Science and Religion, A Rapproachement?

[On Sunday, The New York Times published an article by Robert Wright,“A Grand Bargain Over Evolution." Today, Wednesday, the letters to the editor have half a dozen responses, indicating a lively interest in the contemporary debate. I was late in sending in my letter/response. Here it is.]

Robert Wright’s appeal for a mutual appreciation by Science and Religion has two thick threads: 1) natural selection (evolution or Darwinism) is compatible with a traditional religious outlook that posits God; and 2) a “higher purpose” may be discerned, even by Scientists, as working through nature. For the sake of a greater good, including “world peace,” Mr. Wright calls for rapproachement between the two sides, because there is a significant area of agreement.

I’m pleased that the NY Times publishes such quality discourse. But I find myself arguing with Mr. Wright’s contentions in two significant dimensions.

As a minister who’s sought to heed the revolutionary insight of contemporary science, particularly evolutionary biology and neuroscience, I’ve concluded that in every instance Science trumps Religion. At the very least, Science explains better than ever, if not for the first time, the roots and branches of Religious thinking. Second, there’s a self-serving tendency of Religion to impose an anthropic principle, that human kind is somehow the goal of Nature, an expression of a “higher purpose.”

Mr. Wright’s “grand bargain” strikes me as something of a “half-way covenant.” He finds the story of natural selection compelling but wants to keep the valuable social constructs of religion viable. His “grand bargain” strikes me as no bargain for either side.

I say, let the empirical insights of Science prevail, and let Religion adapt to progressing truths.

In my estimation this is the “more evolved religion” drawing on “an awe inspiring story” Mr. Wright anticipates.