Exploring the boundaries between culture, religion and science
Author: Aiyi Mian
Artist: Qiwen Liu
Editor: Sara Maria Majernikova
Context
How did humans and the organisms around us arrive at their current forms? Upon a question like this, an atheist evolutionary biologist and a believer of a certain faith might respond very differently. This is particularly evident in the matter of evolution, a scientific theory that explains how species change over time through natural selection and genetic variation. In comparison, religion typically offers a creation story based on a supernatural creator or divine force.
While some religious beliefs may conflict with certain aspects of evolutionary theory, it is still possible for individuals to hold both religious beliefs and accept the scientific theory of evolution. However, many scientists have insisted on an untainted ideal of what contemporary evolution, and ultimately science, should be – free from cultural and political debate. This forms a phenomenon where evolution may serve as a “secular religion” for some, but it is crucial to realise that religions, politics, and cultures are ultimately inseparable from the production of knowledge in the scientific community.
The Past: Catholic and Protestant Science
The Protestant Reformation, which occurred in the 16th century, is a prime example of the impact of religion on the conduct of science. While Catholicism would have placed a high value on authoritative figures such as the Priest and his interpretation of the Bible, protestantism promoted an ethos of doing good deeds and making the world a better place. This meant that Protestantism might have moulded an individual who is better suited to the development of capitalism.
In response, the second part of The Merton Thesis assumes that the rise in popularity of science in the late 17th century can be largely attributed to ascetic protestantism’s values. This should be accompanied by its first part, which simply states that changes in 17th-century science were due to improved experimental methods and an accumulation of experimental results.
Despite their differences, both Catholicism and Protestantism have had famous scientists. Take the example of Catholic scientists like Georges Lemaître, a priest who proposed the Big Bang theory, or Nicolaus Copernicus, an astronomer who proposed the heliocentric model of the solar system, and protestant scientists like Michael Faraday, a physicist and chemist who made important discoveries in electromagnetism and electrochemistry, and James Clerk Maxwell, a physicist who formulated the theory of electromagnetism and made important contributions to our understanding of colour perception.
Nonetheless, a scientist’s religious beliefs can impact their attitude towards science in various ways, and it is important to identify such influences. An example of a scientist’s work being motivated by religion is the 17th-century monk Gregor Mendel, known as the father of genetics. Mendel’s work on genetics was motivated by his desire to understand the underlying principles of heredity, which he saw as evidence of God’s divine plan for life. He believed that by studying the patterns of inheritance in pea plants, he could gain insights into the workings of the natural world and the mind of God. Mendel’s religious motivations did not detract from the rigour and precision of his scientific work; his experiments were carefully designed and meticulously carried out, and his conclusions were based on empirical evidence rather than religious doctrine. However, his religious beliefs did provide a deeper sense of purpose and meaning to his scientific work and may have influenced the questions he chose to investigate and the interpretations he drew from his data.
The Present: Cultural and Religious Influences, Everywhere
Canadian philosopher of science Michael Ruse published an article that advocates for “pure science” that must be protected and taught without being tainted by political or religious influence. Ruse believes that “today’s professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than industrial chemistry”, so that those who value science should distinguish between times when science is conducted and times when science is extrapolated from, particularly during teaching. However, by polarising science and religion like this, Ruse draws the same conclusions as though the “tainted” versions of evolution are a matter of the past and that science isn’t affected by our cultures or religions anymore. That simply is not the case, even in the 21st century.
In the present day, conflicts between science, culture, and religion have led to debates on how science should even be taught. In the United States, for example, groups often with religious or conservative affiliations have opposed evolution teaching in schools, advocating for alternatives such as creationism or intelligent design to be taught alongside or instead of evolution.
Also, in a mini-series created by Nature in 2020, seventeen years after the publication of Ruse’s article, Nick Howe from the Nature Podcast discusses the relevance of politics to a scientific publication like Nature. This is because Nature’s story about the damage that Donald Trump has done to science has received several criticisms that have demanded that Nature “stick to the science”, but is this correct? In their series, they suggest that “politics is deeply ingrained in scientists’ working lives. Be it through funding agendas, cultural lobbies, or personal bias, politics can shape the game in myriad ways, influencing the direction and quality of research.”
Conclusion
While it is still commendable to strive for objectivity and excellence in scientific research, we should not forget that a pure pursuit of scientific knowledge rarely exists without cultural, religious, and political influences. Such understandings are especially significant and relevant when approaching education, research priorities, scientific methods, ethical considerations, and other issues such as public discourse or acceptance of scientific findings. In the end, it’s important to realise that the production of scientific knowledge and its effects have always been tied to culture, religion, and politics, and they should be talked about with care. In Stephen Jay Gould’s words, “Nature is objective, and nature is knowable, but we can only view her through a glass darkly–and many clouds upon our vision are of our own making: social and cultural biases, psychological preferences, and mental limitations (in universal modes of thought, not just individualised stupidity).”
kinesismagazine.com 