Science and Religion: The Full Life

Science and Religion: The Full Life By Prof. William J. Snow, B. Y. U. THERE is no basic or fundamental conflict between science and religion. The approach may be different but the aim is the same. Both meet problems and try to explain them. In the one case the method is that of direct observation and experimentation in the objective world — a world of matter, tangible and of un- questioned validity. In the other the experience is based upon the imponderable, the intangible, the elusive. In both the evidence is worthy of credence and should not be lightly dismissed. Conclusions leached in either field of endeavor are subject to further clarification and interpretation in the light of added information and rationalized experience. The trouble that often arises, the antagonisms that have too often been aroused, it seems to me, are due to intolerance and dog- matism on both sides. The religious man has been too prone to make his conclusions absolute and final, and thus his mind has been closed to scientific achievements which give rise to inferences that seem to run counter to his formulas and beliefs. On the other hand, scientists have been inclined to explain the universe in terms of their own narrow fields of investigation. The life that Jesus described as more than food and more than raiment — a life all compre- hensive, taking into account not only material, but the spiritual world; not only the objective, but the personal — such a life is often ignored in the interest of a confined and limited field or stuay. It is narrow dogmatism to assume that an authority in one field is an authority in all. The progress of the world and our approach toward a common brotherhood are always characterized by two important movements, one intensive and highly specialized and the other comprehensive and integrating, tending towards the unification of fragmentary achievements, and experiences in the direction of a common goal or purpose. No specialist in any one line of scientific research can explain the whole universe, nor con- sistently deny the social and human experiences that are without the range of his objective investigation. Yet there are scientists, as the old Greek philosopher once said, who are constantly cutting the world into two halves with an ax, and then studying one half until they become convinced that the other half does not exist; and yet their human behavior and human relationships suggest otherwise. As L. P. Jacks stated in "Mad

Jane, 1929 SCIENCE AND RELIGION: THE FULL LIFE 661 Shepherds," Shoemaker Hankin spent his breath in proving God doesn't exist, and his life in proving that he does. There is much that science can tell us and there is much that it does not know. It can tell us where physical man came from and much concerning the conditions of his development, and moreover, it can minister to man in a thousand useful ways. As one en- thusiastic scientist said, "Science has enabled man to travel fifty times as fast, accomplish a hundred times as much work in a day, lift a weight a thousand times as heavy, and make his voice heard ten thousand times as far." Yet man's attributes it cannot explain. On this point, Vernon Kellog, secretary of the American Asso- ciation for National Research, declares, "Science has not enlightened me to any satisfactory degree about my consciousness and my con- science; has not told me how I can compose or play or deeply appre- ciate music, except that it says part of the reason is that my father or mother or other ancestor could, that is, that I inherit his ca- pacities which is only pushing the original question back to be asked about the musical ancestor. Science has not told me why I love my little girl so extravagantly; nor why I can write poetry if I can; nor, and perhaps this question I put to it most insistently and most want answered, whether I have an immortal soul or not." But, we may add, belief in these eternal verities in no way stultifies one's attitude toward science. On the other hand, a religion that builds excluding walls, that fears the loss of faith if truths of the external world are found out is not life, but the denial of life; not richness of feeling, but poverty of aspiring; not a field for the faithful, but a mere refuge for the fearful. A church should never be a sanctuary for safety only, but an opportunity for service; not a place to limit life or to narrow liberty, but to enlarge the soul and expand friendships and social contacts. If we would have a rich experience and a full life we should open our hearts to truth from all sources. Our religious loyalty will express itself in more concern for reality and less worship of formula, more emphasis on righteousness and less insistence on ritual. Christ translated religion in terms of actual human experience and espoused life in all its manifold manifestation. He came, according to his own declaration, that we might have life and have it more abundantly. To realize this high purpose should be the endeavor of all. Science and religion must go hand in hand. Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens. — Daniel Webster.