[Part 6 in a multi-part series on Science & Religion from an LDS perspective.  Previous entries in the series: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5]

Before we address some specific elements of the science vs religion debate, let’s first identify the idea of ‘reconciliation’. 

“Reconciliation” happens when someone is faced with two ideas and/or bodies of data that seem to contradict, despite some amount of evidence that suggests both are true.  When this happens, there are a number of possibilities:

(1) One side is ‘mistaken’ and can be abandoned in lieu of the other.

(2) Both sides have, in fact, a true basis but it is our knowledge about either or both that is ‘mistaken’.  Once the error in our analysis is located and one side or the other adjusted accordingly, they fit together without contradiction without having to completely abandon one or the other.

(3) Both sides are true, and correct as currently understood, but it is our speculation about how they fit together (or don't) that is wrong.  Where we assume they are mutually exclusive, but in reality they are not.  Additional knowledge of the ‘big picture’ often will, along with other pieces of the puzzle that fill in the gaps, demonstrate that those two pieces fit within the grand scheme of things in ways that we hadn’t previously anticipated.

The trick is not to pick #1, until you’re absolutely sure that #2 and #3 don’t apply.  Unfortunately, many people, when faced with contradictory information, are quick to grab one side as ‘correct’ and discard the other as ‘mistaken’.  The biggest danger in reconciling ‘contradictions’--whether scientific, religious, or other--is that one side or the other gets automatically discarded as ‘wrong’ without knowing the full picture.  Perhaps our knowledge of A and/or B just needs a little adjusting, allowing both to coexist with each other after all.  Perhaps knowledge of some unknown C or D allows us to understand how A and B fit together amongst many other independent components, without having to accept either one or the other.

Often religious believers will need to come to some sort of ‘reconciliation’ about a number of key questions:  How can God be omnipotent and love His children, but allow pain and suffering in the world?  How can a just God allow unbaptized children, or countless people living in China who never hear about the gospel, to go to hell?  Can a person be a prophet of God, and have more than one wife?

We should note that these ‘contradictions’ are not absolute over all religious believers.   Some religions have specific answers that address these concerns.  Even when not addressed by doctrine directly, some people still consider these contradictions to be more serious than others. 

Some have no conceptual problem whatsoever understanding why there might be great evil in the world despite God’s existence, for example, whereas for another this can be a cause of great consternation and a crisis of faith.   The fact that those two people live in the same world under the same God, with the same scriptures, yet have different opinions as to whether there’s even a ‘contradiction’ to begin with, shows that often issues of ‘reconciliation’ relate less to hard answers and more towards personal feeling and opinion.  It’s not a given that the first person has a greater (or a lesser) understanding of the particulars of an issue than the second—only that the first person has obviously found a way to reconcile this so-called contradiction together such that they are no longer particularly bothered by it.

Reconciliation is not necessarily about finding THE answer, but often understanding that there may be many possible answers--even ones that haven’t been proposed yet—any of which would resolve the ‘contradiction’ if true, and thus there’s no need to irrevocably choose one side or the other at this very moment.  Reconciliation frequently involves nothing more than a ‘wait and see’ attitude, where one decides not to make a final decision until all the facts are known.

To many, ‘reconciliation’ is a cop-out—a failure of that person to accept facts and abandon ideas that are *clearly* mistaken, but rather stubbornly struggle to come up with twisted explanations allowing them to have their cake and eat it too.  Note the presumption, though, that the 'mistaken-ness' of the idea in question is a given, not just speculated to be such.   If there's a possibility that it is, in fact, a correct idea that's been largely abandoned in haste from working with incomplete information, ‘reconciliation’ is not only acceptable but proper—showing a patience and an open-mindedness that will allow future discoveries to come without allowing oneself to be tossed to and fro by the winds of popular opinion.

The difficulty with 'reconciling' religious questions?  Unfortunately, there's little hard fact to go on when there’s so much currently incomplete information about God and the universe.  Reconciliation in these cases becomes even more dependent on personal belief and feeling, rather than clear answers.   It can, therefore, be very hard for someone to help someone else ‘reconcile’ two seemingly contradictory ideas together if they are dead-set on believing they are mutually exclusive.

One (former) religious believer may believe that if God truly existed there just plain wouldn’t be as much suffering in the world as they see every day.  Another believer may share their feelings with the first about free agency, or the “problem of evil” (etc), but there’s certainly nothing conclusive about any of these that would be compelling if the second is not naturally inclined to accept them.  In these cases, ‘reconciliation’ often means suggesting some possible answers that should be considered as part of the puzzle, but there's never a guarantee that from any one person to the next they will be accepted as reasonable explanations.

In this vein, the next few installments of this series will discuss possible ways to reconcile science and religion together in regards to specific questions.  None of this, of course, is meant to be conclusive as to how things really are, but rather possibilities as to how it could be.  Or, in other words, reasons why you don't have to abandon science in order to embrace religion, or vice versa. 

Whether anyone considers these arguments to be ‘reasonable’ or compelling explanations, of course, depends entirely on the individual.  The purpose is merely to suggest that there are other ways in which the supposed differences in science and religion can be reconciled together without needing to choose one or the other.

Next: Noah's flood