I just had a conversation with a good friend, and you know how, between the joking and the informational exchange, meaning tends to assert itself with or without your expectations. So thanks to all those who have shared something of their souls, and who have helped me to uncover my own.

What a question: How can science and religion be reconciled?

Before you can even attempt an answer, I'd like to look at certain things that are presumed in the question itself. First of all, the question, framed in this way, assumes a separation between what we consider to be the areas of "science" and "religion." This is a Western distinction proposed at the very advent of Greek philosophy, and so it is a question of Western culture. The term "science" brings to mind associations with rationality, objectivity, scientific method, and a general sense of progressiveness (i.e., the pursuit of science leads to be progression of the human condition). While "religion"---which usually means Christianity--- is associated irrationality, subjectivity, dogma, and a general sense of something that is no longer relevant to the contemporary human, who as a product of the Enlightenment, is less susceptible to its influence.

And how did the distinction between rationality and irrationality come about in Greece? In Homeric epics, there was a different notion of "virtue" that that which Socrates advocated. The depiction of Hector in the Iliad is an example of a virtuous, pre-Socratic man. He is shown as a loving father and husband as well as a keen warrior and leader. In fact, he seems to do well in just about every aspect of his life, and the reader tends to sympathize with his character more than with most of the other figures of the Trojan War. These qualities are of particular note since Hector is not Greek. Homer seems to make Hector as good as man as possible (to the Greek understanding of what constitutes a "good" man) in order to make him more sympathetic to a Greek audience. That also makes his death and the fall of Troy all the more tragic. The Greeks believed in a concept of arete, which has been defined as "excellence," "virtue," or "righteousness." A man was supposed to embody this excellence in every aspect of his life. It was not, however, a formulated system of belief. Arete is something that does not quite fit into the categories of rationality and irrationality, but seemed to encompass both. Looking at Homer's works is a way to get a sense of how the concept was important to Greek culture before Socrates formalized the concept into his Theory of Forms. A more comprehensive take on this is presented in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, but---in short---this point in history is key to the dichotomy of rationality vs. irrationality that has been the hallmark of Western thought ever since. While this distinction is one way of viewing the workings of the world that has worked to some benefit in the world, it does have its shortcomings. The distinction does not necessitate a lack of interaction or appreciation between the two. If they are separate but equal entities, then one cannot be privileged over the other unless one is shown to be superior. The trap that we often fall into by making this distinction is that we end up privileging one over the other according to the fashion of the times and the convincing articulation of the few.

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. In fact, very early in its history Christianity tried to justify itself according to principles of philosophic rationality. Even the Protestant Reformation was based in certain notions borrowed from the Enlightenment. Here arose the idea of the "literal" distinction between fact and metaphor. However, such a presumption assumes favoritism towards rationality, a concept that was not distinctly separate in Christianity until theologians began using philosophers to justify Christian faith through the application of reason. In other words, literalness only becomes a problem when it is necessary for something to be factual in order to be true. Even those who take a non-literal view of the Bible tend to undermine their own attempt at meaning because they too don't see truth as possible without rationality to support it, and so end up disparaging any Truth rather than offer a solution not based in rationality. Today, the distinction between science and religion is not as clear as it appears to be, since today both use the language of rationality to justify their claims. Yet science, seen as a direct descendent of philosophic inquiry, is not free from subjectivity. Even the greatest scientists, like Einstein, use metaphors to explain their theories. Objectivity itself has been brought into question, since scientific method is based on observation, which even in the most well intentioned individuals is far from free of bias.

Maybe what we want is not reconciliation between science and religion, but an end to the violence between them. I would love an arrational world, where there was no need to set the world against itself by dividing our very nature, but that would require a sea change in our view of ourselves and the wider world. Even if I had the wisdom, I coundn't hope to make that change in one blog posting :) Therefore, let those who are moved by faith move the world, and let those who use science use it to better our existence here. And let those who are promoted by God to study the workings of the atom do that without fear of contradiction. Science does not entail belief or disbelief in God, just the application of a certain method for dealing with the natural phenomena of the earth. And love of God does not mean that we stop being curious about the workings of the created world.