{UAH} Science does not have all the answers

This comment is in reaction to the article titled, "Fact vs faith: Why science and religion are incompatible" by Simon Nuwagaba as published in the Sunday Monitor,  August 29. A Google search shows that Nuwagaba's article is simply regurgitating the ideas found in a 2015 book of the same title, whose author is renowned American biologist, Jerry A.

Coyne, who is an anti-theist and secular Jew. As Coyne's fellow non-believer, John Horgan, observes, "Coyne berates not only religious believers but even "accommodationists," non-believers who think science and faith can find common ground."

At the outset, I wish to note that atheism comes in many shades. The American science journalist, John Horgan, the author of the End of Science, is an agnostic, who believes that he cannot know whether God exists or not, but does not oppose the idea of religion and worshipping God. However, at the extreme end of atheism is found people like Prof. Jerry Coyne, and possibly Simon Nuwagaba, who actively oppose religion and worship of God.   

Nuwagaba's article opens by stating that "both (science and religion) attempt to offer explanation for why life and the universe exist," but he is quick to describe science as based on "unbending insistence on good quality evidence," and religion as built on "false uncertainties," words he takes from Coyne's book. In this article, I want to correct Nuwagaba's patent bias against religion and faith for the benefit of readers who, like me, found his article confusing, to say the least. 

While many people, including people of faith like me, admire science and the fruits of science, which we enjoy in the modern world, I find that Nuwagaba's admiration for science crosses over into scientism, which is excessive admiration for the sciences that results into devaluing other disciplines and traditions. For example, Nuwagaba calls for the discarding of religion because it relies on "a subjective belief in a supernatural creator, and submissive conviction" whereas science "relies on testable empirical evidence and observation." So, he concludes, "only one explanation can be correct, the other must be discarded." 

The error of Nuwagaba and Coyne, whom he seems to be imitating, is to assume that because religious belief doesn't rely on scientific proofs, it must, therefore, be based on "false certainties." However, as Bishop Barron, the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, is fond of pointing out, in his online videos on the mistakes of scientism, religion deals with "qualitatively different types of reality" than science does. 

Whereas the sciences try to measure and explain the physical and chemical makeup of material things, religion tries to answer our deepest questions about God, our purpose, and the meaning of the universe. These are matters not understandable by reason alone. Science cannot answer questions, such as: Why are there stars? Why is there a universe? Indeed, science alone is insufficient to explain the beauty of an artwork or a musical piece. So, we need other ways of knowing, such as art, music, aesthetics, and religion.

Besides being a person of faith, I am a psychologist, and for many years, in the Western world, religion and psychotherapy were seen as separate and opposing fields. In the last thirty years, however, medical and mental health research has shown that, far from being inherently pathological, as experts assumed, religion and spirituality can promote mental health. They are associated with social stability, support, protection from loneliness and alienation, a more disciplined life, peace of mind, and a purpose for living.   

In his article, Nuwagaba, just like Coyne, goes to great lengths to show that during human history religion has been at times mired in controversies such as when a Catholic tribunal condemned the doctrine of the motion of the earth. However, in the words of Cardinal John Henry Newman, these confusions on points of revelation have resulted in the development of doctrine, a deeper understanding of revealed truth. 

However, science too has had its fair share of controversies.  Scientists, who are humble enough, admit that observation on which they depend to understand the universe is flawed and subject to bias, interpretation, and experimental uncertainty. In fact, some scientific observations have been found to be fraudulent and wrong, and in need of correction, updating, or discarding. 

In conclusion, contrary to the assertions of Nuwagaba and Coyne, while science is an effective tool for understanding the way the world works, it is not the only tool we have for knowing. Scientific discovery expands our understanding of life. Religion, on the other hand, helps in building values like care, a more disciplined life, peace of mind, and a purpose for living. Thus, we are better off embracing both religion and science than choosing one over the other. 
 Rev. Augustine Kalemeera,     awolole@gmail.com    

--

"When a man is stung by a bee, he doesn't set off to destroy all beehives"

--
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ugandans at Heart (UAH) Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ugandans-at-heart/CAFxDTfq20OB_PV4NVEEczMtkXhAqCae01O2nwt%3DyQ4Kc801O%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.