Foundations of a world view

I found it interesting to hear about Catholics who were shocked and distressed upon hearing that the Genesis story is myth in high school. I attended Catholic school from preschool on to my senior year of high school. My eighth grade science class contained a large “life science” component which was largely based on evolution. We learned about different organisms in the order they are believed to have evolved, from “lowest” to “highest.”

According the Catechism of the Catholic Church “110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. ‘For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.’” In other words, in order to properly examine religious texts we must take into account the historical framework under which they were written. Throughout my Catholic education I was always taught that an important part of looking at the conditions of the culture is examining the scientific beliefs that were then held. I was taught that the Creation story used the scientific framework of the day to teach the important religious lesson that God created the Earth.

I do not belief that science and religion must be or should be in direct competition. In my view, scientists hold the very important position of explaining, through observation and experimentation, the way that God designed the world to work. Many of them, of course, view their position differently, and that is perfectly alright. I believe that the relationship between religion and science becomes problematic when either tries to exploit the other for its own ends, for example, when religious groups try to force scientists to avoid studying things that they disagree with. Scientists also often overstep their bounds, trying to disprove God through empirical study. I believe that science needs to be primarily concerned with what can be observed and studied, while religion should concern itself with the question “but is that all?”

In my view, neither religion nor science is totally correct in all things nor can ever stop adapting to the changing world. Science is always evolving, replacing old theories with new. The theory of the flat earth has been replaced with a round (or rather oblong) one. The science of eugenics has been reconsidered and replaced. Religions too are constantly evolving. The Bible, for example, is no longer used as justification for slavery. The Catholic Church has backed down on its view that it is the ultimate bearer of scientific truth. I do not think that this means religions (or sciences) are becoming watered down or necessarily corrupted from their original purpose, but instead they are open to truths revealed by the changing world.

I believe that for a complete world view, neither religion nor science should be discounted. There seems to be a commonly held view that religion has become outdated and invalid as scientific reasoning and understanding grows. I think this is untrue because the things which concern religion are different than those which concern science and are equally valid in today’s world as they were thousands of years ago. The search for a greater purpose and an exploration of the spiritual side of human beings is not, and should not be, addressed by science. Instead of being in competition, I think that the diverse religious and scientific beliefs should be allowed to coexist so that each individual can search for truth and form their own world view using the evidence available to them.