War of the Worlds: Maybe the Best Way for Science and Religion to Coexist Is Independently-Each Providing Powerful Answers to Distinct Sets of Questions, Neither Expected to Fully Accommodate the Other. Maybe the Differences between the Two Are Simply Irreconcilable

By Johnson, George | Science & Spirit, January-February 2006 | Go to article overview

War of the Worlds: Maybe the Best Way for Science and Religion to Coexist Is Independently-Each Providing Powerful Answers to Distinct Sets of Questions, Neither Expected to Fully Accommodate the Other. Maybe the Differences between the Two Are Simply Irreconcilable


Johnson, George, Science & Spirit


[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The daddy longlegs clinging vertically to my bathroom wall is a marvel of airy symmetry, its tiny head perched delicately at the center of eight arching limbs. A moment later, struck by the back of my hand, it lies crumpled on the floor. I'm sorry, but I don't like spiders in the house.

In fact, as I learn the next morning, it wasn't a spider I killed, an Araneida, but a member of a parallel order, Phalangida--one that lives by eating spiders, including the annoying little ones that bite. My reflexive action was stupidly self-defeating. But my remorse runs deeper. I feel guilty for destroying this elegant arrangement of carbon molecules, and I can't quite understand why. I don't feel a thing when I pull horsetail and cheat grass from our meadow or massacre a swarm of box elder beetles with laundry soap. I am glad when the cats kill a grasshopper or a mouse; indifferent if their prey is a sparrow; sad if it is a hummingbird. There is no definable moral calculus here. All organisms, I know, are nothing more or less than intricate, intertwined chemistry, products of an evolutionary process that is purposeless and blind. Yet I find myself behaving sometimes as though the world were crawling with spirits. I, the materialist, am making godlike judgments as to what has a "soul," whatever that means, and what deserves to live or die.

A believer might say I am wrestling with something "spiritual." I cringe when I hear the word, coming, with all its musty connotations, from the Latin spiritus, meaning "of breathing" or "of wind." People once thought invisible beings swooped through the trees, bending the branches, propelling leaves and dust. They believed the rhythmic inhalation of these spirits--respiration--animated the body (from the Greek anemos, which also means wind).

We know better now, but the word refuses to go away. "Spiritual" has come to mean the opposite of material: incorporeal, undetectable, unmeasurable--and so, as far as science is concerned, unreal.

These thoughts have come to occupy me after my return from a summer journalism fellowship at Cambridge University devoted to the topic of reconciling science and religion--an idea that has puzzled me since I came across it years ago at a similarly inspired event in Berkeley, California. Science is about what you can prove. Religion is about what you believe. It follows that there can be many different religions, but only one science. So what is there to reconcile?

Science can, of course, study religion, using neuroscience and evolutionary theory to try to explain why people hold religious beliefs. Geology and archeology can refute the fundamentalist teaching that the Earth was created just a few thousand years ago or the Pueblo Indian belief that people emerged fully formed from a hole in the ground somewhere near Espanola, New Mexico. Reconciliation comes as science subsumes religion, as it steadily has been doing for hundreds of years.

It is conceivable that a very different kind of reconciliation could come about: In a stunning reversal, religion might one day subsume science. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Hopi--one of the world's religions, or some hybridization, would turn out to be true. In a great spiritual awakening, every being on Earth would experience a divine, unifying vision--revealed truth. There would be no more need for scientific investigation.

But neither of these outcomes is what the reconcilers have in mind. They seek a way to bring science and religion back together. The idea sounds almost medieval, as when the Scholastic philosophers, taking as a given the existence of the Holy Trinity, elaborately attempted to join reason and faith--an impossible task that led, after a thousand years of circular logic, to the religious and the secular going their separate ways.

Reconciling science and religion would mean reconciling materialism and spirituality--a universe of physical causality with some kind of spirit world. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

War of the Worlds: Maybe the Best Way for Science and Religion to Coexist Is Independently-Each Providing Powerful Answers to Distinct Sets of Questions, Neither Expected to Fully Accommodate the Other. Maybe the Differences between the Two Are Simply Irreconcilable
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen
Items saved from this article
  • Highlights & Notes
  • Citations
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Search by... Author
    Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.