Is it possible to believe in god and science

Science won major victories against entrenched religious dogma throughout the 19th century. In the s, discoveries of Neanderthal remains in Belgium, Gibraltar and Germany showed that humans were not the only hominids to occupy earth, and fossils and remains of now extinct animals and plants further demonstrated that flora and fauna evolve, live for millennia and then sometimes die off, ceding their place on the planet to better-adapted species.

These discoveries lent strong support to the then emerging theory of evolution, published by Charles Darwin in We now know that earth is billions, not thousands, of years old, as some theologians had calculated based on counting generations back to the biblical Adam.

All of these discoveries defeated literal interpretations of Scripture. But has modern science, from the beginning of the 20th century, proved that there is no God, as some commentators now claim? Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth in the Big Bang. Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms.

Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine?

And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries. But much more important than these conundrums is the persistent question of the fine-tuning of the parameters of the universe: Why is our universe so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life?

This question has never been answered satisfactorily, and I believe that it will never find a scientific solution. For the deeper we delve into the mysteries of physics and cosmology, the more the universe appears to be intricate and incredibly complex. To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics.

Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? Collins: It starts with an extreme articulation of a viewpoint on one side of the issue and that then results in a response that is also a little bit too extreme, and the whole thing escalates.

Every action demands an equal and opposite reaction. Whether it was the Inquisition or the Crusades on the one hand or the World Trade Center on the other? But we also have this thing called free will which we exercise all the time to break that law. Collins: There is a sad truth there. I think we Christians have been way too ready to define ourselves as members of an exclusive club.

I found truth, I found joy, I found peace in that particular conclusion, but I am not in any way suggesting that that is the conclusion everybody else should find. And quick to start arguments and fights and even wars! Look at the story of the Good Samaritan, which is a parable from Jesus himself. Horgan: How can you, as a scientist who looks for natural explanations of things and demands evidence, also believe in miracles, like the resurrection?

Collins: My first struggle was to believe in God. Not a pantheist God who is entirely enclosed within nature, or a Deist God who started the whole thing and then just lost interest, but a supernatural God who is interested in what is happening in our world and might at times choose to intervene.

My second struggle was to believe that Christ was divine as He claimed to be. As soon as I got there, the idea that He might rise from the dead became a non-problem. But as a scientist I set my standards for miracles very high. Horgan: The problem I have with miracles is not just that they violate what science tells us about how the world works. They also make God seem too capricious.

For example, many people believe that if they pray hard enough God will intercede to heal them or a loved one. Also, prayer for me is not a way to manipulate God into doing what we want Him to do. Prayer for me is much more a sense of trying to get into fellowship with God. Horgan: Many people have a hard time believing in God because of the problem of evil.

If God loves us, why is life filled with so much suffering? Collins: That is the most fundamental question that all seekers have to wrestle with. First of all, if our ultimate goal is to grow, learn, discover things about ourselves and things about God, then unfortunately a life of ease is probably not the way to get there. I know I have learned very little about myself or God when everything is going well.

God gave us free will, and we may choose to exercise it in ways that end up hurting other people. Horgan: The physicist Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist, has written about this topic. He asks why six million Jews, including his relatives, had to die in the Holocaust so that the Nazis could exercise their free will. Collins: If God had to intervene miraculously every time one of us chose to do something evil, it would be a very strange, chaotic, unpredictable world.

Free will leads to people doing terrible things to each other. Innocent people die as a result. The harder question is when suffering seems to have come about through no human ill action.

A child with cancer, a natural disaster, a tornado or tsunami. Why would God not prevent those things from happening? An alternative is the notion of God being outside of nature and of time and having a perspective of our blink-of-an-eye existence that goes both far back and far forward.

In some admittedly metaphysical way, that allows me to say that the meaning of suffering may not always be apparent to me. There can be reasons for terrible things happening that I cannot know. Collins: No! That sounds like agnosticism. A cross-national study of the effects of religious involvement, religious faith, and religious context on social trust.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 54 4 , — A multifactorial analysis of acceptance of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach , 10 , 4. Conflict between religion and science among academic scientists? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 48 2 , — Scientists negotiate boundaries between religion and science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 50 3 , — Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographics.

