Religion and Science: The Eternal Battle

February 4, 2024

Today’s Gospel reading refers to the phenomenon of possession by devil(s), demon(s), or unclean spirit(s) - a phenomenon that comes up often in Jesus’ ministry. And while that is not the most important element in the readings of today, questions remain in many people’s minds about whether devil possession is a real phenomenon or not.  It would seem that Jesus clearly believed in the possibility of devil possession, even speaking of how sometimes some demons can only be exorcised through prayer and fasting (Mark 9:29).

So, is devil possession a reality?  We can ask why there seem to be far fewer cases of devil possession today as compared to Jesus’ time.  Could it be that our understanding of illnesses (our medical knowledge) has  exponentially increased, so that all of the symptoms that one can identify in the Gospels that were understood as cases of ‘devil possession’ are those that today we would consider as illnesses for which we can identify other human causes?  These devil-possession symptoms that are included in the Gospel include an inability to speak (Matt. 9:32-33/Luke 11:14), or to see (Matt. 12:22-23), or to hear combined with seizures.(Mark 9:14-29).  Sometimes these symptoms look like a severe  psychological or psychiatric disorder which include ferocity (Matt. 8:28), nakedness (Luke 8:27), self-harm (Mark 5:5), excessive strength (Mark 5:3; Luke 8:29), and  social isolation (i.e., living among the tombs, dwelling on the mountains or driven by the demon into the desert as seen in  Matt. 8:28; Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27, Mark 5:5).  Today we have even more examples that surely in New Testament times would have been considered cases of devil-possession, - and one of these would be the  cases of multiple personality disorders in which the suffering person can speak in different voices, do things that normally s/he could not have done, and exhibit significantly different personalities.  

In response to this question, I was once told by a Church approved exorcist in Brazil (an officially appointed priest who was permitted to do exorcisms of the devil), that of the approximately 5000 cases that he had been called to handle over  his life-time, all but 5 were clearly cases of psychological trauma - and about these remaining 5 all he could say was that he could not be sure.  So, it would seem, that in our current state of knowledge, there is no definitive answer to this question as to whether such symptoms indicate  the reality of devil-possession, or just not fully understood human illnesses.

However, this alternative explanation for ‘devil-possession’ raises another important question that is raised by those who deny the validity of religion. Many atheists and others who swear by science as the source of all truth would argue that religion is but an early stage in human development, when ignorance about natural causes combined with fear and apprehension of things that were out of their control, led to human beings deifying elements in the environment as in animism (i.e. air, fire, water, animals, etc) which is often considered the first form of religion.  Accordingly, rituals and prayers were developed that were meant to ensure that they could, to some degree ‘control’ these elements.  Later, as science increased its areas of understanding and influence, the influence of religions diminished to areas that were not yet ‘covered’ by science.

Strangely, however, in the late 1930s through the 1960s, psychologists developed a renewed interest in religion, fuelled by the observation that religion refused to decline and in fact seemed to undergo a substantial revival so that today religion is a major force in our political world.  And we have the phenomenon of even a great scientist like Einstein who called himself a religious agnostic (i.e. an agnostic is one who says s/he does not know enough) refusing to call himself an atheist, and saying that he believed in what he called cosmic religion. In fact a 2005 study of scientists from important research universities in the USA found out that 48% acknowledged a religious affiliation.

A study of the relationship of Religion and Science would take us very far afield, and so I will not even attempt that - nor do I feel qualified to explore it fully.  However, there are certain ideas that could be reflected upon.

It seems to me that all fields of human knowledge are based on basic axioms, which are accepted as ‘truths’ without necessarily having to prove them - but without which that field of human knowledge cannot proceed.  So Stephen Hawking (an atheist scientist in his book ‘A brief history of Time’), proposes a possible M-theory (and not any God) as the only way one can  offer a complete theory of the universe.  However, he insists that such a theory would only be considered valid if it is logically consistent with everything else that we know. But we could very well ask: WHY should it all be logically consistent, or WHY do you believe that every theory  should be consistent, or  Couldn’t the universe NOT be logically consistent?   But Hawkins accepts this ‘belief’ as the necessary basis on which he bases all his science, and so his search for an ultimate theory is checked out for validity by asking if it is ultimately logically consistent. THAT is what I call an axiom - a belief that is quite reasonable, but is not proved nor sought to be proved, and is the ground on which everything else in that field of knowledge is built.  Today, even if chaos theory, quantum theory,  Schroedinger’s idea that observation itself changes the reality of what is observed, and the claim that something can be both this and that at the same time (e.g.  Light is both a particle and a wave at the same time) may seem to question this axiom, in actual fact, even these new findings have to be ultimately shown to be consistent before they can be accepted.  So, this is an axiom or basic belief on which all science (except Mathematics) is grounded. And just as science is grounded on such an eminently reasonable  but unproved (and therefore 'blind')  belief/axiom, so too could we say that Religion is based on another Belief/Axiom, namely, that there is an ultimate reality that is not limited only to what we can empirically observe?  Why would Religion’s axiom not be acceptable, when it also does sound reasonable not only to our experience of life, but even to many scientists and philosophers?  And there also seem to be an  increasing number of those who do not believe in Religion, who say that they believe in Spirituality, which of course means that they accept a reality that goes beyond the empiricism of science.

