Religious Affairs Office

Writing about the relationship between science and religion is relatively simple when you are discussing one side of the argument, or the other. It is more complicated when you try to interrogate and question the relationship itself in order to understand what is hidden behind it. The sociological gaze, agnostic par excellence, can be a good ally. The goal is not to look for culprits, or to commemorate anyone, but reflect critically about how we construct categories, how those categories are reproduced, and what the consequences are all together.

The philosophical, and theological, view has historically dominated the debate over science and religion. Broadly speaking, two differentiated positions have been constructed. The first, and best known, is the one that describes religion as the main enemy of science, and as a rupture on the progress of knowledge. The figure of Galileo Galilei, the very existence of the Catholic Inquisition and the authoritarian imposition of religious discourses to explain natural phenomena support this thesis. Religion as an institution has not historically tended to promote scientific thought. A second position, which also has many followers, is the one that defends complementarity and fluid coexistence between science and religion. The historical role of scientists such as Maimonides, Averroes and Gregor Mendel himself are cited as references, as people deeply immersed in religious worlds but at the same time able to make major contributions to the world of science. In this case, science is not perceived in opposition to the scientific world but in complementarity. There are nuances within this position. Some believe that both systems of thought respond to different (and compartmentalised) orders of truth, and that they can coexist without conflict as long as each remains within their division. Others go further and argue that dialogue between the two worlds can produce relevant social, cultural, and scientific advances.

From a sociological point of view , the debate takes another turn. It is no longer a question of judging the history of the relationship between science and religion. Nor does the interest lie in clarifying normative controversy, or the underlying ideological aspirations. From a sociological point of view, the goal is more modest, more empirical, less timeless. The wish is to understand how the science-religion debate is articulated, and conveyed in our contemporary society, and question some clichés that are often included. It is about reviewing predictions, prejudices, or what we take for granted when we think about science and religion today, and trying to unravel the complexities associated with them. This article is a first taste.

 

SCIENCE AND RELIGION: HOMOGENEOUS BLOCKS?

The theory of the secularisation of society predicted, decades ago, that science would replace religion in modern times. The existence of religion was perceived as incompatible with scientific advances, and it was considered that modernity would definitely corner the role –and power– of religions. Science has an indisputable social prestige on a global scale today, but religions have not disappeared. Scientific explanations have not removed religious beliefs. The theory of replacement has not been fulfilled as planned. Thus, even despite the indisputable push of secularisation during the 20th century, a look at reality makes it clear that the relationship between the non-mechanical or linear social progress of science and religion cannot be described as a zero-sum game.

To understand this, the first thing that needs to be emphasised is the difficulty of talking about “science” and “religion” abstractly. Each of these spheres is deeply heterogeneous and constantly changing. From a sociological point of view, the trap of debates about the relationship between science and religion often lies in the fact that they reproduce the dichotomy of a struggle between two abstract, stark categories, while co-writing the narrative of a science based on pure rationality and a religion made of pure irrationality. Cataloguing science as rational, and religion as irrational, may have a logic in the normative field but it is difficult to find a translation in the tasks of daily life. Judging the validity of scientific reasons is often an act of faith and trust, not of rationality. The level of scientific expertise that would require a rational understanding of the world around in its entirety is certainly unattainable for a simple human being. There are things (often many things) that we cannot rationally explain because we do not have the knowledge to do so. I am referring to issues such as the meaning of vaccine RNA technology, the characteristics that make Mars a habitable planet, or the importance of the “default network” for the brain, to name just three examples. However, not being able to explain it rationally, or not having the tools to validate it scientifically, does not mean that we automatically fall into the realm of irrationality. As people immersed in our daily lives, we trust and we believe what our healthcare staff or scientist friend tells us, or what is in the article published in a trusted newspaper or magazine. Not understanding rationally, or not knowing how to explain rationally, a certain fact or phenomenon does not automatically place you in the field of religion, nor in that of irrationality. In a way, and when we focus on the realm of everyday life, on how the debate between science and religion is lived in everyday life, it becomes clear that the distinction between rationality/irrationality belongs to a different order of things. In this sense, some scientific contributions can be extremely “irrational” in the eyes of an ordinary person, at the same time as some “religious beliefs” can be perceived in rational terms by others. Both scientific and religious social institutions are crucial in mediating and articulating what we consider to be “rational” or “irrational”.

 

OPPOSITION TO SCIENCE: COMPLETE REJECTION?

