杏吧原创

MUST science and religion always be at odds? For several decades, the
scientific community has effectively dodged the issue, and looked on religion as
a strictly personal matter: whatever faith scientists may privately hold, good
manners required that religion be kept out of the lab.

Yet ever since Stephen Hawking, the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the
University of Cambridge, was ticked off in top newspapers for speculating about
the 鈥渕ind of God鈥�, a change of mood has been under way. Leading scientists
appear on television to talk about their beliefs. Paul Davies, professor of
theoretical physics at the University of Adelaide, has won a major theological
prize for his writings about physics and religion. It has become respectable for
scientists to talk openly about God. What鈥檚 going on?

Russell Stannard, a professor of physics at the Open University, recently
presented Science and Wonders, a BBC radio series about the
relationship between science and religion. Stannard is ideally suited to the
job, as he is not only a physicist but also a Church of England lay reader.

To Stannard, the issue is not why scientists are talking about God, but why
so many of them have dismissed religion out of hand. When scientists and
theologians get together鈥攁s they increasingly do鈥攖hey find much
common ground. Evolution? Fine. Big bang? No problem. So whatever happened to
Adam and Eve? 鈥淲hat you get in Genesis are examples of myth,鈥� Stannard explains,
鈥渁 fictional storyline which acts as a vehicle for the real information you are
trying to get across. I think it鈥檚 terribly important that people should
understand that. You can then embrace the findings of science鈥攅volution by
natural selection, the big bang theory鈥攁nd what they are telling us about
ourselves, and at the same time embrace these deep, timeless spiritual truths
which are the experience of past generations.鈥�

Stannard, who has just completed a run of three contributions to BBC Radio
4鈥檚 Thought for the Day slot, believes mutual understanding is not
helped by loose talk about 鈥渢heories of everything鈥� among some of his
colleagues. 鈥淎ll we are talking about is a theory of all physics and not of what
the man in the street would regard as `everything鈥�. Science tackles questions
about how the world operates, how the world has developed. But then there are
the questions about why things are the way they are. Why are we here, is there a
purpose to life? Now that is a totally different set of questions which science
is not equipped to answer. Some people say science can鈥檛 answer those questions
therefore they are meaningless. I don鈥檛 think they are right. I think that these
are very meaningful questions. It鈥檚 a matter of how we interpret our lives, and
that is where you start thinking in terms of God.鈥�

Far from seeing science as a threat, he says, many theologians now take a
lively interest in its findings, especially the intriguing discovery that the
laws of nature appear to be finely tuned to permit the emergence of life. 鈥淔or
example, if the gravitational constant were slightly different, we would not be
here. If neutrinos had been slightly more slippery and so had not blasted the
stardust out of supernova explosions, we would not be here. There鈥檚 a whole
string of `coincidences鈥� which seem to have given rise to us. Either the
Universe is a put-up job and was designed by God, or we just happen to be in a
freak universe which satisfies these conditions by chance.鈥�

In the past few years the University of Cambridge has established Britain鈥檚
first lectureship in science and theology. Courses and research centres in the
subject are appearing in the US. 鈥淭here鈥檚 even a Who鈥檚 Who in Theology and
Science, which contains the names of more than a thousand of us working in
this area; it is one of the fastest-growing academic disciplines.鈥�

But who speaks for religion? Stannard鈥檚 liberal interpretation of the
scriptures is as old as the Bible, but is not shared by all those who would
speak for God. Professors of physics and professors of theology may see eye to
eye, but how much of that insight finds its way to the man or woman in the
pew?

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think the church has gone very far in addressing this problem,鈥�
Stannard admits, 鈥渂ut it鈥檚 important not to underestimate people.鈥� He was once
due to give a sermon in which he explained that many of the miracle stories in
the Bible were written not as factual reports but as allegories conveying
spiritual insights. 鈥淔ifty people turned up instead of the usual dozen. Some of
them told me afterwards they were relieved to hear their own doubts and concerns
being discussed in a sensible way. I know of many clergy who think as I do about
miracles, who would never dream of speaking that way from the pulpit for fear of
upsetting their congregation.

鈥淏ut ultimately religion isn鈥檛 a matter of academic debate, it鈥檚 a matter of
how you live your life. And in that respect I am no different from any other
Christian. There are times when congregations say that my sermons are thinly
disguised physics lessons, but I think they鈥檙e only pulling my leg.鈥