Science, Religion, and Ecology Turn Eastward.

• Author: STRADA, MICHAEL J.

The tenets of Eastern religion are more compatible with nature than their Western counterparts.

WHAT PASSES for eclecticism in the science-religion dialogue is personified by Carleton University religion professor Ian Barber, 1999 winner of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. Since 1965, he has been decrying that scientists know as little about religion as theologians do about science and prescribing more communication between the two groups as the antidote. He takes pride in observing that, 30 years ago, condescension typified relations between professional science and professional religion, whereas today, both sides are better listeners. Although significant, a richer dialogue between science and religion fails to expand the contemporary paradigm sufficiently. The vision of eclecticism associated with Barber falls short because it suffers from a blind spot--an ethnocentric, culture-bound, decidedly Western one. A plea is made here for a broader, environmentally friendly vision.

Among Western scientists, three common approaches to religion are discernible. The conflict thesis is epitomized by Cambridge University cosmologist Stephen Hawking, whose quest for a "Theory of Everything" considers the assumptions of each worldview as inimical to the other. Harvard University zoologist Stephen Jay Gould speaks for the peaceful coexistence thesis by arguing that, while the two domains cannot be synthesized, they need not come to blows, since neither represents a mortal threat to the other. The third nemesis--transcendence--finds fewer voices singing its praises. It seeks ways to rise above egocentrism to learn something from the other perspective, as advocated by the late Cornell University astronomer Carl Sagan.

Two scientific revolutions traditionally have been credited with transforming humanity's perception of itself: the Copernican revolution (Earth is not at the center of the universe) and the Darwinian revolution (humans obey the same evolutionary rules as other species). Paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey, however, maintains that a new insight needs to be added--the immense size of the universe--because of the redundancy of scale that favors life existing elsewhere.

Today, astronomers measure the size of the universe as 20,000,000,000 light-years across. Current estimates suggest there are about 100,000,000,000 galaxies, each with about 100,000,000,000 stars. Under these circumstances, Sagan estimated that about 10,000,000,000 trillion planets may exist. There are more stars in the visible universe than grains of sand on Earth. Astronomer Frank Drake is similarly optimistic. Using what is known as the Drake Equation, he calculates that 50,000 intelligent civilizations may exist. While nothing like a consensus can be found, few scientists have assertively suggested that life elsewhere is unlikely. If intelligence is sprinkled around the Cosmos, it probably varies greatly. Therefore, why does monotheism's prime mover resemble the human race so snugly? As contextual background, Stephen Jay Gould suggests that "nothing is more unfamiliar or uncongenial to the human mind than thinking correctly about probabilities."

Tangible realities work better than probability as catalysts for human analysis of the chances of life elsewhere. For decades, the common presence of organic molecules--the building blocks of life--in space has been demonstrated by radio telescopes. Science reveals that Mars was once a wet world and now has polar ice caps--significant because, on Earth, water operates as the enabler of life. In 1996, scientists discovered a Mars meteorite containing organic matter. That same year, San Francisco State University astronomer Geoff Marcy won the race to verify the existence of an actual planet (Virginus 70) outside our solar system. Since Marcy's discovery, scores of new planets have been mapped. Some of them possess oxygen, methane, water, and temperatures favoring life as we know it. NASA head Dan Goldin is lobbying for funds to photograph such distant planets.

Only rigorous science can reveal what exists beyond Earth. Yet, if objectivity represents the heart of scientific method, then its soul consists of a certain attitude--skepticism. Science asserts that things are not always what they seem to be, making commonsensical understandings of the physical world inadequate. Sensory perception alone suggests that the sun revolves around the Earth; heavy bodies always fall faster than light ones; and ships made of iron must sink to the bottom of the sea. All of these perceptions, though, have been proven false, because science works via self-correction.

The 19th century witnessed profound self-corrections in both science and religion, stemming from Charles...