Sermon for 7 January 2007 , 1^st Unitarian Church of Alton , Illinois

 

SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND ETHICS

Ronald J. Glossop

 

  I.  Introduction

A.  Our goal today is to consider science, religion, and ethics, and how they relate to each other.

B.  In order to do that we need first to get a clear idea of what it is that each of these parts of human life refers to.  

1.   Science refers to the quest for knowledge, and during at least the last 200 years it has been taken to refer to that knowledge acquired by use of the experimental method. That method consists of (1) formulating some hypothesis or theory, (2) deducing what kinds of observations would verify or falsify that hypothesis or theory, and then (3) conducting experiments in the space-time world to get relevant evidence on whether the hypothesis might be true or whether it is probably false.  An important part of this procedure is that (4) these experiments have to be repeatable with the same results continuing to be observed.

2.   Religion traditionally has referred to beliefs and practices related to gods or other supernatural forces, often including beliefs about continuing existence after death. Note that I said "traditionally" since I want to allow for the possibility of a different notion of religion to be developed in this post-Enlightenment world.

a.  Following the views of Unitarian Universalist theologian Henry Nelson Wieman, an alternative way of defining religion is " living in accord with that to which one is ultimately committed."   Two of Wieman's books about religion are Man's Ultimate Commitment and The Source of Human Good.  Thanks to our former member John Broyer these books are available in our church library, and I commend them to you.

b.   In this talk I will be discussing the transition from the traditional view of religion to a more modern view which is more acceptable to Unitarian Universalists.  

C.  Ethics refers to a set of ideas about what should be done, that is, about what is good or bad , right or wrong.   The term " ethics" is sometimes restricted to ideas about what an individual person should or should not do, but in this talk I want to use it more broadly to include all ideas about what should or should not be done, including what a group or society should or should not do.   (If one focuses on what a society should or should not do rather than the individualistic " ethics," one is engaged in " social philosophy").   The critical thing for our present discussion is that "ethics" focuses on values rather than facts.   The concern of ethics is what should be , NOT what is .   That is what makes ethics a branch of philosophy rather than a part of science.

 

 II.  When ordinary people think of science , they often think in terms of the conclusions now generally accepted by those doing the experimental work of science rather than the method that has been and is being used to arrive at those conclusions.

A.   One difficulty that then arises is a failure to recognize that the conclusions of science can change as more experiments are conducted and more evidence is accumulated.

1.   For example, in the discipline of physics, the accepted belief at the end of the 20th century that matter cannot be converted to energy was questioned by Einstein in 1905, and the atomic bombs developed 40 years later proved that he was correct, that matter can be converted to energy--lots of it.

2.  Think for a moment about the implications of that.  If you were a student taking a true-false physics test in 1900 and the statement to be evaluated was "Matter cannot be changed to energy," the correct answer would be "true."  Ten years later that answer would be debatable, and fifty years later it would definitely be "false."  What is really true doesn't change, but what we humans regard as true can change, especially in our scientific age.  All conclusions are tentative.  All people, even the best-informed ones, are fallible.

B.  But there are some conclusions backed by much scientific experimentation that do in fact come to be generally regarded as true.  And when they contradict the statements inscribed in a written text regarded by a religious group as scripture, as truth revealed by God to religious spokespersons, a real conflict of ideas occurs.

1.  One obvious example is in the area of astronomy where Biblical writers adopted the viewpoint of their time (roughly 200 BCE to 200 CE), namely, that the sun goes around the earth (and even that there could be daylight and darkness independent of the sun) which body according to Genesis didn't get created until the fourth day!  Copernicus and Galileo used the method of science to show conclusively that those older views, still being promoted by the Church in the 16th and 17th centuries, were  false.

2.  An even more important source of conflict between the ideas advanced in the Bible and the conclusions reached by scientists is Darwin's experimentally based theory of biological evolution by chance variation and natural selection, including the notion that the earth is much older than one would think on the basis of statements in the Bible.

a.  Now new evidence from the study of DNA is giving even more support to the theory of biological evolution as the way that new species come into being as opposed to the idea of independent creation of each species by God as described in the Bible.

b. The great significance of the theory of evolution and the reason that all traditional religions attack it so vehemently is that it shows that humans differ from other animals only in degree , not in kind. It then becomes more difficult for these traditional religions to claim that humans have an immortal, immaterial soul which other animals do not have.  This in turn raises the question, Why it is O.K. to kill animals but not humans?  So far the traditional religions are still fighting against the idea of evolution rather than trying to develop a good answer to this important question about the moral difference between killing other animals and killing people.

