Can faith and science coexist?

Last week I “debated” the question above in a Stevens event sponsored by the Christian group Veritas. My “opponent” was John Lennox, a mathematician and Christian. I enclose “debated” and “opponent” in quotations marks because Lennox–a ruddy-skinned, white-haired Irishman, who has debated such renowned religion-bashers as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens–is so disarmingly genial. The debate’s original title was “Can Faith and Reason Coexist?”, but Lennox and I decided to substitute “science” for “reason” to sharpen our focus.

I suspect Lennox wins over many people by appealing to their hearts as well as intellects. Lennox presents an eloquent case for intelligent design–How could this marvelous world possibly have arisen through sheer chance?—and the consolations of belief in divine justice and an afterlife. In my remarks, I expressed sympathy with several aspects of Lennox’s perspective before outlining where our views diverge. Here’s a summary of my major points:

WHY I’M NOT AN ATHEIST

*Obviously faith and reason can co-exist. John Lennox is a demonstration proof, and so are all the many eminent scientists–including physicist George Ellis and others I have interviewed recently–who are religious.

*Anti-religion scientists such as Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking have overstated science’s power to solve all the secrets of the universe. Yes, science has helped us map out the structure and history of reality, from the largest to the smallest scales. And yet the origin of the universe and of life and the nature of consciousness remain paradoxically as mysterious as ever.

*Science and religion converge in one important way. The more scientists investigate the origin of the universe, life and Homo sapiens, the more improbable our existence seems. If you define a miracle as an infinitely improbable event, then you could argue that science has demonstrated that our existence is a miracle. During so-called religious or mystical experiences, we experience reality’s miraculousness in a powerful, visceral way. Even Steven Weinberg, a physicist and atheist, concedes that “sometimes nature seems more beautiful than strictly necessary.”

WHY I’M NOT A BELIEVER

*My main objection to Christianity and other monotheistic faiths is the problem of evil. If God is all-powerful, just and loving, why then is existence often so painful and unjust? Why do kids get cancer? Why do earthquakes, tsunamis, and other “acts of God” occur? I have never encountered a satisfying solution to the problem of evil.

*Belief in an afterlife and supernatural moral order—in a God who created us and wants the best for us—may be consoling, but it is also infantilizing. Accepting that we are on our own, with no God to save us, can be scary, but it is also exhilarating. And it forces us to take complete responsibility for making this world less painful and more just.

*Each religion insists that there is one supreme meaning to existence. Unfortunately, different religions insist on different meanings, and adherents fight over these differences. History would have been much less violent if we accepted that there was no universal meaning of life. Unlike scientific truth, which is objective and universal, meaning is personal and subjective. Each person should discover his or her own meaning and not insist that others embrace it.

*Without God, Lennox said, there can be no ultimate hope. I disagree. I am more hopeful than most people I know, whether believers or atheists, and my optimism is based not on wishful thinking but on the enormous progress we have achieved overcoming disease, poverty, oppression and war. I don’t have faith in God, but I do have faith in humanity.

John Horgan directs the Center for Science Writing, which is part of the College of Arts & Letters. This column is adapted from one originally published on his ScientificAmerican.com blog, “Cross-check.”