I once wrote
there was no place, basically, for science in the quest for the “good life”
(please refer to my May 30, 2011 post). I now admit that I may have been wrong.
This realization came to me after reading the book, The Great Partnership –
Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning, by Chief Rabbi of Britain Lord
Jonathan Sacks.
Rabbi Sacks proposes there can be a
relationship between science and religion; one that was lost after the
renaissance and the European Reformation, but, now, one that could be of mutual
respect and involve productive debate. Although respect has not been evident
for some time, Sacks argues science and religion are, indeed, intertwined in
the human search for knowledge and meaning. He offers an analogy involving the
human brain: science is to the left brain as religion is to the right. The left
brain is analytical and asks the question, “How?” The right brain is creative
and asks the question, “Why?” He states, specifically, and asserts through the
book, that “science takes things apart to see how they work; religion puts
things together to see what they mean.”
Sacks is a
Jew, and, so, he fleshes out the book’s thesis
from the principles embodied by the Abrahamic (monotheistic) faiths,
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Other authors of history, as does Rabbi
Sacks, have given credit to the Jews as being the first people to discover
monotheism. The ideas of democracy, tolerance, and antislavery are also from
the Jews. Of course, Christianity and Islam are (and have been) influential
religions. However, Sacks draws principally from Judaism in making his points. In
addition, he emphasizes throughout his book his philosophy is undergirded by
the principles of democracy and freedom. And, so, he recommends all religions
should be tolerated - the benefits each one offers to mankind cannot be
ignored.
According to
Sacks, modern atheists, of whom some are noted scientists, are at odds with
religion. Many profess to a Neo-Darwinism and are generally intolerant of
religion. He notes that “debates about religion and science usually happen
during times of great crisis in society.” Examples include the seventeenth
century wars of religion; the 19th century industrial revolution,
urbanization, and Darwinism; and the 1960’s “death of God debate,” which he
terms “a delayed impact of two world wars and a move to liberalization of
morals.”
To be fair
in his recount of history, Sacks admits religion has caused its share of the
problems of the world. In regards to any idea of science and religion working
together, he believes fundamentalism and conservatism in religion are serious
impediments. Specifically, he argues the written word of any religion needs
interpretation by qualified interpreters. The literal meaning truly differs
from the meaning given by the author. The wrong interpretation, he warns, leads
to intolerance, fanaticism, and radical philosophies.
One of the
subtle points Rabbi Sacks attempts to make in the argument for science and
religion working together is there once was a relationship involving the two in European history. Abrahamic monotheism originated in the east. And, according to Sacks, it lost some things and
gained other things in its movement to the west through Christianity. Originally considered a Jewish sect, Christianity made its way from the eastern to the western world mainly through the missionary work of the apostle Paul and, resultantly, acquired a western perspective. Science, he adds, is generally a Western invention beginning with
the Greeks and Romans and maturing with the renaissance and the great
scientific discoveries of the 16th and 17th centuries. Eventually, religion and science became inseparable. By the time the religious reformation in Europe began, Christianity had accumulated much
wealth and geopolitical power; things the author says no religion should
possess. In the end Christianity’s refusal of knowledge, other than religious,
forced science to declare independence and to continue its discoveries and
proofs, to include that man was not the center of a small universe but simply a
small part of a much larger one.
According to
Rabbi Sacks, “God’s existence cannot be proven” (as can, let’s say, hydrogen
through the scientific process). However, one way Sacks knows there is a God is
when he sees him working in people; the altruistic behavior exhibited by those
meeting the needs of others. Another way the author says points to God is the
case for intelligent design. Sacks reminds the reader DNA is the basis of all
life – “one, singular beginning.” He adds the scientist responsible for
decoding the human genome called it the “language of God.” He also quotes
another scientist that stated “If evolution with its emphasis in randomness was
run again, a sentient being such as man would not exist.” And, thirdly, Sacks
explains that, within humans, individuals pass on their genes; groups/cultures
survive. Jews have survived over 4000 years. Where is “survival of the fittest”
in the human condition exemplified by them?
Obviously,
Rabbi Sacks places religion in the unique perspective of helping mankind find
meaning. To paraphrase the Rabbi’s words: meaning must exist on the outside of
a system. As with baseball or football, a spectator must know the meaning of
the sport before he or she can understand and enjoy the game. In the search for
meaning, Sacks adds, humans must not look inward but outward, outside of the
human condition; because that is where God and meaning exist.
In
conclusion to this review of an awe inspiring and educational book, I will note the author says "he comes
from a religious tradition where we make a blessing over great scientists
regardless of their views on religion.”
To the reader, he seems to be asking, “Why can’t science do likewise?”