Science and religion are heterogeneous spheres, which cannot be taken as an inseparable, uniform whole; we should not be trapped in the rationality-irrationality binomial in order to understand this complexity. There are many religions in the world and, as the sociologist Joan Estruch says, many different “belief styles”. The ways of believing, of apprehending religiosity, are profoundly diverse in our contemporary world. While there are belief styles that are cognitively entrenched behind religious dogmas, there are others that take negotiating, or conciliatory, positions. However, not only are we cognitively in a world populated by individuals with different ways of managing the relationship between science and religion, but even the same individual may take different positions depending on the theme, context or time. For instance: Opposition to science by religious groups or individuals is rarely a complete rejection. Moreover, today it is difficult to imagine groups or individuals who would completely reject scientific knowledge (and who would want to). Opposition is often not general, but specific: it is not an opposition to all forms of scientific knowledge, but a particular item, or a specific technology. In this sense, research conducted in English-speaking regions is interesting, which shows that, for example, most individuals who oppose the theory of evolution –from creationist positions– have no problem accepting most other scientific theories. The same happens in other fields. Furthermore, those who question vaccines generally do not argue about the effectiveness of general anaesthesia in surgical procedures or question the theory of relativity. This selective denial, or this specific questioning, challenges the traditional view that has tended to explain the relationship between science and religion as the existence of two homogeneous, opposing blocks, which are linked following the principles of rationality/irrationality. Therefore, from this perspective, the interesting point sociologically is not the debate in general terms but understanding specific idiosyncrasies: why are there religious groups that see Darwin’s theory as a threat to their religious worldview? And why do they consider Darwin’s theory problematic and not most other scientific theories? Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses oppose blood transfusions and not vaccines? Why are there certain Orthodox religious groups that oppose vaccines but not antibiotics? To understand such questions, we do not need general explanations, which are comprehensive in scope. We need a historical, situated, contextual perspective that helps us identify how certain categories and specific perceptions have been constructed about what is “right” or “wrong,” about what is acceptable and what is not, and how it has been linked to community, power and life dynamics.

And we cannot think of adherence –or non-adherence– to science as the result of a cognitive, reasoned decision. Confidence, or not, in science is the result of the coordination of different factors –often experiential, in terms of community identification or biographical trajectory– that go far beyond the cognitive element, reflection or rational decisions. There is more and more sociological research that shows that identification with science is primarily the result of certain cultural dynamics, as is opposition to certain scientific principles or technologies. It is research of this type that has questioned what are known as cognitive deficit theories, which attribute opposition to certain scientific theories or technologies to lack of information. For decades, opposition to scientific progress was thought to be a consequence of the general public’s lack of information, or inability to understand, scientific principles. This is why the emphasis was on information campaigns, and it was argued that education was the most important antidote to the spread of forms of opposition, or questioning, to “scientific advances” –from transgenic to genetic progress, hormonal therapies or the theory of evolution. Most current studies question this view. Information is important, but it is by no means the only factor that explains the attitudes and approaches of the population towards science.

 

INSTITUTIONS, HISTORY AND POWER

Science and religion are not just cognitive principles. They are also institutions. As such, they are part of an evolving social, political, cultural and economic fabric. Therefore, when analysing the science-religion debate, we have to bear in mind that this does not occur only in the sphere of ideas, but it goes much further. Being clear is crucial to understanding the implications. I will give an example. If we compare the numbers of Covid vaccinations in Spain with those in other countries of the world, we realise that they are much higher here. Vaccine reluctance is much lower here than in other countries such as the United States, France and Nigeria. To explain the reasons behind this acceptance, the sociologist Pep Lobera explains that it is not that people here have more capacity to understand the principles of vaccines and how they work. Rather, in the context of the Spanish State, we have a health system that has gained the trust of the citizens and medical staff has recognized prestige. As a society we tend, therefore, to trust the health system, and when the medical authorities advise us to get vaccinated, most of us do so without much hesitation. This is no coincidence. It is the result of a long history of building a public health system and building trust. Nor is it a coincidence that in certain countries, or among certain population groups, distrust of vaccines is much higher. For example, the Canadian sociologist Paul Bramadat explains that the distrust of certain indigenous communities towards the medical system, and also towards vaccines, is not accidental. Science and medicine have been used to subjugate certain social groups at certain times in history, and as a method of domination and oppression (see, for example, sterilisation campaigns). In these contexts, opposition to certain biomedical technologies is therefore not the result of a lesser understanding of scientific principles, but is the justified (and rational) result of a system of oppression that science has used at will.

 

SPIRITUALITY: A THIRD VARIABLE IN DISCORD?

