Religion and Science: A Comparison and a Contrast

Improvement Era Vol. XXXII FEBRUARY. 1929 No. 4 Religion and Science A COMPARISON AND A CONTRAST By Prof. James L. Barker, of the University of Utah NEW discoveries in science are usually accepted, though not al- ways, within a short time after they are made. One hundred years after the Prophet Joseph began giving new religious truths to the world, his teachings are accepted by only a very small part of the earth's population: and, a hundred years after His death, the mission of the Savior had met with no more general favor. Why this difference in the readiness with which the world accepts scientific and religious truth? Is it that scientific truth can be tested and, on the contrary, religious truth can not? It is generally agreed that it is possible to test much, if not all. of scientific theory. Is it likewise possible to test the beliefs of re- ligion? If religious belief can be tested, wherein do methods .of evaluating and testing truth in science and religion agree and wherein do they differ? If science and religion are in harmony, will they continue to be in accord tomorrow and next year? Religion is held by some in less high regard than formerly because they think that its beliefs are in conflict with science. Others point out an essential agreement in the facts of religion and science. Be that as it may. it would seem that it is not sufficient to indicate an agreement at any given moment in order to reconcile religion and science, but rather a demonstration is needed that eventually there can be no conflict and consequently any disagreement that may pos- sibly exist today or tomorrow can not be vital. Temporary disagreement alone does not seem to be fatal either in religion or science. In religion there have been conflicting beliefs: during the life time of Jesus, the Gospel was thought to be for the children of Israel only: after the vision given to Peter, it was preached to the Gentiles: before the time of the Savior, signs were sometimes given to demonstrate the divine calling of the servants of God. Aaron's rod was changed to a serpent, the false prophets were con- sumed by fire: on the contrary. Jesus condemned those who should seek after a sign.

270 IMPROVEMENT ERA fa.. 19Z9 In science, progress may be said to be achieved by a series of disagreements: an old theory is confronted with a new one at variance with it and frequently has to make place for it. The belief that the earth is flat is confronted with the theory that the earth is round. The philosophy that the universe consists of four elements, earth, water, air and fire, has no longer any but historical interest. The accepted belief in the indivisibility of the atom is shaken by the electron theory, etc. Within the same science, conflicts are constantly found. Usually one of the contradictory views is finally accepted and the other re- jected, or it may happen that neither gains ultimate favor and both make way for a third, which in turn may yield to another and so on through the course of the centuries. Again there are conflicts between science and science. The French philosopher Auguste Comte regarded the reconciliation of such conflicts as the chief task of philosophy. Such a fundamental conflict between bacteriology and that particular theory of evolution which involves the stipulation of spontaneous generation, is pre- sented in the following quotation: "Of all the problems with which man's mind has wrestled the most per- plexing is that concerned with the origin of life, embracing as it does the problems of humanity's own origin. Even before science came into being, the most daring thinkers of every age attempted to find some explanation of it. * * * So long as man imagined a Creator under human form he supposed the gods to be creators of all living things. * * * As time went on it was thought that natural forces were in themselves capable of causing germina- tion, under the action of the sun's rays, either in the secret depths of the ocean or in the bosom of the earth — so often regarded as the great mother of all being — were capable of forming themselves into organisms. To this, the doctrine of spontaneous generation, Joly, Archimede, Pouchet and Musset at- tempted to give scientific form. It was the doctrine that Aristotle had already advanced: it had been accepted by Lamarck; defended against Pasteur by scientists such as Musset. Joly, and Pouchet, favored by the medical men, extolled by the most materialistic philosopher, it finally took on, in the nine- teenth century, a quasi-scientific air. "It must be admitted that though the remarkable experimental researches of Pasteur opened up unforeseen perspectives to medicine and surgery and provided curative art with a new kind of precision and new methods with in- exhaustible possibilities, they were, at the same time, the source of endless difficulties for the scientific philosophy of the day. * * * the new think- ers argued that if protoplasm really existed * * * it might be obtained artificially by chemical processes. * * * All this beautiful dream the experiments of Pasteur threatened to destroy at one blow. * * * To \reject] the foolish theory of spontaneous generation was to undermine the whole doctrine of evolution which had proved so satisfactory to man's reason and had. moreover, been substantiated by so many facts."1 *The Earth Before History. Perrier. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 1925, pp. 59-73. Italics mine.

