Michael Reiss Talk and Theos Survery

I recently heard Michael Reiss talk on religion and science as part of a series of Darwin Lectures at Cardiff university.

Michael Reiss gave an interesting overview of the different models of science and religion and those that involved conflict and those that did not. Then he claimed that that most religious and scientists view science and religion as compatible and that this is a mainstream view. In contrast it was the minorities who tend to be religious fundamentalists such as Young Earth Creationists or Militant Atheists inspired by Richard Dawkins that share the belief that science and religion must be in conflict.

Theos [Mar2009] have recently produced a survey of religious belief in Britain and they found that many people held a belief in what they called 'theistic evolution'. Theistic evolution is the view that evolution is part of God's plan. On this view evolution is the means by which God has created the diverse life forms on the planet. Wales came out as the region that had the highest percentage of people surveyed who professing a belief in theistic evolution. Theos took this (as well as a reference to Darwin who also thought that science and religion need not conflict) as evidence that there is no conflict between science and religion.

My response to Michael Reiss and to Theos is that whether science and in particular evolution conflicts with religious belief is not a straightforward matter. It is certainly not settled by asking people whether they believe in evolution and religion unless they understand what the consequence of religious belief and evolution are. This is because people can be unaware of the consequences of what they believe such that underlying conflicts remain hidden to them until made explicit.


Given that large numbers of people that Theos surveyed thought that Charles Darwin wrote the 'Theory of Relativity' it seems unlikely that such people have a great deal of insight into the nature of evolution that would reveal whether there was any underlying conflict between their religious belief and evolution or not.

The Science advisor to the Vatican gave us some indication as to why there might be a conflict between evoluton and mainstream religion [Science Nov 2008] when he said that Catholocism accepted evolution so long as the evolutionary account of humans did not rely on random or chance events. This caused puzzlment to many scientists present as evolution standardly includes references to chance events in the environment such as changes in food distribution that impact on the form that the species takes e.g. the shape of birds beaks, and the element of random mutations in genetic transmissions.

It seems that the conflict between evolution and mainstream Christianity resides in accepting on faith something like 1-3 which brings out the consequence 4. This conflicts with the evidence about the way evolution operates 5.

1: If God intends to bring about something that is possible then he could not fail to bring about that thing since he is omnipotent.

2: God intended to bring about humans (so they could enter into a loving relationship with them)

3: The modern Christian also wants to believe that God used evolution as a means of bringing about humans in order to avoid looking like a scientific idiot and to distance themselves from Creationism and false beliefs about the world.

4: Since God intended humans to exist, and God could not fail to bring about what he intended then humans could not have failed to have come about.


5: The current understanding of evolution (the process God is meant to have used) makes reference to random mutations and chance events. The element of randomness and chance events in the evolution of the species entails that if you were able to re-run the initial conditions of life again you would not get the same set of species on the planet. Instead a different set of species would arise and this means that human life is not inevitable. This is directly in conflict with a consequence of Theistic Evolution that humans could not have failed to come about.


If you explain the existence of humans via evolution then you get the conclusion that humans could have failed to have come about. But this is in direct conflict with the notion that God intended humanst to come into existence and thereby guarentees their existence by using natural selection.

It is often thought that the problem can be side stepped by saying that although the origin of human beings looks like it is partly the result of chance events, it was not. It was not the result of chance events because God really guided the evolutionary process so that humans were inevitable.

What they both accept is that evolution appears to involve chance/random events. Since the evidence appears to involve chance events the scientific attitude is to take this as warranting belief that this is in fact how evolution operates. The religious attitude by contrast is to ignore what the evidence suggests and instead hold on the basis of faith that what appears to be chance events in evolution are not in fact so.

It strikes me that the proper conclusion to draw from this is that Michael Reiss and Theos are mistaken in taking lay peoples ability to believe in evolution and religious beliefs as evidence that there is no conflict between the two.