When analysing the debate on science and religion, it is also very important to emphasise that the boundaries between religion and science are not fixed or stable, but contingent and subject to constant negotiation. The border that identifies and marks the difference between science and religion is a space of tension, of struggle, which transforms over the years, or centuries. Taking a look at your horoscope would not be considered a scientific activity today, but perhaps it was at other times in history. Furthermore, while theology is an activity clearly embedded within the religious world, the sciences of religion are born as a discipline with a desire to achieve scientific status (and there are those who dispute it). What marks the boundary between “scientific” and “religious”? Can we identify criteria that allow us to clearly distinguish between the two? It is not clear. The Dictionary of the Institute for Catalan Studies defines science as the “exact knowledge of a certain order of things”, but how do we guarantee the quality of exact, and what does it provide us? Surely the theory that would gain the most consensus is that the “scientific method” makes the difference, and is the element that marks the boundary line. However, everyone who has studied, with more or less depth, the philosophy of science knows that the definition of the method is not easy, simple or ahistorical. In this field, moreover, everything has become more complicated in recent years.

The American sociologist Paul DiMaggio recently published an article in collaboration with other authors, where he highlights that, today, the category “spirituality” must be added to the relationship between science and religion. He explains how a certain spirituality emerges, grows and spreads, claiming to play in both fields –both religious and scientific– while making complementarity between the two its hallmark. It is what has been called holistic spirituality, “new age” or alternative spirituality, with different nuances of meaning. It is a type of spirituality detached from traditional religious institutions that spreads a syncretic message which, while becoming a source of meaning, also has implications for the field of health, nutrition, self-care and relationships with others. From a sociological point of view, it is considered a form of religiosity adapted to secular times, but many of those who follow it –or who are close to it– reject the label of religion, and justify its principles and forms of action through scientific language. We would need an entire article (or a book) to analyse it appropriately, but it is important to highlight the complex interweaving between spirituality and science in contemporary times. Much of the controversy over what some have called “pseudoscience” can also be read from this perspective. At the same time, it is important not to label it as a trivial or banal phenomenon, as its implementation is much more widespread than it might seem at first glance, and it can be seen in many areas, from food to the field of self-help, sports or medicine. This spirituality is sometimes deeply commodified, but sometimes also has a countercultural will, and while there are individuals who have a fleeting and ephemeral relationship with it, there are others who define and organise their lives according to it. This is an interesting phenomenon to look into as the coordinates it emerges from do not fit into traditional readings about the limits and the meaning of science and religion. Exploring it, at the same time, allows us to understand how the negotiation of the boundary line between religion and science is linked in different ways depending on the context, institutional cultures and power dynamics.

 

WHEN THE CONTROVERSY SPARKS: BEYOND THE SCIENCE-RELIGION DEBATE

In short, the debate on science and religion is more complex than it might seem at first glance. The opposition between the two spheres exists in normative terms, but it becomes much more diffuse when we analyse it from a sociological perspective. And when we look at how people, in their daily lives, think, reflect and act in relation to science and religion, everything becomes more nuanced. However, you could make a very easy objection to my argument. If the boundary between science and religion is blurred in the everyday realm, why is it still perceived as a burning, difficult, controversial issue? This is probably because there are various elements –both scientific and religious– that act as symbolic resources that serve to link broader ideological and political aspirations publicly and vehicularly. Often, at the intersection of science and religion, we find certain elements that serve as symbolic resources, or cultural markers, of broader political struggles. A clear example is the issue of abortion, and the related debate on the beginnings of human life. In this sense, what could be a purely scientific discussion is brought to the public sphere with particular interests; it gains media visibility, it is politicised and leads to a debate involving social, political and cultural struggles that go much further, crossing the “science versus religion” approach. These debates are not configured around religion generically, and around science abstractly, but emerge around very specific issues and become spaces of friction, where social tensions, political aspirations and moral projects crystallise. The order of science, politics, and morality are intertwined in this type of controversy, which also has a cultural and affective dimension, and which often has relevant implications in terms of gender. It is impossible for us to go any further, or unravel it in depth, but it is important to emphasise that such controversies do not dissolve in times of secularisation, but they are sharpened, made more complex and polarised. They emerge in line with what have been called cultural wars, fake news and political populism, and are especially virulent in contexts like the US, but they also have a certain validity and echo in Spain.

In short, the debate on science-religion is complex, with multiple nuances; we could continue discussing the details for hours. In a way, it is an unresolved debate when we raise it in singular terms. To understand the relationship between science and religion, we must contextualise it geographically and temporally; at the same time, we need to critically review the premises on which it has been built. However, it is important not to confuse the sociological view with scientific relativism, nor the epistemological questioning of the debate with its normative, political and ethical importance. The debate –or rather the debates– at the intersection of science and religion is in full force in our society (and will continue to be). Sociology and empirical research in this field cannot replace political and moral debate, but they can help to understand the implications in more depth, and to ensure that a critical, unmasking outlook beyond-old clichés is promoted.

 

Dr Maria del Mar Griera, Professor in the Faculty of Political Sciences and Sociology of the Autonomous University of Barcelona and Director of the ISOR research centre.