Feb.. 1929 RELIGION AND SCIENCE 271 Such conflicts are not found in the known facts of the different sciences, but in the deductions drawn from the facts. Pasteur's experiments led to the conclusion that spontaneous generation has no basis in fact. This conclusion "was the source of endless diffi- culties for the scientific philosophy of the day." To [reject] the foolish theory of spontaneous generation was to undermine the whole doctrine of evolution * * * Conflicts of this kind must cease to exist if, and only when, both theories are tested by experience. If only one of the theories is ever tested by experience and the other remains an apparent but unconfirmed logical deduction from known facts, then the contradic- tion may continue indefinitely. Though a disagreement in conclusions leaves the mind unsatis- fied, the conflict is much more serious when it consists of the manner or methods of arriving at conclusions themselves. This fundamental conflict in methods exists between the science of the Middle Ages and the science of today; between the Apostolic Church and the churches of the Middle Ages; between science and most, though not all, of the churches today. The scholastic science of the Middle Ages was based largely on tradition, authority, and logical deductions uncontrolled by experi- ment or experience. The traditions handed down from the time of the Apostolic Church and the scriptures were authoritative in the- ology. "From the thirteenth century to the Renaissance, the church regarded Aristotle as the father of the dialectic, the model for meta- physical thinking, and the encyclopedia of science."3 Isolated opinions, such as the following, were in accord with modern scientific method and in irreconcilable conflict with the methods of the scholastics: "In 1348, a bachelor of theology, Nicolas of Autricuria, had the boldness to present the following theses to the Sorbonne: ( 1 ) We shall easily and quickly reach certain knowledge, if we abandon Aristotle and his commentaries, and de- vote ourselves to the study of nature itself. * * * Bacon called attention "to the barrenness of the scholastic logo- machies, the necessity of observing nature and of studying the lan- guages, but he recognizes, even more clearly than his namesake of the sixteenth century, the capital importance of mathematical deduction as an auxiliary of the experimental method.'" "The two maxims of Galileo's method were: (1) science must 2Ibid.. pp. 60. 61. ^History of Philosophy. H. E. Cushman. Houghton Mifflin Co.. Vol. II. p. 21. 'History and Philosophy, Weber. Longmans Green and Co.. London. 1908, p. 257. "Ibid., p. 25 8.

272 IMPROVEMENT ERA M.. "-'' be independent of all authority except itself; and (2) all inference must be derived from observation and experiments.'" The religion of Luther and the religion of the Catholic church were in essential harmony as to method with scholastic science, and both religion and scholastic science were in sharp conflict with the religious method of the Apostolic Church, with the scientific method of Galileo, Bacon, and all precursors of modern science. These conflicts in scientific method are much more fundamental and, consequently, more vital than mere contradictory conclusions resulting from the application of the methods. Likewise differences in beliefs and dogmas, though disquieting, are less serious than a conflict of method. The conflict in method is basic, so basic that in science conflicting results obtained by the application of a false method would have little interest other than that of curiosity. Though the Pharisees and the Sadducees were disagreed as to the doc- trine of the resurrection, there existed only a negligible gap between them as compared with the gulf which separated both of them from Jesus: they differed from each other only in doctrine and manner of living, both of them relying on the authority of tradition and the scriptures; but from Jesus and his disciples they differed fundament- ally as to the means of arriving at the truth: Peter and Paul had seen the risen Christ, received visions and enjoyed the companionship and the revelations of the Holy Ghost. They spoke from experience and consequently, like the Master, as "having authority." On the whole the methods of the churches have remained "scholastic," depending on tradition, authority (of the church or of the scriptures) and on logical deduction. Science has abandoned the scholastic method and developed the method of Galileo. How- ever, in both science and religion, the tendency is always present to go beyond the known facts and to draw conclusions that have not been verified by experiment or experience. Just as science had known something of the experimental method before the age of scholasticism, so at various times during the periods covered by the Old and New Testaments, religion, too, was based on experience. Only science and religion that are based on experience can definitely be known to be true; the religion and the science that are based on tradition, authority and logical deduction uncontrolled by experience are so subject to error that they may be regarded as unprogressive and false, and are usually found in a sterile If true religion as well as true science is based on experience, can religious belief be tested like the theories of science, or is there a dif- ference? What is this difference, if any, and does it explain the com- 'History of Philosophy Cusbman. Houghton Mifflin Co.. Vol. II. p. 43. 44.

