Feb 24, 2012
Is Big History a Prerequisite for the Constructive Engagement of Science and Religion?
I believe we should approach science and religion from the vantage point of Big History—the unfolding scientific story of our existence—and we should teach religion in a way that embraces our common scientific origin story.
Science discovers, illuminates, and crafts facts, and we rely on these complex facts in practical ways. Unlike religion, science is pretty much the same collection of facts in all cultures around the world. These facts are uncovered with considerable effort by peer-reviewed guilds in a multitude of scientific specializations and societies.
You can’t have a responsible, thoughtful, and constructive engagement between religion and science without first understanding in some scope and detail the whole of science—the grand narrative that unifies the facts discovered by scientists working in narrow specializations. Big History is the narrative account of the 13.7 billion year history of our universe, the 4.5 billion year evolution of our planet, the 7 million year rise of our species, and the 10,000 year accelerating drama of human civilization, and it is a prerequisite for those who want to be faithful to science and their traditions.
Religionists must first comprehend scientific facts and scientific methods before they can constructively debate scientism and productively engage their own sacred traditions. It is important to emphasize that Big History does not necessarily authorize a disenchanted universe. Like any great story, Big History is open to multiple interpretations, so long as one is faithful to the text—in this case, the “Book of Nature” as progressively discovered by science. Interpretations of Big History that are friendly to religious intuitions are possible, though it would be silly to look for the specifics of science in sacred scriptures. Our sacred scriptures are profound, but they are not true in the way that science and history are true.
William Grassie is the founder and executive director of the Metanexus Institute.
Science does not progress, it just offers us many and diverse ways of understanding “all that is”. Nature itself can be approached from different vantage points, so how can anyone make claims, except within one’s specialty? And given the political power that protects certain scientific endeavors, then one questions whether what is pursued or of political value is really what is the best for science, and humankind.
One can make an assertion that is observed, and it is assumed as true, until an anomaly occurs, then science seeks to understand the anomaly and either incorporate it by refining previous obeservations/hypothesis, or changing the paradigm altogether….
In this sense all knowledge and understanding is tenuous. Einstein knew that it was man’s mind in imagination that observed/sought to understand/created all theories that exist ‘out there”.
I want to correct any thought that I believe that science does not progress within a certain realm. Of course, it does, but there are various disciplines that bring different ways of understanding and evaluating nature and limiting these differences limit scientific understanding, as well, as limiting the “human element” in creating and understanding “all that is”.
Science works in the domain of the senses. It depends upon logic which is a consequence of the interface between senses and intellect.
Religion works in the domain of the heart or gnosis, intuition, non-local phenomenon….whatever one is pleased to call it. It is the intersection between spirit and intellect.
Many scientists deny the domain of religion and many religious people deny science, deny global warming, etc.
The intersection between science and religion is a scarce territory for brave intellects. It requires broad, open minds and a fierce desire to know beyond prejudice of personal habit and culture.
I do not deny that Big History can be a catalyst to develop minds capable of embracing science and religion but it is not necessarily so. Big History is dominated by science and academia and not particularly suited to discuss religious matters.
So Big History will have to develop further to open this conversation, in my opinion.