Wednesday, September 21, 2005
The impasse between science and religion
Sometimes people find themselves in conflict over the relationship between science and religion. Recently, for instance, scientists detected an explosion at the edge of space that occurred several billion years ago. If that is true, what of the proclamation by some that God only created the universe several thousand years ago? Although some resolve this impasse by claiming that God created with the appearance of age, “Why,” I ask, “would God, who is Truth, be so deceptive?”
I tend to believe that the resolution is beyond my capacity to understand and that I can only see bits and pieces of the puzzle.
I can know some things from science, and I can know other things from God’s revelation (in a general way from nature and in a specific way from scripture). If I want to send a probe to Saturn, then, I don’t look in the Bible to find out how to do it. If I want to learn about my eternal life, I don’t ask someone researching polymer-bonding properties.
That brings me to the practice of clinical psychology. Here is where the two domains of science and religion seem to meet, because the subject is the human soul. The Greek root of our word “psychology” is translated as “soul”. Thus, clinical psychology concerns ways of working with troubled souls. Huh?! Isn’t that the world of religion? Who has the better grip on troubled souls? Should someone trained in the Bible be counselling, or should someone trained in the science of mind be counselling? Suddenly, we are back at the impasse between science and religion.
One approach to this impasse is the route of biblical counselling. According to this perspective, human beings are so filled with error that left on their own they will never grasp the situation truthfully. They are deceived and need the divine perspective that is able to correct their thinking and behaviour. Thus, the Biblical counsellor dispenses relevant scripture as a physician might prescribe antibiotics. If people do what the Bible says, they will get better.
Another approach states that there is no absolute truth in any given situation but that everything depends on how the people involved are making it up – what they believe influences how they think and behave, so all one needs to do is challenge irrational beliefs and replace faulty thinking. In this approach there is no God outside the situation, and there is no perspective that matters aside from that of the people themselves. If people change what they believe and think, they will get better.
It seems quite clear those two approaches do nothing but reinforce the split between science and religion.
How can it be that God created something that actually exists, giving human beings dominion over it; yet, human beings are not supposed to probe and strive to investigate and understand the very creation that has been given them? Further, what happens when people do investigate?
They generate a body of knowledge, which is incomplete and always growing but which is worth something at the same time. Conversely, how can we really grasp the nature of any given situation if we disregard the presence of God in and with it or if we lose sight of the fact that God is supremely concerned with our individual and specific experience?
Real people are really complex. They come with problems that mix physical, mental and spiritual factors and they need counsellors that can address all these realms with an informed integration between science and religion. Real people do not need remedies that leave out the ultimate questions filling in the blanks on significance. Real people do not need simplistic religiosity whistled in the dark or pressed upon them with stark authority. Most people loosely hold a vague belief in God and a tentative trust in science. They respond well to a person who can get real with them about both.
By Dr. Philip Brownell
Dr. Philip Brownell, M.Div., Psy.D., is a psychologist at Ashton Associates (295-0999).
E-mails can be sent to crossroads@g-gej.org
Permalink