Feb.. 1929 RELIGION AND SCIENCE 17^ paratively slow acceptance of religious belief as compared with that of scientific theory? It may be well to look a little more closely at the methods of both. In science as well as in religion new truth is usually announced to the world by a single individual. In publishing his work he makes a statement of his observations and experiments and of his results and conclusions. Readers of the article, having the necessary previous training, interest and confidence in the scientist, may repeat the observations and experiments. If the results are the same, they accept the truth of the discovery; if no results or different results are obtained, they are inclined to conclude there has been some error or omission in repeating the observations and experiments. But, if checked by a number of observers and experimenters until all pos- sibility of error in the experiments is excluded and the results pointed out are not obtained, the conclusion is then reached that no new truth has been discovered. A discovery in pure science is first accepted by everybody, if at all, on the testimony of the original discoverer; afterwards, this ac- ceptance or belief becomes knowledge for the individuals who per- sonally perform the same experiments with identical results; for all others it continues to remain belief ( or disbelief) based on testimony. In applied science, a new invention may be demonstrated in part to a passive or even unwilling subject, for example the phonograph, the incandescent light bulb, the radio, hydraulic four-wheel brakes, etc. Nevertheless, even here it is easy to exaggerate the passivity of the subject. When the phonograph was first demonstrated to the French Academy of Sciences, there were cries of "charlatan" and of "fraud." A certain personal examination was necessary to con- vince the French savants that they were not the victims of a clever and unscrupulous ventriloquist. In accepting discoveries in pure science, the intellect alone is ordinarily concerned. The individual who faces the acceptance or rejection of the new discovery is not affected economically or other- wise. Rarely is he affected in his reputation, prejudices, etc.. i. e.. rarely is his will concerned. When his will is concerned in pure science, acceptance is slow as in the case of some of the discoveries of Pasteur. In applied science, the economic interests (and hence the will) are concerned; often new inventions are frankly accepted only when patents expire. Are all kinds of automobile brakes, all radios, all washing machines equally efficient, or are the makers ignorant as to which are the best? Whv did some automobile manufacturers advertise that the electric self-starter, four-wheel brakes, etc., were premature and unreliable? Is it not obviously because their product was not so equipped and an admission of the superiority of a rival

274 IMPROVEMENT ERA Feb.. if 29 machine would have diminished their sales? Wherever the will is involved in pure science (and that is only rare) or in applied science (and that is usually the case) acceptance is slow; wherever the in- tellect alone to the exclusion of the will is involved, acceptance is ready and rapid, frequently without much scrutiny of the evidence. New religious truths are first learned, though not always, from the experience of one individual. Peter alone saw the cloth full of unclean beasts let down from heaven; Paul alone had the vision as to the fate of the ship on the way to Rome and even he alone saw and heard all that occurred in the vision on the way to Damascus; Joseph Smith alone had the first vision in which he saw both the Father and the Son; Moses alone had the vision on Mount Sinai. Moses testified as to the will of God and others were under the neces- sity of believing or rejecting his testimony; to confirm the testimony, signs were given apparently to good and bad alike, the will being involved but little or not at all. In the new dispensation, the account of Peter, supported by scripture and the testimony of the other apostles: "And we are wit- nesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree; him God raised up the third day and shewed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead, and he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be judge of the quick and the dead" (Acts 10:39- 44) , was believed by many of the assembled multitude on the day of Pentecost, since they "were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Now, here, just as in science, the account of those who had had the experience could be accepted by others, but those who had thus accepted their testimony could not know for themselves until they had had a similar or the same experience. As the scientist indicates how his results may be obtained, so Peter indicated likewise how the gift of the Holy Ghost could be obtained; "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:37, 38. Because the twelve had already done these things, they had been told: "Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." Acts 1:8. It was by this same means of repentance, etc., that the hearers of Peter received the confirming testimony of the Holy Ghost, changing their belief to knowledge in fulfillment of the words of

Feb.. 1929 RELIGION AND SCIENCE 275 Peter: "And we are witnesses of these things: and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.'' Acts 5:32. In religion the will is involved even more constantly and com- pletely than in science. This is recognized in the scriptures: "Gloria in altissimis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis. (Glory in the highest to God and on earth peace to men of good will)." Latin Vulgate, Luke 2:13, 14. And it would appear that the Gospel of Christ could bring peace to no others: it could not bring peace to Judas. When the rich young man was asked to sell all he possessed, to give it to the poor and to follow Jesus, the young man's will was seriously involved. But that is perhaps exactly what Peter and James and John and the others of the twelve had already done. In the Savior's personal ministry, his will was involved even unto death. It is especially in the process of arriving at the truth that the difference between science and religion is greatest. As already seen in pure science the will is involved less than in applied science, but in both it is easily possible to test the truth though with the inten- tion of denying it afterwards. For example, an automobile manu- facturer could test the relative efficiency of his brakes as compared with those of a rival company, learn that the rival brakes were superior and continue to advertise to the public that his machines were provided with the best brakes on earth. His good or bad will or the purpose to which he desires to put his knowledge would in no way affect the experiment. In religion, repentance is an essential part of the experiment or experience. Things done must be left undone, weaknesses overcome, and the believer's will subjected to the will of the Heavenly Father, and to the degree only that this is done is it possible to test re- ligious truth. The will is involved in the very process of arriving at the truth itself. Were the will not involved in arriving at the truth, our de- cisions as to right and wrong conduct in life would have but little ethical value. If without doing right, without obedience to the will of God, without apparent sacrifice, we could know that Jesus is the Christ and that God is our Heavenly Father, we would tend to calculate selfishly which line of conduct would be most to our ad- vantage and act accordingly. Pascal's famous wager in his "Pensees" would indicate that there is some tendency to do this as it is: Pascal thought that if he bet that God existed and acted as if God was, he had made a good bet because if he lost the bet and God did not exist, he would lose nothing anyway; but if he should win the