This leads us to another ‘methodological’ axiom of science. Science demands empirical proof - which  means that such proof must be accessible by one or more of the five senses, before it can be accepted as real.  This is why despite much progress in fields such as  psychology, sociology, economics and others, where such empirical proof is not always available, and perhaps not even possible, such subjects are not considered fully scientific, and so are included in liberal arts syllabii and not in scientific syllabii in educational institutions.  So we could ask whether this ‘empirical’ paradigm of science is too limiting when we are talking of all of reality.  Why should all of reality be limited to what we can observe empirically?   It is like a colour blind person who cannot see red for instance, who is  willing to accept any object as coloured, only if it displays one or more of the other colours of the spectrum.  

Besides the empirical limitation, it would also seem that the basic paradigm that we accept also controls what we consider valid.  Let me explain this with an example from the world of medicine.  What is called ‘western’ medicine is based on the premise that if we fall sick, it is because of reasons like an outside agent (bacteria, virus, whatever) ‘attacking’ our body, and/or that our body, like any machine, wears out over time and doesn’t function as it should.  However, traditional Chinese medicine is based on the premise that our bodies show signs of sickness primarily because there is a lack of balance between the yin and  yang within us, and this leads to practices like acupuncture and acupressure that try to restore this balance, rather than finding a solution in drugs (‘western’ medical solutions) or operations, to solve this lack of balance.   And the reality is that we have much experience (though not considered sufficient evidence by the ‘western’ mind set)  that acupuncture and acupressure do solve many problems.  Ayurveda, the science of medicine that originated in India,  is based on the axiom that health depends on a balance between mind, spirit and body and the entire universe (including plants, animals, minerals etc).  So which paradigm is correct, or can all be correct - like light being both wave and particle at the same time?   Thus, by creating a ‘fencing’ that limits reality to only that which falls within that paradigm of its fenced enclosure, is science really being open to all of reality?  The basic axiom of Religion, however, is that reality comprises more than our empirical reality - so could it be argued that religion is more open to knowledge than science?

This leads us to a further reflection, connected to the insight that the basic paradigm of how proof is obtained can very well control what is provable.  I use the example of medicine again. The accepted ‘proof’ of a drug's effectiveness in any ‘western’ research is ‘replicability’, which means that if a medical drug or practice is to be ‘proved’, then it must be replicable in a wide variety of situations. Consequently, ‘western’ research that has a hegemonic hold over  the world of academia, spends a huge amount of resources to try out a medical drug, for instance, in different contexts and with different patients.  And because of this paradigm that determines what is scientifically proved or not, western medicine does not accept Homeopathy (in many countries homeopathic treatments are not covered for Insurance purposes as it is considered not a scientifically proved system of medicine),  despite over two centuries of practice and experimentation. And , one of the reasons for this is that homeopathy cannot fulfil this ‘replicability’ test of ‘western’ research, because one of the basic axioms of Homeopathy is that every human being is different and so there is no one-size-fits-all therapy, and the same presenting symptom will require different types of homeopathic medicines for different individuals, and the decision on what is to be used depends on the judgement of the homeopath. Hence, the very premise that ‘proof’ only comes when it can be tested out across multiple patients, irrespective of the physician who attends, does not apply.  So the question to ask is: Has the western scientific world limited itself by insisting on replicability as the only proof of acceptability?  So when proof of miracles has to be offered, ‘western’ academic theory would demand that under the same conditions, and the same actions, the claimed miracle should always occur - which negates the very possibility that every human being’s ‘faith’ experience is unique and not replicable.

These are some of the questions that arise when one has to explore the relationship between science and religion.  Historically, there have been three primary approaches in such a relationship: 1) conflict,  2) complementarity and  3) integration.  Conflict indicates a relationship of opposition, complementarity indicates a relationship where each acknowledges each other’s universe as different and so both contribute in their own ways to different aspects of the same human world, and integration suggests a relationship where both contribute to each other and learn from each other to explore all of reality.    

Are religious beliefs just an early stage in the developmental process of humanity, and science a later stage, or will there be a stage of human development when both will finally coalesce to give us a more holistic understanding of our life and universe?  We do not know what the future will bring. For now, we can only walk the road.  

First Reading: Job 7: 1-4, 6-7

Do not human beings have a hard service on earth, and are not their days like the days of a laborer? Like a slave who longs for the shadow, and like laborers who look for their wages, so I am allotted months of emptiness, and nights of misery are apportioned to me. When I lie down I say, ‘When shall I rise?’ But the night is long, and I am full of tossing until dawn. My days are swifter than a weaver’s shuttle and come to their end without hope.[a] “Remember that my life is a breath; my eye will never again see good.

Second Reading: First Corinthians 9: 16-19, 22-23

If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an obligation is laid on me, and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission.  What then is my reward? Just this: that in my proclamation I may make the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my rights in the gospel.

For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them.  To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law.  To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law.  To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.

 

Gospel: Mark 1: 29-39

As soon as they left the synagogue, they entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.  Now Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told him about her at once.  He came and took her by the hand and lifted her up. Then the fever left her, and she began to serve them.

That evening, at sunset, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed by demons.  And the whole city was gathered around the door.  And he cured many who were sick with various diseases and cast out many demons, and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.

In the morning, while it was still very dark, he got up and went out to a deserted place, and there he prayed.  And Simon and his companions hunted for him.  When they found him, they said to him, “Everyone is searching for you.”  He answered, “Let us go on to the neighboring towns, so that I may proclaim the message there also, for that is what I came out to do.” And he went throughout all Galilee, proclaiming the message in their synagogues and casting out demons.