Social Problems , 54 2 , — The religiosity of academic scientists in the United Kingdom: Assessing the role of discipline and department status. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 57 4 , — Link , Google Scholar Eignor, D.

The standards for educational and psychological testing. In Geisinger, K. Bracken, B. Carlson, J. Hansen, J. Kuncel, N. Reise, S. Rodriguez, M. Cognitive interviews to test and refine questionnaires. Public Health Nursing , 28 5 , — Evolution in the southeastern USA: Factors Influencing acceptance and rejection in pre-service science teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 13 6 , — Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life.

Google Scholar Ha, M. Feeling of certainty: Uncovering a missing link between knowledge and acceptance of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 49 1 , 95— Fundamentals of item response theory.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar Harris, S. The end of faith: Religion, terror, and the future of reason. New York: Norton. Google Scholar Hermann, R. Cognitive apartheid: On the manner in which high school students understand evolution without believing in evolution.

Evolution: Education and Outreach , 5 4 , — Rejecting evolution: The role of religion, education, and social networks. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 53 3 , — Agnosticism: A symposium. The Agnostic Annual. Life and letters of Thomas Henry Huxley Vol. London: Macmillan. Google Scholar Ingram, E. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 43 1 , 7— Rationality and belief in human evolution SSRN scholarly paper no. ID All scientists should be militant atheists. Retrieved May 19, , from www.

Applied linear statistical models Vol. Google Scholar Landis, J. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics , 33 , — Medline , Google Scholar Manwaring, K. Influencing highly religious undergraduate perceptions of evolution: Mormons as a case study.

Evolution: Education and Outreach , 8 1 , Scientific aptitude better explains poor responses to teaching of evolution than psychological conflicts. Evolution: Education and Outreach , 11 1 , Intimidation in small learning groups: The roles of social-comparison concern, comfort, and individual characteristics in student academic outcomes.

Active Learning in Higher Education , 12 3 , — Public acceptance of evolution. Science , , — New York: Harper-Collins. Google Scholar Nadelson, L. International Journal of Science Education , 34 11 , — Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. National Academies Press. Google Scholar NAS. Science, evolution, and creationism.

Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: Special report NSF Retrieved August 25, , from www. Academic preparation in biology and advocacy for teaching evolution: Biology versus non-biology teachers. Science Education , 93 6 , — The nature of science as a foundation for fostering a better understanding of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach , 12 1 , 6. Advances in Health Sciences Education , 15 5 , — The creationists: From scientific creationism to intelligent design.

Google Scholar Pew. Scientists and belief. Retrieved March 14, , from www. Retrieved October 19, , from www. Using human case studies to teach evolution in high school A. Evolution: Education and Outreach , 11 1 , 3.

The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Hutchinson. Google Scholar Rissler, L. Evolution: Education and Outreach , 7 1 , The development and validation of the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution instrument. School Science and Mathematics , 99 1 , 13— Record few Americans believe Bible is literal word of god. Do you see what I-SEA?

Science Education , 2 , — Evolution and nature of science instruction. The use of journaling to assess student learning and acceptance of evolutionary science. Journal of College Science Teaching , 45 1 , Google Scholar Scott, E. Evolution vs. Berkeley: University of California Press. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 40 5 , — Counterpoint: Belief, understanding, and the teaching of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 31 5 , — Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 53 9 , — Why Methodological Naturalism.

Google Scholar Southerland, S. Acknowledging the religious beliefs students bring into the science classroom: Using the bounded nature of science. Theory Into Practice , 52 1 , 59— Pope Francis says evolution is real and God is no wizard. Washington Post.

Retrieved August 31, , from www. Student perception of group dynamics predicts individual performance: Comfort and equity matter. No missing link: Knowledge predicts acceptance of evolution in the United States. BioScience , 68 3 , — Google Scholar Willis, G. Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Google Scholar Winslow, M. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 48 9 , — Student positions on the relationship between evolution and creation: What kinds of changes occur and for what reasons?

Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 53 3 , — Figures References Related Details. Elizabeth Barnes , K. Supriya , Yi Zheng , Julie A. Roberts , and Sara E. Brownell Rebecca Price, Monitoring Editor. Elizabeth Barnes , Samantha A. Maas , Julie A. Brownell Molly S. Bolger, Monitoring Editor.