“A conventional way to contrast scientific and religious thinking attributes reason to the former and faith to the latter. That approach obscures what seems to me to be a central element in trying to understand the relationship. Science, too, requires faith.”

That is one of the arguments set forward by Frederick Grinnell, a professor of cell biology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, in this article published in the Jan. 9 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Just as false as the claim that science doesn’t rely on faith — faith in what Grinnell calls “intelligible design,” or the scientific premise that “nature’s patterns and structures can be understood” — is the claim that religion is irrational, Grinnell maintains.

“In short, it is not the absence of reason that distinguishes religion from science, but rather the willingness to accept starting assumptions from outside of shared experiential space — James’s unseen order — sometimes including the miraculous,” Grinnell writes. “Those starting assumptions can be found in every religion — for instance, the elaborate revelations of such great leaders as Buddha, Krishna, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad.”

And, Grinnell suggests, a proper understanding of reality requires dialogue between science and religion, with each side understanding and respecting the other’s competence and limitations.

“Perhaps there is no single correct path,” Grinnell concludes. “Solving the world’s problems may require both scientific and religious attitudes — two types of faith, not just one or the other.”

— Tom McFeely

.