C.  Nevertheless the main thing that religion should learn from science is not just adopting its tentative conclusions at this moment but the important fact our human ideas about what is true and good are fallible and are always subject to change as we have new experiences and consider new possibilities.  This situation means that religion should drop its dogmaticsm and accept the view that it is best to adopt conclusions tentatively and openly affirm the possible desirability of adopting new views.

 

III.   Religion has generally been conceived as involving some kind of firm commitment . 

A. Unfortunately, most traditional religions, and especially Christianity, have firmly committed themselves to believing certain ideas about what is true and what has really happened.  But they should learn from science that one's commitment should be to a good procedure or method for discovering what is true and what is good rather than committing themselves to some particular dogma about what is true and what is good, ideas which were "sanctified"  at some particular time by a particular group  of people.

B.  But what is that right procedure or method to which religion should commit itself?

1.  With regard to discovering what is true , a commitment to the scientific method is appropriate but not sufficient.

2.  But religion must also be concerned about ethics , about what is good, about what should be done, and in this area scientific method is not going to be enough.  We may be able to conduct experiments to discover what the facts are, but experimentation cannot show us how things ought to be.  For example, if you repeatedly cheat and never get caught, does that experimental result show that it was good to cheat?  Goodness involves something more than success in reaching some end, and besides one can also ask if the end was good or not.  Science can't answer this kind of question.

3.  There are also some metaphysical issues where the scientific method is not going to be able to decide the answer, namely, issues such as the ultimate shape of the universe and whether some events happen by chance (that is, haphazardly) or whether all events happen because they are determined to occur by virtue of some cause or reason.  There is no way to conduct an experiment to decide these metaphysical issues.

C.  Consequently, in the area of ethics and metaphysics, we need a commitment to some method or approach besides just the scientific method.  What is it?  What method will work best when it is not possible to perform an experiment to get evidence?

D.  When dealing with an issue of what should be done in a particular situation, one possible method is to consult one's conscience :  What seems to me the right thing to do in this situation?  The difficulty with that method is that one's answer is likely to be based on very limited experience and might be influenced by particular factors that might be different at some other time.  It would be better to also take into account what others think about it, especially if they have a lot of experience to rely on.  This kind of knowledge can be acquired by reading and by listening to others.

E.  But it would be even better if one could engage in conversation with others, asking questions and bringing various issues up for consideration.  And the more diverse the experience of those others and the more open to various viewpoints the conversation is, the better the decision about what should be done one is likely be.

F.  This method could be described as the philosophical or dialectical method because it is the method of free and open discussion of various viewpoints used by philosophers, where all are free to challenge the views advanced by others and to advance arguments to support their differing views. 

G. This method could also be described as the democratic method because it encourages all parties to participate in the discussion as equals, listening to what others say but also contributing their own insights and suggestions.  Everyone's opinions are welcome but also subject to attempted refutation by others.  A crucial aspect of this method is respect for everyone and no animosity just because another person disagrees and argues for an opposing conclusion.

H. Henry Nelson Weiman, the Unitarian Universalist theologian I mentioned earlier, calls this kind of open discussion " the process of creative interchange ," and he argues that it is the kind of process or method to which we should be committed when dealing with those ethical and metaphysical questions not amenable to scientific investigation.  In other words, when the issue being considered is the kind that cannot answered by conducting an experiment, then the method to which we should be committed is "the process of creative interchange."  Also, when we examine the history of philosophy and the history of science and the history of democratic government, we see that what they have in common is their use of this process of creative interchange.

I.  When we examine the history of science, we see that even the scientific method is merely a special case of this kind of back-and-forth argumentation and trying to give good reasons to support one's conclusions called the process of creative interchange.  Human experience has shown that the results of experiments provide the best kind of support for one view or another when the issue is a factual one.

J.  Note how the scientific method and the method of creative interchange have the same general characterstics:  (1) No one is assumed to be infallible. Everything is open to question.  (2) There is an assumption that more information and more continuing open consideration of various viewpoints and arguments to support them can lead to the expansion of human knowledge, not just about what is true but also about what is good and maybe even about metaphysical issues.  (3)  Even when it seems that there is general agreement about some conclusion, further discussion and argumentation and experience can lead to change.  There is no end to the process.  At no point can it be said, "We now have THE TRUTH."  There is always a need for further discussion or debating or experimenting."

 

IV.  As previously mentioned, ethics refers to a set of ideas about what should be done, that is, about what is good or bad , right or wrong .

A.  We have also noted that scientific experimentation is limited to providing us with evidence about what is in fact true and is not able to provide us with definitive answers on ethical issues, issues about what ought to be, what is good or bad, right or wrong.

