One Foot In Science, One Foot In Religion

Continued from Page 2

To those who doubt that religious ritual is needed in a modern age, I would refer them to the comparative religious theory of Jonathan Z. Smith:

[R]itual represents the creation of a controlled environment where the variables (the accidents) of ordinary life may be displaced precisely because they are felt to be so overwhelmingly present and powerful. Ritual is a means of performing the way things ought to be in conscious tension with the way things are. Ritual relies for its power on the fact that it is concerned with the quite ordinary activities placed within an extraordinary setting. (To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual, University of Chicago Press, 1992, p. 109)

Sacred places of worship, like temples, are controlled settings wherein the ordinary strains of life can be set aside. Modern ritual, integrated with tradition, represent the ideals of heaven, the way things ought to be. The sacred setting is indeed extraordinary, even if the humans within it are rather ordinary. Ritual allows the ordinary to be made better.

I find the combination of religion and science to be synergistic. Even so, I realize that many others do not.

(4) How does my religion approach science?

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), and its members are nicknamed "Mormons." We can enter into any form of science that one would find at a responsible university. As scientists, we can make any form of naturalistic argument, but our religion would have us be sensitive and respectful to the religious beliefs of others (no matter what their religion might be). Education always has been emphasized in Mormonism, which contains the philosophy that "the glory of God is intelligence" (D&C 93:36).

Mormons are taught not to be arrogant in their knowledge. We are taught Nephi's humble confession: "I do not know the meaning of all things" (1 Nephi 11:17). Such should be the humility of both religionists and scientists.

There are Mormons in all the major fields of science. They are active contributors to both their religion and their sciences.

(5) Can a Mormon scientist be an evolutionist?

I suspect that the majority of Mormon life scientists are evolutionists. There is no prohibition against it in the LDS Church.

Unfortunately, a February 2009 Gallup poll revealed that only 39% of the American population believes in Darwinian evolution. That figure dropped considerably in religious populations, including Mormons.

The evolution of life over geological time should be regarded as scientific fact (as defined under Question #2). The fact of evolution demands natural explanation.

The scientific data rule out any notion of "special creation," wherein each species is specially designed de novo. Followers of the school of "intelligent design" have failed to adequately answer the following questions:

Why are geologists systematically wrong about their dating methods (which are based in quantum mechanics)?
Why are paleontologists systematically wrong about their claims that strata are organized by time and transitional fossil species?
How can a special creation view account for DNA sequences that change systematically with geological time?
Why do fossil primate skeletons keep showing up, such as Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithcus sediba, that are found in geological time periods that indicate ordered transitional linkages to Homo sapiens?

I simply do not have the mental creativity to dispense with the scientific data associated with the four issues above. But, I invite any special creationist who does have such "creativity" to publish his or her findings in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal of science.

Science, indeed, is open to strong counter-arguments. Not surprisingly, the special creationists have failed to publish their counter-arguments in mainstream science journals. (I can testify that the problem lies with the arguments, not with the review process.)

Frankly, I see no hope for the claims of special creation. Consequently, I hope we can teach our theology students that it is okay to believe in both religion and dinosaurs.

Conclusions

Any theology that ignores science will not prosper in this technological age. Similarly, any technological culture that ignores religion will flirt with extinction. Modern scientific knowledge needs to be supplemented with wisdom -- even ancient wisdom.

S. Faux, Ph.D., has been a cognitive neuroscientist for the last twenty years at a university in the Midwest. He teaches courses in cognition, sensation and perception, and human evolution. He earned his doctorate degree from Brigham Young University, and he spent five years at Harvard Medical School engaged in post-doctoral studies. He is the primary author of the blog Mormon Insights, where he can be contacted.

Page: 3 of 3

One Foot in Science, One Foot in Religion