열려있는 교회

Science and Religion

Young Moo Lee

October 12, 2015

I was appalled reading an article "God, Darwin and My College Biology Class" (the New York Times Sunday Review, Sep. 28, 2014). The author, David P. Barash, an evolutionary biologist, argued that "the patent amorality of the natural world leads to an unavoidable exclusion of a benevolent creator, just as random variation excludes the needs for a grand watchmaker god." In other words, he said that there is no evidence of God considered from a moral perspective in this earthly sphere, and power of random process is superior over God's creation and shepherds. He further asserts that science is not compatible with religion.

Upon reading this article, I felt I missed those great minded scientists even more (Galileo Galilei, Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, Karl Sagan, just to name a few). They had brought scientific truths and peace for us without causing any unnecessary conflicts or pains. Their researches reach beyond physical life into the realm of inspiration so that they could not find appropriate vocabularies to translate their research data into human languages. Their research results could be understood only among them, but they had tried their best to share it even with ordinary persons. They didn't pursue their research to be recognized but they were guided by their great vision. To be sure, they were not conceited or mocking faithful people. Of course, they did not deny the presence of God and spirituality.

Not many people would agree with Mr. Barash's premature assertion cued with scientific naivety because: First of all, Evolutionary Biology does not represent science. It is only a narrow but distinguished band in the whole spectrum of science. And evolutionary biology does not concern how the very first life form(s) was created. It begins with a life form or life forms, not before. Secondly, Professor Barash may have assumed that the Biblical literalism prevails in religious communities. He likely overlooked the fact that faithful ones do not fall into simplistic literalism in Judaeo - Christian community.

He may have been successful persuading to have some of college students in his class converted to his perspective. That is exactly what I am afraid of. I was compelled to write this essay for young religious students not to have their faith swayed by the above article or likes. I am going to elaborate my points below why I can't agree with Mr. Barash.

Evolutionary Biology starts only after a life form was created

Darwinian evolution begins with a life form, a single cell. But his evolutionary theory does not tell anything about how the simplest life form was prepared. This point has to be made very clear upfront, otherwise people may get confused that the study of evolution is also concerned with how life was formed. I believe in evolution with a caution pointed out above.We all agree with the diversity of a given life form living in this earth. All life forms are under pressure of being eliminated depending upon changes of environmental or social conditions, which will lead to differential survival rates of individuals. Scientific evidences for this kind of horizontal evolution, "Survival of the Fittest", are overwhelming. However, there have been hot debates about "Vertical Evolution", a process of forming more complicated life forms from simpler ones (Apes to Human, for example). This debate will continue forever because it is impossible to prove the processes through scientific experiments or observations. As we all know, fossil records are too frustratingly obscure to provide any decisive evolutionary data. Consequently, evolutionary theory is just "a theory", not a scientific fact. That I embrace evolution doesn’t mean I can’t be religious. I am comfortable holding up two belief systems, science and faith.

When it comes to the emergence of the first life form(s) on earth, however, I am not so certain. Very little scientific works are available in this regard, more questions than answer: Was a life the result of natural random processes or “direct consequences of the conditions on the primordial earth or its surroundings.” There was a recent report that 4 chemical bases required to make RNA, perhaps very starting material leading to the formation of a cell in a scientific sense, were produced. Yet, there are too many unknown steps in between that must occur for a cell to form. Such processes may not be impossible but extremely unlikely events considering statistical probability. Can a 747 airplane emerge out of a car wreckage yard under the favorable condition (all the basic components, tools, and energy were provided but not man power) if you wait billions of years? Not so sure! Then, we also should consider possibility of the “seed theory” of terrestrial life that simple life forms hit earth from space aboard comets or asteroids. Again, more questions than answers in that scientific scenario as well: Who prepared those microbes that arrived on earth? Were they from advanced intelligent life forms somewhere in the vast expanse of the universes? Arrived here by chance or by more directed event? I also would like to remind you that no one has been able to prepare even a primitive single cell from scratch in this frenzied era of life sciences and biotechnology.

Suppose a single cell was formed somehow in physical sense (membrane, cytoplasm, nucleus, etc). Would you call it a real life form without having consciousness (mind or soul)? Probably not! Then, how were real life entities introduced into the physical cell? Materialistic scientists, who see everything only through the window of classical physics (Newtonian Physics), claim that our consciousness and mind are formed only by molecular interactions in the brain and body (Body-Mind). With the progress of modern physics, however, such claim has to be reexamined through the lens of quantum physics. New research starts to show that consciousness could be formed via quantum process in microtubules of brain (Quantum-Mind). Several theoretical physicists argued that “classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics can.” When I meditate things through the mysterious quantum world, the microscopic world where Newtonian physics is not working, I am attracted (actually being forced) to believe that the origin of a real life form is from God. I continue to ponder that God does some of His works through quantum process (pure postulation!). I just muse on.

How should we read Genesis, literally or allegorically?

This has been an anguished question, particularly for religious leaders in the past for several hundred years, as early as 3 A.D. In early 5th century, Saint Augustine of Hippo faced the same question. He thought it was disgraceful for non-believers thought of his fellow Christians idiotic as they stuck on the Biblical literalism. Augustine claimed that "the interpretation of Genesis I is not at all obvious and was fraught with difficulties". Thus, he recognized "the interpretation of creation story was difficult" [Young, David A. (1988) "the Contemporary Relevance of Augustine". Perspectives of Science and Christian Faith (American Scientific Affiliation) 40 (1):42-45]. He also remarked that "we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up" (Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis: Ancient Christian Interpretations (en.m.wikipedia.org). It appears that Saint Augustine had eschewed literal interpretation of Genesis and sought more sophisticated answers. The same issue continues to these days. When a former president of Princeton Seminary was asked what he would name as a major problem facing the church in North America, he answered "Literalism" with just one word. As you can see, debates on how to interpret the very first book of the Bible have never stopped over 1,500 years, and will continue most likely. There has been a clear shift in people's (faithful) mind, however, that one should avoid the rigidity of literalism and seek more diversified interpretation of Genesis. Mr. Barash may have overlooked this clearly palpable paradigm change in the interpretation of Genesis. As far as one insists literalism, their argument of incompatibility between science and religion will continue.

