The starting point for this conversation was his latest book, Jurisdiction: The Intertwined History of Science and Religion, published in Great Britain on March 2, 2023, which is devoted to the historical links between science and religion. According to the author, they are much more complex than popular myths on the subject suggest.
According to him, the relationship between the two “will become the most important issue of our century as science becomes increasingly capable of redesigning human nature.” He believes that some types of advances, such as the popular ChatGPT tool, [program służący do tworzenia odpowiedzi na dane wprowadzone do programu przez użytkownika — KAI] “They are elements of development that are much greater than the space we have for moral reflection on them. This is a religious question, because it goes back to the idea of man.”
According to Spencer, “To see how science and religion, each in its own way, help us answer the question of who we are, we must begin with what these two very subtle entities represent.” Science seeks to gain an objective or at least neutral understanding of the physical world. People are physical beings, he pointed out, and so science wants to understand them in that way.
However, he immediately added that humans are also complex, they are persons in the sense that “our emerging complexity has created in us something that can be called the soul.” People naturally resort to the language of the soul, trying to explain the personal dimension that arises from human nature. “And religion, if we speak negatively, is parasitic on this dimension, and if we speak more positively, it is one of the areas, perhaps the most important, in which we communicate with each other and with reality on a personal level,” the portal’s interlocutor explained.
One argument in support of this statement, he pointed out, is that man must be understood on several levels. If we understand ourselves only through scientific methods, as material beings, we will end up dehumanizing ourselves. On the other hand, if we understand ourselves only as “spiritual beings,” we will ignore our all-important material existence. Therefore, science and religion can contribute positively to a comprehensive understanding of what it is to be human, Spencer pointed out.
When asked whether a truly positive vision of progress was possible without religious notions of human dignity and moral order that presuppose divine providence, the scholar replied that progress clearly depends on some finality, some goal. It can only be achieved when you have something to strive for. At the same time, he expressed his belief that forms of progress are possible without any religious, spiritual or even moral framework. For example, is it better to suffer less physical pain than to suffer more physical pain? And if you are moving towards less physical pain, that is a kind of progress. He added: “So I don’t think that the idea of progress itself depends only on having moral or spiritual standards. Progress can be made in purely secular terms.” He stressed that “because we are what we are, we also want moral and spiritual progress.”
Addressing the question of “the amazing progress over the centuries in both science and religion” and the possible connections between the two that might explain this, Spencer acknowledged that there is no doubt that science as technology and engineering has changed the face of the Earth and human life in a relatively short time. “The world is overwhelmingly religious and is likely to become even more religious in the twenty-first century,” the British scholar said firmly.
However, he noted that “politics, which has a very bad reputation today,” is perhaps more important than science or religion as an instrument of progress. An example of this is the eradication of cholera in the nineteenth century, because scientific understanding of the disease and the human desire to eradicate it, which was often religiously motivated, were coordinated by governments and states, and therefore by politics, and cholera was completely eradicated. So science and religion contribute, but they often require public coordination through politics to achieve progress.
According to Spencer, science and religion as we understand them today are entirely modern terms. A few hundred years ago, people spoke of them differently from what we do. In Britain, for example, until the mid-nineteenth century there was a great social, conceptual and intellectual overlap between science and religion. One of the reasons for the tensions and conflicts between them at that time was the existence of two different, socially isolated authorities. Since then, the question of the relationship between science and religion has been raised. Some see these as entirely separate areas of teaching, one dealing with facts and the other with values. They cannot therefore overlap.
Although these areas can be identified, they overlap at least on one very important level: when it comes to us, as human beings, it is not easy to separate facts from values.
So the current tension arises from the fact that science and religion have a very important role to play in some things. And that requires careful negotiation. It is not enough to say that these are distinct fields. When we talk about artificial intelligence or genetic engineering or abortion or life extension, we are raising important scientific issues of our century. But they also deal with the idea of what it means to be human, and that is a deeply religious issue.
