a world-class scholar and we can see that he's

trapped in the simple evolution vs creation dichotomy.

And what else evolved?

According to Huxley, so did religion.

What then is religion?

Religion is nothing but an evolutionary spin-off.

Individuals who evolved religious behavior gained an advantage over those who didn't.

And natural selection chose this behavior.

Continuing, Julian Huxley writes,

evolutionary man and woman can no longer take refuge

from their loneliness in the arms of a divinized father figure,

whom he has himself created.

Notice what Huxley does here,

he stands in the face of the traditional Christian belief found

in the first chapter of the Bible in Genesis One,

in verses 26 and 27,

the word states, that God created humans in His image.

According to Huxley, humans created God.

In other words, God is just a figment of our imagination.

Julian Huxley then adds,

nor can evolutionary man and woman escape from the responsibility of

making decisions by sheltering under the umbrella of divine authority.

In discussions about origins,

the issue of ethics often appears.

Many believe that if we can figure out how humans arose,

then we can determine how we should live our lives.

The ethical position Huxley embraces is known as humanist ethics.

This is an ethical position in which humans alone determine morals and values,

and not God as traditionally believed.

Huxley then concludes, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern,

however incompletely, the lineaments,

that is, the outline of the new religion

that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era.

There are two things that I find fascinating in this passage.

First, by eliminating traditional religion,

Huxley contends a new religion needs to take its place.

Huxley terms this new religion "a secular religion" or a "religion without revelation".

That is, this is a religion without religious books, like the Bible.

Second, it seems to me that Huxley is affirming that

humans have some sort of psychological need for spirituality.

Most religious people would agree and say that this need is met,

by having God in our life.

End of episode.

Episode 1: The Problem: Science & Religion Warfare

Science & Religion 101

Conoce a los instructores