Development of the Bible-based faith requires careful and wise reading of text because the Bible represents multiple genres from Prophecy to Law to Poetry to Parable to Biography, etc. In order not to fall into simplistic interpretation (Simplism), one should be able to imagine properly, able to make appropriate interpretation, and able to pick up underpinning messages. Otherwise, one tends to confine himself in the rigidity of literalism. We may need subliminally powered reading of the book of Genesis to extract its true meaning.

One could choose literalism as his or her own interpretation. But, they should not pressure to believe it they don't believe. It is not right either to recommend Genesis 1-3 as science textbook:How life started on Earth (Biology); How old is Earth q(Geology); Formation of night and daytime (Physics). Even the Saint Augustine in the early 5th century didn't regard Genesis as a science textbook. Then,what about us who are living in the 21st century? You should have your own answer. As it had been pointed out as early as in 5 A.D., we faithful people cannot stay in the main stream by debunking scientific progress.

I think it is worthy to follow the hermeneutic of Noah Filipiak (a Christian scholar and writer, @acrossroads.net), which is the foundational approach in reading the Bible. He says one misses the essential question when one reads Genesis, “What was the original author’s purpose for writing this book?” To understand the question, one should know: the author of Genesis, the time it was written, audience it was written to and the reason it was written. If one does not know the answers, he argues that one cannot read Genesis accurately and biblically. Genesis was written 650 years after the time of Abraham in Genesis 12, circa 1450 B.C. It was written as a sermon for Jews, who had been just freed from slaves. Filipiak emphasizes that “It was not a newspaper written for you this morning by Adam, Noah and Abraham", Filipiak writes, "so don’t read that way.” Moses conveyed Genesis to Hebrew people that God revealed to Moses and his scribes: “God tells them who made them, where they came from, and what their purpose is. He tells them who He is and what their identity is as his image bearers. These are the reasons Genesis was written.” Filipiak’s interpretation of Genesis makes perfect sense. I highly recommend reading his article, “Should we read Genesis literally?” - At a Crossroads.

We should also listen to what Rabbi Gilbert S. Rosenthal (Director of National Council of Synagogues) says about how to read the Bible. He calls Genesis “the creation myth” and again emphasizes that Genesis is not a science textbook: “the most important lesson of the creation myth is that we are all created equal, from a common ancestor, in the divine image.”

Therefore, when we avoid literalistic reading but follow figurative approach by extracting the hidden true meanings of Genesis, science and religion can be perfectly compatible.

The age of Earth was calculated to be around 6,000 years by Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland in 17^th century. His chronology research was based solely on the biblical record (Hebrew Text of Genesis 5 and 11) without any scientific consideration. Of course, his calculation method was naïve and ‘blissfully ignorant’. Harvard paleontologist S. J. Gould said: Ussher “is known to us today almost entirely in ridicule – as the man who fixed the time of creation at the 4004 B.C.” According to archeological records, Earth seemed to be in Twilight Zone 6,000 years ago transitioning from prehistory to the age of history, about quickening era of human civilization and culture. Scientific methods including radiometric dating showed that the age of earth is about 4.5 billion years. I believe the true age of Earth is 4.5 billion years, not 6,000 years.

Holding just one belief structure can be dangerous

The late Karl Sagan had said: “Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is profound source of spirituality.” The late Albert Einstein also said: “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” They intuitively emphasized how much two belief systems complement and enrich each other. The Imperial Japan committed horrible crimes against humanity by doing unthinkable human experiments for their biological warfare development, let alone killing and raping of the innocents during World War 2. The Nazi Germany also did nefarious criminal performance against human beings. Those criminal experiments were carried out by doctors and scientists, who were well trained and disciplined in science and medicine but were lacked of the religion-based moral compass. On the other hand, there are dogmatic religions. Some religious extremists, who are so utterly certain about and obsessed with their religion, kill people under the name of their gods. This is another form of criminal act against humanity. Having both “moderate religion” and science, we can march toward the truthful humanity and toward understanding the mystery of life beyond the third dimension. Moderate religion doesn't mean a lukewarm state of religious faith, but it points to not very dogmatic, not extreme, not insisting just their own gods, not so ignorant of other religious view, not terrorizing other faithful because of doctrinal issues, but jut moderation in every aspect including theologies, etc.

Thinking big will lift your spirituality up

We should look around us to feel where we are time to time, then go up higher to see better-wider view where we belong to; to the city to state to nation and to planet Earth, and beyond. When we travel through the known universe following the cosmic map, we immediately see our planet circles around a medium size star in a tiny solar system that is on the fringe of galaxy, the Milky Way containing billions of stars, that is one of at least a hundred billions galaxies arrayed in the universe of our corner.We come to realize how small our earth is, smaller than a speck of dust. We can also feel how ordered state of the universe is despite of its vastness. At the end, we become humble immensely. It is known that we can see only 4% or so of our reality (universe). What we are able to see actually is only a tiny, tiny fraction of those 4%. Therefore, we are missing the vast majority of the reality. Do scientists have all the answers for you? Now you can answer this question. I strongly feel that something we can’t imagine is out there in the expanse of the universe. The mystery only deepens further. So is our spirituality.

This article was written based solely on my own thought, knowledge and experiences. It does not reflect any thoughts or Christian Faith of Sacramento Korean Presbyterian Church.