https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhejrWY6sVA
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks meets 3 atheist scientists
A. Introduction
Science a great achievement of human kind, shapes world around us. It is a gift from
God. Or is this an outdated way of thinking in a world where only evidence matters?
Can religion and science together make a great partnership? They did , for centuries.
But in the last few decades, that relationship has broken down – science is almost not
on speaking terms with religion, if you listen to people like Richard Dawkins, the
evolutionary biologist, who says it is criminal to bring children up believing in faith
for which there is no evidence.
Religion is about answering questions that science cannot - how to live, what kind of
world we want, how we relate to the ultimately unknowable - God. Those things are
not scientific things. Science and religion should work together – science takes things
apart to see how they work, religion puts them together , to see what they mean.
So is religion really something simple, childish and unnecessary in the modern world,
or it it something that we need to understand the meaning of our lives, and how to
make a better world?
What do you think?
1. Does religion answer questions that science cannot?
2. Is religion “belief without evidence”?
3. Should science and religions be “on speaking terms”?
Rabbi Sacks will meet 3 atheist scientists. Will they agree that sience and religion are
not opposing forces? That humans are unique, as having free will, morality,
conscience.
B. Neurologist Baroness Susan
Greenfield, Oxford.
Prof. Susan is a pioneer in the research of
how the human brain can generate
consciousness. How do ordinary, physical
objects like chemicals suddenly get the
“personal” sensation of knowing they can
understand what is going on around
them? How can non-living objects
suddenly get a personal feelings and
understanding?
Science by definition, deals with things as
objects. But consciousness is something
personal, an “I” in the world of “things”.
So have we reached the limits of science?
Prof. Greenfield admits that scientists
don’t even know what sort of “thing” consciousness is, if it is a thing. And if they don’t
know that, they can’t investigate it.
According to science, consciousness is something that has no place in the physical
world. On the other hand, it is religion, ancient as it is, that speaks of the free-will,
choice, responsibility, things that make us human.
For Prof. Susan, even though she is an atheist, the important thing is to have an open
mind, to challenge everything, and to be able to accept that you might be wrong. That
means that religious people should not be afraid to question the evidence for their
beliefs. It also means that scientists should not be afraid to recognize that there may
be non-physical aspects to the universe, that science cannot adequately describe or
explain. For her, science and religion can be two sides of the same coin, two totally
different things, but both can be true in their own way.
What do you think?
1. Which better describes the human person – science (human beings are nothing
more than collections of atoms and molecules) or religion (man is a conscious,
free and responsible being?) Why?
2. Do you think consciousness is something science could one day explain ? Or is
it impossible to talk about something personal like consciousness, in the
physical language of science?
3. Do you agree with Prof. Greenfield that the important thing, is to have a
questioning, and open mind, whether you are a scientist or a religious believer,
or do you think it is OK to think you are 100% right and refuse to discuss things
any more?
C. Theoretical physicist
Professor Jim Al-Khalili, Imperial
College.
Prof. Jim: Religious people interested in
who, why, scientists – how. The laws of
physics are just there – there is no
meaning or purpose to them, but
religious people say there is. Religion
used to say “God did it” because no one
knew any better but science has been
explaining more and more, so religion is
on the retreat. Even now scientists are
looking at what happened before the Big
Bang.
Rabbi Sacks: The “God of the Gaps” argument is a very bad argument – religious
people would agree that it is not an explanation to say that “God did it”. Religion is
not on the retreat, because religion says that God made us with intelligence and He
wants us to know about creation to understand greatness of universe and smallness
of us. So every advance for science is also an advance for religion, and an advance of
the religious person’s understanding of the greatness of the Creator. In this way, both
atheists and religious people have a shared awe at wonder of the universe.
What do you think?
1. Do you agree that religion is “on the retreat” from science, or do you think that
every advance in science tells us more about the wonder and greatness of God?
2. Atheists stand in awe before the complexity and immensity of the universe, and
leave it at that. Religious people turn their awe into thanks and praise for the
God they see to be behind it. Does that mean that atheist scientists and
religious people should be “in conflict”?
D. Professor Richard Dawkins.
Evolutionary biologist.
Dawkins is Britain’s best known atheist, leading
the scientific attack on religion – in his best-selling
book “The God Delusion” , Dawkins says that
religious belief is ignorance, and superstition - an
insult to all thinking people and to science. For
Dawkins, God is “as real” as fairies.
Prof. Dawkins: My advice is “If someone can’t give you evidence for something, don’t
believe it”. I believe that the Bible is not really historical, and it makes me angry that
religious people don’t care if the stories in it are true, partly true or not true.
Rabbi Sacks: Belief in God is not like belief in fairies, because God really did
intervene in human history – in the lives of Abraham, Moses. Some of the writing may
be more story like, than factual, but this is because the Bible uses stories just like you
would tell your daughter stories when she was young. God told us stories when our
civilization was still in its childhood, so that people could easily understand God and
how to live .
Did the Bible stories really happen? As I just explained, the whole point of the Bible
stories is to tell us how to live. I do believe, however, that these stories are based on
historical facts – it is only because the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham really happened,
that Jews alone, out of all the people in the ancient world, learnt that it was not right
to practice child sacrifice, and not to treat their children as if they were just their own
property. That story made a big change in Jewish culture. Religion is a force from
good – it teaches us about how to live in the right way. Research also shows that it is
more likely for a religion person than a secular person to donate to charity and to do
voluntary work.
Prof. Dawkins: I agree that science can be just as much a force for evil as religion
can. In fact, if you really want to do evil, you had better be good at science, as science
is the most efficient way to do anything! Also if you tried to use science to tell others
how they should live, I agree that this would also be a disaster – someone could take
Darwin to mean that we should get rid of all weak people, as only the strong and fit
survive.
Rabbi Sacks: so science doesn’t tell us about what sort of society we should live in. If
Darwin is misused, it doesn’t mean Darwin was wrong, or bad. Similarly, if religion is
misused (by terrorist fundamentalists) that doesn’t mean that religion is wrong, or
bad. The answer to bad science is not “no science”, but good science. And the answer
to bad religion is not “no religion”, but good religion. Whether we are atheists or
religious, we need to value human rights, human dignity, respect the truth, be open
and willing to question, and pursue knowledge.
What do you think?
1. Do you think it matters if some of the bible stories are not factually or
scientifically true? Why?
2. How can religion be a force for evil? Explain with an example.
3. Do you think science can be a force for evil? Explain with an example.
4. Do you think someone like Dawkins and Sacks can get along to make society a
better place? How?
Conclusion
All too often, science and religion are seen as having nothing in common, but they
actually have much in common. Both religion and science can be united in the desire
to pursue a common good. Science talks about our origin - religion talks about our
purpose; science talks about the world that is – religion talks about the world that
ought to be. God made us in love and forgiveness, asking us to love and forgive
others. Add that to science, and it equals hope.
What do you think?
What is your final view? Can science and religion make a good partnership?