A Review of the Great Partnership - Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning

     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 19^th 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 16^th and 17^th 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?”