Science is all about natural causation. Or material causation, if you prefer. The basis of the conflict between religion and science is that for most of time, the religious answer to material phenomena was the only available answer. Now there is a “choice”. But it is not really a choice, because science gives the most realistic answers and explanations about nature. We know this because science works.
As an ex-Christian, I do sympathize. It is inevitable that some theological ideas about creation are being challenged, and indeed, overthrown by science. But this is not science’s aim. Science is a discovery.
Humans have flawed reasoning [at least some of the time], flawed perception [like with mirages].
Science tries to address these things. First of all, the scientific method avoids confirmation bias by requiring that things not be proved, but disproved. Scientific hypotheses are only accepted as scientific theory [and then only tentatively, subject as always, to further data] if they cannot be falsified.
Thus evolutionary theory has survived, through the revisionism of the addition of information, such as genetics, which leads to the modern synthesis of Neo-Darwinian Theory. [The Standard Model]
My point is that theological investigations start out with the assumption that god is real. So theological investigators can be subject to what is called confirmation bias. This can be seen most clearly with Creationist scientists like Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute.
Not so with Kenneth B. Miller. Ken is a disciplined scientist, and a Catholic. He is intellectually honest, and knows of the traps of confirmation bias. So he accepts his faith, and he accepts evolution.
The late Pope, John Paul II, also accepted evolution. But the Holy father was not a scientist. Therefore he did not understand some of the implications of science. He only urged Christians to accept what science knows now, and for the rest, he urged us to take " a leap of faith". This is not how science works. Science works by always asking the next question. That is how science functions. Scientists are never totally satisfied with a final answer. We strive for truth without ever claiming truth.
Theologians often claim an absolute truth, but ask that we accept that “truth” on faith. This can be a big problem, for the reasons I have outlined. If you look for truth when you believe you already have all the answers, then your knowledge will not grow. Your perception of reality will not change, and it will be an internal reality that may show only poor correlation with external reality.
Science is not anti-god
per.se., it is simply that god does not come into consideration at all when looking at the natural world. In the last 400 hundred years at least, not one successful scientific theory has needed god as causation.
Part of the problem is that spiritual matters, god, or the non-material world [if it exists, and IMHO it does not] is not falsifiable in a scientific sense. However, circumstantial evidence abounds that god is only very weakly, or not at all, interactive with the material world. This follows from the paragraph above.
This does indeed pose a problem for all religions, as they need to explain why such interaction does not occur. Further, a resistance against the findings of science makes theology look all the more unreasonable. There is temporary refuge to be found in the “god of the gaps argument”, but this is a false haven as science soon progresses to explain what was once unknown.
So on the surface, there seems to be no conflict between science and religion. But on a far deeper level, there is. This is not science’s fault. Science cannot change, because then it will no longer be science. So theological thought must evolve. Dogmatic ideas, especially about the creation myth, must change. I see no future for any religion that is not prepared to change. Theological ethics must also evolve, to become more engaged with what is known now, and not what is in the past.
The absolute presumption of the existence of god must go. A possibility of god I have no problem with.
I leave you with a final question:-
Did god make man in his own image, or did man make god in his own image?
Finally, I wish you all well. Seek. Question. Above all, love others. Not because it is god’s command, but because you want to. Not for reward or punishment. The lure of heaven or the eternal fire, but because you want to. Simple human feelings, programed by evolution into us, we splendid apes.
Adieu!