B.  As a result, religious leaders are in a position to claim that humanity needs religion as the only basis for ethics and ethical behavior.  They say that people need religion to instruct them on ethical issues and also to motivate them to act ethically rather than only  for self-interest.

C.  But philosophers have shown that there are other bases for forming good opinions on ethical issues, and on the factual issue of whether religion causes people to act more ethically, scientists have shown that that is not true.  Criminals and others who engage in unethical behavior are just as likely to be religious as non-religious.

1.  Philosophers going back to Socrates in the 4th century BCE have shown how reason can be a basis for ethical knowledge without assistance from religion.  The culmination of this process was the work of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant who noted that the most basic ethical principle, the Golden Rule that one should act toward others as you would want them to act toward you, could be known by reason alone (though he did this using sophisticated language like "the Categorical Imperative" and "Pure Practical Reason").  But Kant made it clear that one didn't need any kind of religious beliefs or faith in the supernatural to acquire this basic ethical knowledge.  And Kant put forth this view even though he himself was sympathetic to religion.

2.  Another 18th-century philosopher, the Scot David Hume, also argued that we can have good ethical insights without any religious base.  In fact, he showed that religion is often used to undermine people's natural more sensible ethical beliefs.  The sensible ethical beliefs are based on empathy for others, animals as well as people.  For Hume one doesn't need religion to see that there is something very ethically wrong about torturing animals.  Ethical insight requires imagination and reason as well as empathy, but it certainly does not require any kind of religion or belief in the supernatural.

D.  On the issue of whether religious belief is needed to persuade people to act ethically, I believe that a common approach used in religion actually undermines ethical behavior.  I refer to the notion that one should behave ethically now in order to go to Heaven in the afterlife and to avoid going to Hell (or for some religions that one should build up good karma during this life so that things will be better in future incarnations).  These teachings undermine the very basic ethical notion that one should do what is good and/or right just because it is good and right, not in order to get something for oneself later.  The common religious viewpoint starts out with the understanding that there is often a conflict between what is ethically required on the one hand and what is in my immediate self-interest on the other, but then it converts all decision-making on ethical issues into acting for one's own long-term self-interest.  It totally eliminates even the possibility of truly ethical behavior, behavior where one does what is good or right simply because it is good or right.

 

V.  So, in summary, what can we say about science, religion, and ethics?

A.  Although the general public thinks of science in terms of the conclusions supported by the research done by scientists, especially as it impacts on theoretical issues such as the theory of biological evolution or the practical area of combatting deadly diseases such as cancer, what makes science science is the experimental method of testing the truth of hypotheses or theories about how the world works.  Because of the way that science works, its conclusions are always tentative and subject to further study.  The conclusions generally accepted today may be rejected tomorrow if new evidence turns up.  Consequently, our ideas about what is true are subject to change. At the same time, it is important to realize that science is restricted to helping us know the facts but is not very helpful when it comes to ethical questions of good and bad, right and wrong.

B.  Religion relates to people's commitments .  Traditional religions have directed those commitments to believing certain pre-scientific, pre-Enlightenment ideas about gods, about the supernatural (including the possibility of miracles), and about life-after-death.  They have also tried to persuade people that religion is necessary as a basis for ethical behavior, that without religion and the old beliefs society would fall apart because of immorality.   Traditional religions are running into trouble among educated people because the beliefs they have viewed as dogmatic truth inspired by God are being contradicted by the findings of modern science.  They retain some public support only because of people's fear of disapproval of parents, friends, and relatives plus what may happen if they "lose belief in God."  But religion can retain its rightful place at the center of human life if it switches away from its commitment to certain beliefs of the ancient past to a new kind of commitment to the process of creative interchange.  Such a religion promotes progress, intellectual and spiritual growth, tolerance for new and different ideas, and openness to diversity.

C. Ethics , knowing what ought to be done, does not need to rely on religion.  Developing useful ideas in ethics, both ideas about what a particular individual should do and ideas about what the society as a whole should do, can best be done by the process of creative interchange, by the continuing exchange of proposals and argumentation about various ideas with the awareness that new proposals and arguments may show up in the future.  Ideas presently accepted as important for thinking about ethical issues are the primacy of the Golden Rule and the significant roles of empathy, imagination, and reason as we deal with ethical issues.  Always ask yourself, What would an informed, impartial, non-prejudiced person do in this situation (not what would Jesus do)?

D.  In other words, we need the scientific method is to find out what is true.  Religion , viewed as the commitment to the process of creative interchange, should be a central feature in our lives.  And ethics , deliberating with others about what ought to be done--and then doing it--is crucial to being a good individual as well as a good citizen of the society generally and a good member of the various groups to which we belong.

E.  These are ideas promoted by this church.