Between Science and Religion (1970)
- Author: William al-Khuli
Source: Sunday School Magazine vol. 1, no. 11 (February 1948): 8–10.
Between Science and Religion
The truths of religion — as opposed to those of philosophy and of the sciences — are not products of human reason,[1]‘aql basharī which is subject to errors and limitations. Rather they are eternal and infallible truths spoken by God.
I am not underestimating the value of reason, nor am I demeaning philosophy or denying the importance of the sciences. Reason is the trustworthy scale[2]al-mīzān al-ṣādiq given to us by God to differentiate between truths and falsehoods, distinguishing the words of God from superstitions and delusions. Nevertheless, there are certain limits and boundaries to human reason, beyond which it may be led astray. Moreover, the scientific method, which is the way reason makes discoveries in the sciences, is not devoid of flaws: science is based on experimentation and observation and then on the deduction of general laws from these observations. Often, science overlooks certain details, generalising deduced laws and applying them in ways in which they do not apply. Furthermore, despite the validity of the experiments and the observations made, many times the laws derived are not valid and cannot be called absolute laws, but rather reasonable assumptions that may be valid or invalid.
Similarly, philosophy is not immune from falling into error, regardless of the breadth of the philosopher’s perspective, the loftiness of his thought or his observation of the sound principles of logic. He may begin his reasoning with illogical foundations and axioms, tending to generalise his idea to findings to which it cannot be applied.
If the truths of religion are simple, explicit, certain and infallible, it is not right, nor would it serve religion, for us to thrust into it scientific notions or complex philosophies, the validity of which we cannot guarantee. This is an error often made by writers in various eras, and the less the writer is versed in religious subjects, the more he is inclined to force science and philosophy into his writing, thinking that in this there is distinction to his writing. This, perhaps, is due to a deep-rooted awareness of his ignorance, which he seeks to conceal through the recording of scientific information in his writing. We are thankful for the greatness of our fathers the luminaries of the first Christian eras, those who acquired a good measure of philosophy and the advanced sciences, when we examine their works and sense the power flowing from their expressions, despite their simplicity and them being devoid of deep philosophical or scientific theories. It is enough for us to study, for example, a book by Saint Athanasius the Apostolic, or another of the Fathers, to perceive the power of religion in its simplicity.
As for the books that merge science, philosophy and religion at a deep level, like in some
— 8 —
contemporary theological works, many err equally against religion, science and philosophy. Indeed, often the author is ill-educated in all these – if someone knowledgeable in religion reads the work, he will oppose him, if a scientist, he will mock him and if a philosopher, he will be embarrassed at the fusion.
I do not seek to separate between the intellect and religion, for as I have said, human intellect and sound logic serve the truth, and the source of religion and that of the intellect are One, who is God. The author of religious writings must research logically and intellectually on the condition that he does not become entangled in unnecessary scientific research nor introduce fallible scientific or philosophical assumptions as absolute truth used to prove religious truths. For example, in the centuries leading up to the Incarnation, some Greek philosophers said that matter was comprised of four elements: water, fire, air and earth. This philosophical fallacy continued until the 17th century when scientists of modern chemistry showed that matter is comprised of the atoms of over ninety elements. In the last century, science advanced and demonstrated that matter is made up of electrons and protons. Finally, it asserted that the universe, material or otherwise, is composed of only one element which is the wave. Waves exist, and from them are formed matter, light and heat and maybe even the mind and the thoughts. Thus, day by day, scientific theories are changing, and a theory deemed valid in one age may become obsolete in another. So, how can you consign religion to the hands of such changeable theories? What would our view be now of an old book on religion that embraced the theory of the four natures or elements, and which based religious findings upon them, whereas today we mock it. And what would our view be tomorrow of a religious book that proves religious or psychological truths using a scientific theory we believe today that we may mock tomorrow? Would it not be better for religion to stand on its own strength, conviction and simplicity without these sterile and unreliable theories?
And as I have discussed the relationship between the sciences and religion, there is a science that has a particular importance in this regard, which is psychology, and the important position modern psychology has in all fields.
Formerly, psychology was a part of philosophy, and the research of some philosophers in it was closer to muddling through than to correct scientific research, since these sometimes based their assertions on unsound philosophical theories. In modern times, psychology has become independent of philosophy, and the study of the psyche has become scientific, based on experimentation and proper testing.
— 9 —
However, given the association of psychology with philosophy, there still remain relationships between them so that psychologists may now be divided into two categories: one that researches psychology as objective scientific research devoid of introspection or philosophical assumptions, and the other that brings together the philosophical and the scientific. Examples of the latter are many scientists whose theories now occupy prominent standing, such as Sigmund Freud (founder of psychoanalysis), Adler (founder of individual psychology) and others.
What I have stated regarding the error of mixing between science and religion, applies particularly to the mixing between psychology and religion, due to psychology being an emerging science and still containing conflicting theories, especially amongst those in the second category who mingle science and philosophy in psychology.
On the other hand, psychology analyses man in a valuable scientific way and yields many important truths of great practical value in life. We must not overlook the value of psychology. If the Bible commands us to test ourselves and to examine our souls, there is no doubt that psychology is an ordered depiction of this self-examination and knowledge, and if experience and practise are of great importance to the pastor, to the researcher in religious matters and to individuals in their spiritual lives, there is no doubt that psychology is a kind of experience and astuteness in this arena.
As the intellect and logic are important in religious research, as long as the writer does not rely merely on them without looking to divine inspiration, and as long as he does not become entangled in uncertain theories and assumptions, or use them in the place of firm truths, so also it is useful and in fact necessary that the religious writer treat his subjects in a psychological manner, provided that psychology does not replace religion, as if in psychology alone is the salvation or the reformation of the soul apart from the Spirit of God, His teachings, the means of His grace, the sacraments of the church, etc., and provided he is not trapped by those psychological theories which may, one day, be revealed as erroneous, but must be content with those rational and firm truths.(^)
I conclude these words by appealing to some of the writers in our religious magazines,[3]ba‘ḍ al-kuttāb fī majallātinā al-dīniyya. It is not clear whether al-Khuli has in mind some of his fellow contributors to the Sunday School Magazine, or other Coptic periodicals of the time.
in the hope they are not enticed by the theories of Freud, or of others, that appear in those magazines, nor entangled in research that serves neither science nor religion.
Doctor William al-Khuli
(^) The Sunday School Magazine takes this point into consideration as it researches many of its subjects in a scientific or philosophical (psychological) manner without accepting some uncertain theories. By the grace of God, the magazine will soon publish a missive by the title, “The Integral Personality” that treats the soul of man and the means of raising it to levels of perfection in this spiritual psychological approach.
— 10 —
How to cite this text (Chicago/Turabian):
al-Khuli, William. “Between Science and Religion” [Bayn al-‘ilm wa-l-dīn], Sunday School Magazine 1, no. 11 (February 1948): 8–10. Translated by Mervat Hanna in Archive of Contemporary Coptic Orthodox Theology. Sydney, NSW: St Cyril’s Coptic Orthodox Theological College. https://accot.stcyrils.edu.au//.
(For more information, see Citation Guidelines)
Related: