Smithsonian exhibit explores intersections of science and religion
By: Dwight A. Weingarten (The Christian Science Monitor)
Our separate and different paths are important to each of us. But where those paths cross and intersect bring people together on common ground.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
At the end of tumultuous 1968 – a year of political assassinations, war, riots, the crushing of the Prague Spring – the view from Earth was bleak. The world needed hope – and Apollo 8 astronauts orbiting the moon on Christmas Eve read the creation text from Genesis’ first chapter to a billion listeners.
The inspiration from the astronauts reading Old Testament Scripture on a scientifically engineered spacecraft comes through even decades later and on a crackly video loop in the new exhibit “Discovery and Revelation: Religion, Science, and Making Sense of Things” at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History.
Such intersections of religion and science in American culture are part of the focus of the yearlong exhibit.
Many people assume there is a conflict between science and religion, but a new exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History aims to show that the intersection of the two in American culture is broader than conflict.
The curator of the exhibit, Peter Manseau, says, "What we've seen is that the intersection of religion and science is still very present in our approach and our interpretation of what to do in the face of something like a pandemic."
"The challenge was trying to expand the terms of engagement with which religion and science are usually discussed," says Mr. Manseau.
To accomplish that, three prompting questions frame the exhibit: "What does it mean to be human?" "What do we owe each other?" and "What is our place in the universe?"
Packed into the 1,200-square-foot space are artifacts to explore those inquiries. For example, the Apollo 8 flight manual, Charles Darwin's 1860 book "On the Origin of Species" establishing his theory of evolution, and the message from the first public demonstration of the telegraph in the 1840s ("What hath God wrought?") are all displayed.
"It's small enough for people to appreciate the theme," says Lisa Deason, a member of the Guild of Professional Tour Guides of Washington, D.C., at an exhibition preview in March. "I think it will spur on some thinking."
The exhibit proceeds both chronologically and thematically. Roughly chronological displays line the walls, starting with the 1700s and closing with the Apollo 8 message. In keeping with museum policy, all text is shown in both English and Spanish.
"We're trying to tell a story of American history that is as diverse as the American people," says Mr. Manseau, noting the exhibit's displays of many faiths.
The exhibit includes a portrait of Henrietta Lacks, a young African American mother who had cancerous cells that were used by medical researchers after her death in 1951 without her or her family's permission. In the portrait, she stands, hands clasping a Bible, with the prompting question above her: "What do we owe each other?"
Mr. Manseau sees parallels between past and present, especially related to the pandemic that transpired as the collection was pulled together over the past three years. He points out the "Faith and Healing" display that shows pamphlets arguing for and against smallpox inoculations in 1721 and 1722. Conversations in Boston three centuries ago, he says, mirrored those that took place over the past few years.
"What we've seen is that the intersection of religion and science is still very present in our approach and our interpretation of what to do in the face of something like a pandemic," says Mr. Manseau, author of a book about Thomas Jefferson's Bible, where the third president excised Jesus' healings and metaphysical statements. (That 1820 book by Jefferson interpreting the Bible, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth," is also on display.)
In the middle of the exhibit, between display cases that line the walls, are panels of eight people whose words are displayed next to other thematic questions such as: "Can religion be scientific?" The founder of this newspaper, Mary Baker Eddy, is included on the panel with that question, as is a partial quote from her book, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures."
Mr. Manseau, who co-wrote a new book with the same title as the exhibit, says he wants visitors to walk away asking new questions: "We're not trying to solve this riddle or to answer this question definitively."
"Discovery and Revelation: Religion, Science, and Making Sense of Things" runs through March 1, 2023.
Tags
Who is online
654 visitors
Our society and culture is shaped and defined by intersections. Where we come together is what's really important.
One can find intersections between anything if one is determined to do so. One 'intersection' is that both religion and science will speculate. Science, however, uses speculation as a tool for discovery and distinguishes same from its intended result: a scientific theory.
In principle:
science ≈ discovering formalized, predictive models grounded in empirical evidence that explain observed phenomena.
religion ≈ preserving informal, unevidenced ancient answers (claims) to philosophical questions (going beyond observed phenomena ... e.g. eternal life in Heaven).
The profound difference is that science follows the evidence and continually challenges/refines/rejects its own findings based on new evidence whereas religion seeks to preserve ancient beliefs sans evidence.
Science thus improves over time whereas religious beliefs generally fade. Those that remain (e.g. possibility of a sentient creator) typically are those that have not yet been superseded by modern knowledge (e.g. the belief that all human beings are progeny of two specific human beings —the first of an original species that was not a result of evolution— who procreated 6,000 years ago)
I really like the sophistication of the scientific offering - Big Bang.
It all comes down to one question: can something come from nothing? Science attempts to explain how it is possible for the inanimate building blocks of our current physical reality to have precipitated from a particular set of circumstances at the beginning of the universe. Religion attempts to answer the question with the concept of god, while simultaneously ignoring the question entirely when it comes to the origin of said god. I don’t see how that could ever be conflated with science.
Did religion come from nothing? Did science come from nothing? It seems that humans are present at the intersection of religion and science. Religion and science are part of the human story. Ignoring one or the other would make the human story incomplete.
I agree. I have been a lifelong agnostic who upset the family when I refused confirmation in our church when I was 13. I have never understood the fervor that some have to disrespect another's religious beliefs.
Religion is part of the human experience and has been for our history, across all cultures and time with a vast majority of people still today with some sort religious or spiritual beliefs. Cleary there is some rational for such a pervasive, enduring form of collective thought.
Perhaps it's part of the evolution of both the physiology of our brains and social organization. We want to see patterns, make sense of chaos, to see purpose. Also, for humans to live and thrive together, we required organizing constructs to govern ourselves, our family and our tribe. Religion has been part of those constructs.
There are some books that I read, even when younger, that had a profound impact on me. One such book was Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning which I first read in Junior High. This book was a result of his 3-4 year experience in four different concentration camps to include Auschwitz.
I won't summarize Frankl's book here, but from the title you should conclude that Frankl disagreed with Freud, man isn't primarily in a search for pleasure nor as Adler taught, we aren't searching for power but that we are searching for meaning or purpose to life. You are most successful if you find what life means to you and it isn't necessarily the same for all.
It is logically impossible for something to come from a literal nothing. One must redefine the word 'nothing' for that to occur.
Religion and science both exist but that is no more significant than saying that history and fiction both exist.
There is no need (and I see no value) for the common creation-based religions to conduct science. And religions typically operate without the need for science (although ignoring modern knowledge could be perilous).
It depends upon the beliefs.
I personally do not respect the belief of honor killings.
Nor do I respect the belief that life (and the planet) are 6,000 years old.
My disrespect for the first example needs no explanation. For the second, I am quite against indoctrinating the next generation with nonsense. I see that as doing societal harm.
In contrast, I respect the belief most have in a sentient creator. I am not convinced, but I certainly can see why people would hold such a belief.
Did religion come from nothing? Did science come from nothing? It seems that humans are present at the intersection of religion and science. Religion and science are part of the human story. Ignoring one or the other would make the human story incomplete.
Religion is a curiosity with no practical purpose, science is curiosity in pursuit of practical purposes. Religion came from humanity, in varieties too numerous to list. Science also came from humanity, in varieties too numerous to list. They are both perfectly natural instincts, though they work at odds with one another. There is no science that conforms to an organized religion.
Nor do I although I'm not sure that it a religious belief.
Are we in agreement with what a year is?
The Young Earth Creationists, as a prime example, believe that our planet is ~6,000 years old. Where a year is 365¼ days.
You may know more than I about why the Young Earth Creationists are a prime example.
They are a prime example of holding religious beliefs that directly contradict well-established knowledge and are actively indoctrinating their young in such nonsense. They are thus (per the context of our exchange) prime examples of religious beliefs I do NOT respect.
Or one must define 'nothing' to preclude the possibility of something coming from nothing. Amazing how definitional barriers become exclusionary, isn't it?
And yet the coexistence of history and fiction doesn't prompt demands to exclude one or the other. History and fiction coexist as different things represent different aspects of the human story.
Well, that's obviously not true as many of the arguments have demonstrated. Religions offer their versions of cosmology, anthropology, and nature within a human context as part of the human story. And religions typically trace their beginnings to philosophical questions, just as science does.
The philosophical underpinnings of religion and science are not that dissimilar. And philosophy is perhaps one of the most human of intellectual endeavors.
Does science provide fellowship? Celebrations? Sympathy in adversity? A sense of place and belonging in the universe?
Religions do seem to incorporate all aspects of humanity. In comparison, science appears to be cold, barren, and devoid of humanity.
IMO religion is the most human of human endeavors. All aspects of humanity are incorporated into most religions. We cannot understand the human story by ignoring religion. Humans are religious by nature; that's one of the things that makes humans human.
I completely agree. The world has had organized religion or the shared reverence for the sacred, or spiritual along with the rituals, and symbols associated with theology based beliefs for 6,000 years. Religion has been a shared way of being that united communities across most post- agricultural societies.
Prior to theology-based religions, hunter-gatherer hominins had religious experiences that commonly involve trance and travel in spirit worlds. Since throughout history and across virtually all societies there was on sort of religion or another. If one believes in evolution, there must have been a human advantage, a social purpose for religion to have continued and evolved. The practice of religion often comes at individual expense requiring altruism and sometimes, self-sacrifice, yet it persists.
I saw an estimate, I think from Pew Research, that around 85% of the world's population or about 6.6 billion people identify with a religion. Christianity, Islam and Hinduism cover 5.5 billion with another 0.5 billion Buddhists. It certainly is the most human of our endeavors.
I don’t see how that could ever be conflated with science.
That seems to be more of a Western observation. I read a study once, maybe by Pew Research that looked at the attitudes of Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims on science and got different results than form those in Europe and the US.
Muslims seemed more often to see science and their religion as related not incompatible and felt that the Quran contains many references to science.
Hindus that participated also saw science and Hinduism as related and compatible.
Buddhist interviewees described science and religion as unrelated attempting to answer different questions. Because of this distinction they didn't see science and religion in conflict with each other.
This tension or conflict between science and religion seems to be more of a Western issue, especially with Western atheists and agnostics. Far fewer Western Christians said that their religious beliefs conflicted with science frequently or often.
Anyone who refuses any attempt to justify how the most evolved, sentient, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and infallible entity could precede the first molecule of creation is not thinking scientifically, by any stretch of the imagination. Particularly when said entity eternally shows no sign of existing.
I'm not sure what you point is. If you mean that an examination of theology isn't a scientific analysis, I agree.
He is noting that religion always presumes the existence of a creator and then proceeds from that point. Religions totally ignore the logical contradiction that 'if everything that comes into existence requires a creator then the creator requires a creator'.
Stated differently, if a creator is required for something to exist then there is necessarily an infinite regress of creators.
Stated differently still, one can simply declare that the universe was created by a creator but that simply kicks the can down the road to a bigger problem; if it takes a creator to create the universe then what is required to create that which is arguably more complex and powerful than the universe?
The answer is typically, 'the creator has always been'. Okay, then how about energy has always been and that energy over time interacted to trigger the expansive chain reaction that gave birth to our universe? If arguably the most complex and powerful sentient entity can 'always be' then surely something less complex like energy could 'always be'.
He is noting that religion always presumes the existence of a creator and then proceeds from that point
I don't think that is true of Buddhism or some versions of Hinduism. .
One can but religious scientists don't.
I don't know that science or religion has answered that yet.
One can but religious scientists don't.
Then they aren’t religious. I would not consider the Einstein or Spinoza concepts of a natural order to the universe as a religion. I highly doubt that the devoutly mainstream religious would want them under their umbrella either.
Hate to break it to you...but you don't get to define 'religious'.
Buddhism is an obvious exception; the creator in Hindu is Brahman. Regardless, looking for rare exceptions to the creator concept in religions completely misses the point.
What do you mean by 'religious scientist' and what point are you making?
Again, not the point. The point was that if one can merely presume the existence of a creator then one could also presume the existence of energy which interacts to produce emergent forms. The universe (and all that it contains), for example, could be emergent forms.
Presuming what is arguably the most complex, most powerful sentient entity vs. presuming 'energy' (in its most reduced form) is a major difference. The former presumes complexity that simply 'is' where the latter presumes the most primitive substance that interacts. Parsimony suggests the latter is more likely.
That there are scientist that also have religious beliefs and aren't conflicted by them.
Perhaps from pervious discussions, you know HAL's point, it wasn't clear to me.
Apparently you needed to define a special category of religions which connotes to "creator-based religions". This covers virtually every religion that has ever existed and eliminates the very few exceptions (and thus mitigates the pointless tangents).
If is interesting, though, that scientists such as Dr. Francis Collins can be at the top of their game (his being genetics) and still believe in the notion of the Christian God. Not just a sentient creator, but a highly attributed sentient entity defined, in effect, to be greater than anything else that could possibly exist and replete with specific powers, plans, personality, actions, etc.
As a scientist, one would expect Dr. Collins to conceive of a creator based on what we know (which is nothing other than the fact that we exist and that reality is awesome). Thus his concept of a creator should be very abstract (essentially 'creator'; not even 'sentient'). His very specific beliefs are curious (to say the least).
Certainly true. The human mind is quite good at dealing with dissonance.
Probably has an evolutionary explanation.
I agree. We are constantly challenged to hold multiple things we think are true while knowing that not all of them can actually be true. We make do with what we have. This is the value of being able to hold levels of confidence without relying upon simplistic / binary absolutes.
you don't get to define 'religious'.
Oh, is that your job or something? Are you going to tell me that atheism is a religion too? How about not believing in Big Foot? Can Asasquatchism be in the realm of religion? For the record, I have never had any issue with the Spinozan or Einsteinen concepts of a non-communicative intelligence of the universe, because it’s a belief that hurts nobody and does not proselytize. Organized religions are a vastly different thing. The two concepts do not belong in the same category at all.
I'm not sure what you point is. If you mean that an examination of theology isn't a scientific analysis, I agree.
We’ve already been though this in another seed. Don’t overthink it. The notion of a uber magnificent creator that either created itself or simple always has been is entirely illogical. It god is an entity that is just anchored to existence, then it must have the same curiosity of how it got there. Where does it end?
Huh?
If God is a sentient entity that came into existence (as we came into existence), it will wonder who created it.
Why should I assume how a God came into existence?
The assumption (if you will) is the grandest possible complexity (sophistication) coming into existence vs. the assumption (which challenges logic) of the grandest possible complexity always existing.
Religions (the uber-super-majority) have some apex entity that is eternal; some 'first' God. This is problematic but the problem is typically ignored. Once one has the 'first' God, the rest of the story can follow logically.
Every person gets to decide whether or not they're "religious". Not sure how that's not obvious.
No, but liberal politics most definitely is.
This.
I have spent 3 entire days at the Smithsonian and would like to thank Americans for making it entrance free. It is, if not the best, then it certainly ranks with the best that America has to offer. Thankyou taxpayers.