If one bases their beliefs on the scientific evidence of how evolution works the result is that human life is not inevitable and this is in conflict with mainstream Christian religious belief as
the Vatican's science advisor was probably well aware.

Regards
Julian

Julian Bennetts

Julian Bennett is the Secretary of Cardiff Humanists. Here he recounts his experiences attempting to get on the local Sacre Board as a Co-Opted Member. The "Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education" exist in every Local Education Authority and were set up to advise on issues of religious education.

Since 2003 Cardiff Humanists have been denied a role in Cardiff Sacre on the grounds of not being religious. Last year in April 2008 we decided to re-apply given that there have been changes in the syllabus of RE and a recommendation for Humanism to be on the syllabus as well as changes in the Law.

I had to wait a full 11 months before being allowed to give a presentation which took place in last week in March 2009.

I cited 3 main reasons why there should be a Humanist representation present.

1: Humanism has been recommended by the OCA to be included in RE in order to make the syllabus more inclusive to many pupils who want to explore ethical issues from a non-religious perspective.

Since there is a representative from every other belief system on the RE syllabus bar a Humanist it is only fair that a Humanist be represented. To exclude Humanists on the basis of their belief is probably against part two of the Equality Act 2006 which "prohibits discrimination against a person because they do not hold a religion or belief"

2: Cardiff Humanists are affiliated to the BHA. The BHA is the largest organisation in the UK that represents the Humanist tradition and makes available a large range of excellent teaching resources for schools. A Humanist representative on Sacre would enrich the resources available for RE teaching of Humanism.

3: Humanists participate in over 60 Sacres in a wide range of authorities around the country, some have co-operated in generating syllabus conferences, others have been elected to vice chairs or even chairs of Sacre. Humanists have worked with religious leaders such as the Rabbi Jonathan Romain in the organisation 'Accord' to make faith schools more inclusive. The BHA recently hosted a conference in Cardiff International Arena that included a discussion led by Simon Barrow of the Christian think tank Ekklesia on the law and definitions of religion.

All of the above highlight that Humanists are capable of working together with representatives from religious organisations.

There was wide support for my acceptance on Sacre other than from the Chair and the representative from the Catholic tradition.

The Chair - Lib Dem counsellor Freda Salway asked whether there were any humanists on Sacres elsewhere in Wales and since there were not this was implied to be a good reason for not having one on Cardiff Sacre.

The next objection was equally banal - did I have faith? If not that seemed like a good reason for not having me on the committee since everyone else present did.

To this the head of RE that was present defended my case by noting that Sacre oversaw religious education with the emphasis on 'education' . That the meaning of 'religion' was rooted in the Latin 'Relgio' meaning to bind or hold fast to, and that Humanists no less than other religious groups hold onto or could be said to have faith in a view of human nature that is able to solve ethical problems.

However, the Chair had the final say. She has 'absent mindedly' arranged the date of my presentation on a day when there were insufficient counselors to take a vote on my acceptance. Hence there would be yet another delay over a representative from Cardiff Humanists being on the committee and they will contact me at some point in the future.

So what else can I do - I find it disgusting the way the chair of Cardiff Sacre can orchestrate this pantomime - clearly she is doing her very best to keep any representative from Cardiff Humanists out of Sacre.


Regards
Julian Bennett
Cardiff Humanists Secretary

Well it seems that that there is a certain level of unwillingness to allow secular voices onto the local Sacre Board. Other Sacres invite humanists. Surrey County Council has a humanist on their Sacre board under "other faiths" (which includes Muslim and Catholics accounting for over half the worlds population and maybe more than half of the practicing faithful in the UK). Other LEAs have rejected secular board members. My first thought is that Humanism is not a religion and this is perhaps an issue in the minds of Sacre members. The point needs to be made that children need to be aware of non-religious responses to religious issues if they are to be properly educated about Religion.

We should write to our MPs and AMs passing on Julian's experience.

Blakeley