276 IMPROVEMENT ERA ft*.. I9Z9 bet and God does exist, he would win everything. Such a wager probably has no religious or ethical value. For the same reason it is clear why witnesses to the resurrection of Christ, to the Book of Mormon, etc., are given. It is likewise clear why compacts between two individuals that the one who dies first shall return and visit the other can not be kept, why spiritualism striving to learn concerning the after-life with methods other than those affecting the will can not be of God. Had Jesus forced the knowledge that he is the Christ on mankind by appearing in splendor and power to all the world; were it possible and were men given the knowledge that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God by permitting all the world to examine the plates; were it possible to obtain knowl- edge of things divine in any way that would not involve the will in the experiment; then the prime condition of our coming to this earth — our previous memory being taken away — would be destroyed, and our choice of the path of conduct would not have the same ethical value that it now has. The element of the will in making the religious experiment largely explains the fact that members of a church based on indi- vidual experience have different experiences — testimonies; one is sure he does not know, another is in doubt whether he knows or not, another is certain he knows, etc. ; a young man has been baptized, but says he has no testimony — no personal experience confirming his belief. If to change his will were as easy as to turn the controls on the radio, all would be easy. Going to the radio and turning the dial, he is sure at a given moment that he hears only the hum that in- dicates life in the receiver; a slight turn of the "clarifier" and at moments he thinks words he can not distinguish are indistinctly audible; a better tuning of the wave length and he knows that a station, though only partly intelligible, is "coming in;" a further slight adjustment and a twist of the "volume control" and all is certainty and clarity. Should the station be distant and should he not be able to get it again, he may in time doubt that he had ever obtained it. In the religious experiment, the "controls" are involved with the will: "peace on earth to men of good will," "and so is also (a witness) the Holy Ghost whom God hath given to them that obey him." Progressively the believer passes from doubt to uncertainty, to clarity in the measure that he "does the will:" leaves that which is contrary to the will of God, yields obedience to all the requirements of service: tithing, service in the Priesthood at home and in the mission field. We wonder at the certainty of the experience of Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff, Paul, we should marvel at their will in action which made the experience (testimony) possible. Such

Feb.. 1*2° RELIGION AND SCIENCE • 277 a will in action makes possible the experience of Paul: "But I certify you brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, bui by revelation of Jesus Christ." Galatians 1 : 1 1, 12. Some are stopped very early in the religious experiment. They are willing to do what God requires but object to any requests for service being made by their bishop, president of the stake or of the Church. As long as they maintain the position, their "good will" is never in action and the religious experience that gives the knowl- edge called a testimony is impossible. In science, the intellect is chiefly involved; the will' is not con- cerned in arriving at the truth, but only in recognizing it afterwards; in religion, the will is involved in the very means of arriving at the truth, and the religious experience is possible only in the degree that one has "good will." The means of arriving at the truth — expe- rience— is the same in both, but since science will serve any will, good or bad, it suits all purposes, and tends towards universal acceptance. With religion, we shall judge ourselves: "their condemnation shall be that they loved darkness better than light." As long as we live short human lives, our experience and con- sequently our knowledge must be incomplete and experiences rarely and deductions frequently may seem contradictory. However, real, permanent conflict will exist only between true science and false science, true religion and false religion, true religion and false science, true science and false religion. But between that science and that religion that are based on experience there can ultimately be no conflict, and in both fields the truth may be pursued, taking care to distinguish between experi- mental fact, or experience, and inference, with the consciousness that truth is only one. 'In an ethical or altruistic sense. America has proved that it is practicable to elevate the mass of mankind — that portion which in Europe is called the laboring, or lower, class — to raise them to self-respect, to make them competent to act a part in the great right and great duty of self-government: and she has proved that this may be done by education and the diffusion of knowledge. She holds out an example a thousand times more encouraging than ever was presented before to those nine-tenths of the human race who are born without hereditary fortune or hereditary rank. — Daniel Webster.