Science and Religion

I won’t mince words. Scientists often practice the inscrutable luxury of critiquing religion, and religious folks often naively critique science. The two have been considered predominantly at odds with one another. On occasion a theologian will attempt to prove the bible scientifically, and a scientist will attempt to disprove the bible scientifically. A lot goes into this screaming match, and I will not seek to sort all this out in a blog mostly because I’m not qualified. But I will say a word or two.

It seems that science and religion are both telling stories about the world, but they seem to be telling their stories differently. If I were to read Crime and Punishment and then I became furious because it broke the rules of sonnet writing, would I be justified in my fury? Crime and Punishment doesn’t have fourteen lines, among others things. Similarly, if a batter in a baseball game hit the ball and on his way to first base he failed to dribble the ball, would he be guilty of breaking the rules of baseball? Novels and sonnets operate according to different rules. Baseball and basketball operate according to different rules. Perhaps, even science and religion operate according to different rules. It won’t do then for science to regard religion as illegitimate, just as it won’t do for Michael Jordan to critique Barry Bonds for not dribbling the baseball after he hit it out of the park. We might call these various practices “games,” and then we might say that these different games each have their own set of rules according to which these games operate. We might call these different games "language games," and with these language games we enact practices and tell stories.

I am not saying science and religion are incompatible. Are baseball and basketball incompatible? That question doesn’t make sense. Incompatibility isn't the issue. I know lots of sports fans who are fans of both baseball and basketball – though I might add Michael Jordan likely should’ve stayed away from playing baseball. However, what I am saying is that science and religion are telling different stories, and they are doing so with different languages, which require particular rules. Does it make sense to say that sonnets are incompatible with plays, if they are referring to the same events? We have grown accustom to speaking of religion and science as if it is proper to say they are incompatible with each other, but I suggest otherwise. I think this is an erroneous assumption. Shakespeare did not contradict himself by writing both sonnets and plays, nor did Dostoevsky contradict himself by writing essays and novels. It might be said, “But the bible says one thing about this event and science/historiography says another.” To that I must say, “Yes, and they are doing so according to different rules of story telling, just as a poem differs from a novel.” Let each continue to operate according to their rules, though it might not hurt for them to rub off on each other. After all, novelists would do well to learn a thing or two from poets, and the converse is true also. Incompatibility is not the issue, and we would do well to recondition ourselves regarding this assumption.

If I heard some seemingly bazaar utterances made by a member of a Luba tribe, it would be a misapprehension on my part to tell him, “No, that’s not how you say pickles and cheese!” If I were to do such a silly thing, I would be ignoring the rules according to which he is making those particular utterances; I would be ignoring the rules of his language game. So we may wish to translate his utterances into utterances according to rules with which I am familiar, but it must be noted that something will likely be lost in the translation process. We will not acquire a word for word translation. What then is to be done?

Just as a professor of literature needs to be acquainted with multiple languages, so too a systematic theologian needs to be acquainted with multiple languages, including the “language” of science. This should be the case not merely for a systematic theologian to travel the earth seeking to “prove the bible” but that with a richer understanding of the many languages of the world, which are imbedded in their respective cultures, a systematic theologian might practice a more robust theology, one which acknowledges the multiplicity of stories that are told according to varying language games. Scientists might also do the same, lest scientists and theologians continue to squawk at each other in completely different languages expecting the other to stop breaking all the rules of story telling. However, I should add that I am not suggesting that theologians pretend to learn the “language” of science and then practice it poorly, just as Michael Jordan likely should've stayed away from playing baseball. That would only exacerbate the dialogue. Theologians need to develop a fluency in other "languages." But if nothing else, dialogue partners need to make room for the other’s language and way of telling their stories without immediately considering it to be an illegitimate practice.