The conflicts between religious faith and empirical science seems to be continual, but just as continual are the efforts to find some middle ground where both can co-exist. It's important for many Americans to find a way to bridge the gulf between traditional Christian faith and modern science.

Curiously, this was also an important in pre-WWII Germany.

In The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, Richard Steigmann-Gall writes:

Symptomatic of the interest in racial science was the establishment of the Research Center for the Study of Worldview (Forschungsheim für Weltanschauungskunde) in 1927. Headed by Pastor Otto Kleinschmidt, it was associated with the Martin Luther University and housed in the old elector’s palace in Wittenberg.

Its aim was to synthesize the supposed dialectic between belief and science and undo the common assumption that scientists needed no belief system. Explaining the mission of the center, General Superintendent Schottler of Magdeburg asked his readership: “What are we doing to our sons? Just as his religion instructor is an orthodox theologian, so is his physics teacher an orthodox monist. The first becomes indignant with the second; the second mocks the first. The student bears the consequences, since he will perpetually be driven back and forth between two intellectual directions, only to be spiritually destroyed in the end.” The Center’s mission was to bridge the gulf between rationalist science and nonrationalist faith.

If you replace “Research Center for the Study of Worldview” with “Discovery Institute” or perhaps “Templeton Foundation,” the above paragraphs could apply just about as well to modern America as they did to Germany. Why? Because the concerns of conservative Christians in Germany then were very similar to the concerns of conservative Christians in America are today: modernity is undermining traditional beliefs, traditional power structures, and traditional religion.

Perhaps the largest single threat in modernity is modern science — not because it does more to undermine traditions (though it might) but because the fruits of science are undeniable. Science provides us with knowledge about our world which we know is accurate because it proves so useful in the technology we use. Religion cannot really fight science because religion cannot offer knowledge about the world which competes; all religion can hope to do is co-opt science and pretend that the two can be harmonized in a manner that preserves scientific progress without undermining religion.

It’s a hopeless project because science does not respect religion — science is basically a bully, insisting on stringent standards of empirical evidence, independent verification, and strictly reasoned arguments. Religion cannot uphold any of this and, as a consequence, must ultimately fall away whenever it challenges science’s conclusions. There is no harmonizing religion and science; at best, religion can simply hope to stay out of science’s way before it’s run over and turned into road kill.

After a year’s work, one Protestant commentator could remark with satisfaction that, in place of the antagonism between science and religion, strides were being made toward their reconciliation. Natural sciences could be pursued without threat of apostasy. ... By reinserting religion into science, the Center was working to counteract the image of God as a deistic spirit “who simply initiated earthly existence” and then slept. In scientific circles, this article proclaimed, God could once again be considered the living Lord of history.

The scientist seeks truth, but, as this observer put it, “truth alone is like light without warmth.” Scientific truth needed the warmth of a religious worldview, but not just any: “The Christian one is simply the most valuable. ... It is important not just for the theologian, but for every man.” At the same time, Protestantism was especially commendable because it “knows no dogmatic coercion [Dogmenzwang]... The Protestant church does not stand aside from things, but rather [is] in the center of life as builder and guardian.”

Once again, we find that a description of pre-Nazi Germany is remarkable in how much it could apply to contemporary America. Great strides were being made in reconciling science and religion — and those strides are still being made today. Strange that so many strides could be made without getting anywhere, but then again it seems common for religion to engage in a lot of movement without actually accomplishing anything, so perhaps the same happens in these situations as well.

As was the case in Germany, American Christians try to make room for their religious beliefs by insisting that scientific truth isn’t sufficient for a person’s life (whoever said it was?). It’s nice that they acknowledge how science provides truth, but this doesn’t mean that they have anything to offer themselves — or, if they do, that what they are offering needs to be “reconciled” with science. Trying to sneak in their beliefs suggests that they are trying to capitalize on science’s success because they can’t achieve similar success on their own two feet.

Another parallel is the manner in which Christianity in particular is being coupled with science rather than just religion generally. Defenders of this insist that they are using a generic form of Christianity which isn’t so dogmatic, but at the same time they also insist that the Christian worldview is the best one possible — there is no interest in trying to reconcile or unite science with Hinduism or Buddhism.

 

Quick Poll: Do you think that science can or should be harmonized with religion?

1. It can be, but it shouldn't.
2. It should be, but it can't.
3. They can and should be harmonized because both are true.
4. The can't be harmonized and trying damages both.
5. I don't know.
6. I don't care.

Click an option to vote, or View Current Poll Results

 

Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.