Asked why he wrote his latest book on two authorities, Spencer explained that he had been dealing with the relationship between science and religion and vice versa for about 15 years, and that he recognized that there was a mistaken view of the conflict between science and religion and that historically it had always been this way. This belief arose in the late nineteenth century, during a period of tension, especially from the very influential histories of science and religion, which saw the relationship between them as having long been in constant conflict.
In academia, the history of science and religion as a scientific discipline is relatively new. The academic world has completely turned this image on its head, showing that the relationship is much more complex and positive than the popular myth suggests. But it has never reached the general public. I did a BBC series a few years ago telling this story, and The Magisterium was the book that came out of that exposure.
Spencer noted that the prevailing view that many scientists centuries ago were Christians, while today’s most famous scientists consider themselves atheists, is “much less dramatic and exciting.” What matters is not that scientists are no longer religious, but that society has become much less religious. In general, the proportion of religious scientists is roughly equal to the proportion of religious people in the country, or more precisely, the proportion of religious people in the socioeconomic class to which the scientists belong. Scientists in society are as religious as society.
N. Spencer also explained what the “Theos Think Tank” is to which he belongs. According to him, it is a Christian group that has been operating for 17 years. It was founded with the support of the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury and the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, but it is not affiliated with any specific denomination. “We exist to speak better about Christianity, and especially about faith in general, in contemporary public life,” the scholar stressed. He added that the essence of what they do is to contribute to the improvement of history in two ways: more accurate, because research is at the heart of what they do, but also better in the sense that they are more engaging and coherent.
As part of this think tank, the talks included, among other things: on the relationship between beauty, science and religion, which was part of a larger project initiated by the Catholic University of America. He himself did a little research in the UK because he was particularly interested in aesthetics.
He explained that in general there is a deep harmony between truth and beauty. In fact, some famous researchers believe that beauty leads to truth, which is highly valued, especially by some scientists. For example, physicists are likely to believe this. But it also relies on a certain understanding of beauty, which is somewhat questionable from an aesthetic point of view. It treats beauty as synonymous with elegance, simplicity, and symmetry, but many aesthetic theorists believe that this is not an accurate definition of beauty.
So the study was an attempt to see how much influence this idea has. The answer is yes, there is some influence, but it is very subtle. Beauty can be used as a guide in scientific endeavors, but if so, it should be treated with extreme caution.
According to the scientist, Christians should maintain an attitude of celebration and support toward science. Explaining this short statement, he added that they should pay close attention to what is happening, because in a sense there is no such thing as science, but there are scientists. There have been times throughout history when Christians have been very opposed to science and have been completely wrong, but there have also been times when they have been completely right. So the longer answer is to look carefully, because not all science is created equal.
When asked whether religion sets limits on science and whether they are necessary, Spencer replied that of course science and religion can be separated absolutely, and there are atheist societies that have limited science, unjustly, but there is no problem with such a limitation. Similarly, there are countless ethics committees around the world that challenge and set limits on scientific practice today.
The scientist acknowledged that he was a supporter of investing in scientific research, and the restrictions should relate to how it is done, not the investment itself. The restrictions on how the knowledge gained is used are also essential. So there should be some limits to learning, but this should be done carefully.
At the end of the talk, the scientist admitted that he is not optimistic by nature, as well as about the future and the dialogue between religion and science, but he added that “it says more about me than it does about the future.” He explained that he is not worried about AI becoming conscious and sentient, but about how it will be used by evil actors who want to manipulate reality. “I worry less about what new technologies can do to us, and more about what other people can do to us using new technologies,” Nicholas Spencer concluded.
Echo Richards embodies a personality that is a delightful contradiction: a humble musicaholic who never brags about her expansive knowledge of both classic and contemporary tunes. Infuriatingly modest, one would never know from a mere conversation how deeply entrenched she is in the world of music. This passion seamlessly translates into her problem-solving skills, with Echo often drawing inspiration from melodies and rhythms. A voracious reader, she dives deep into literature, using stories to influence her own hardcore writing. Her spirited advocacy for alcohol isn’t about mere indulgence, but about celebrating life’s poignant moments.
