Why does religion lead to controversy

But now we say that any one of these three statements is equally true, provided that you have fixed your sense of 'rest' and 'motion' in the way required by the statement adopted. At the date of Galileo's controversy with the Inquisition, Galileo's' way of stating the facts was, beyond question, the fruitful procedure for the sake of scientific research. But in itself it was not more true than the formulation of the Inquisition.

But at that time the modern concepts of relative motion were in nobody's mind, so that the statements were made in ignorance of the qualifications required for their more perfect truth. Yet this question of the motions of the earth and the sun expresses a real fact in the universe, and all sides had got hold of important truths concerning it. But, with the knowledge of those times, the truths appeared to be inconsistent.

Again I will give you another example taken from the state of modern physical science. Since the time of Newton and Huyghens in the seventeenth century there have been two theories as to the physical nature of light.

Newton's theory was that a beam of light consists of a stream of very minute particles, or corpuscles, and that we have the sensation of light when these corpuscles strike the retinas of our eyes. Huyghens's theory was that light consists of very minute waves of trembling in an all-pervading ether, and that these waves are traveling along a beam of light.

The two theories are contradictory. In the eighteenth century Newton's theory was believed, in the nineteenth century Huyghens's theory was believed. Today there is one large group of phenomena which can be explained only on the wave theory, and another large group which can be explained only on the corpuscular theory. Scientists have to leave it at that, and wait for the future, in the hope of attaining some wider vision which reconciles both.

We should apply these same principles to the questions in which there is a variance between science and religion. We should believe nothing in either sphere of thought which does not appear to us to be certified by solid reasons based upon the critical research either of ourselves or of competent authorities. But, granting that we have honestly taken this precaution, a clash between the two on points of detail where they overlap should not lead us hastily to abandon doctrines for which we have solid evidence.

It may be that we are more interested in one set of doctrines than in the other. But, if we have any sense of perspective and of the history of thought, we shall wait and refrain from mutual anathemas. We should wait; but we should not wait passively, or in despair. The clash is a sign that there are wider truths and finer perspectives within which a reconciliation of a deeper religion and a more subtle science will be found. In one sense, therefore, the conflict between science and religion is a slight matter which has been unduly emphasized.

A mere logical contradiction cannot in itself point to more than the necessity of some readjustments, possibly of a very minor character, on both sides. Remember the widely different aspects of events which are dealt with in science and in religion respectively.

Science is concerned with the general conditions which are observed to regulate physical phenomena, whereas religion is wholly wrapped up in the contemplation of moral and aesthetic values. On the one side there is the law of gravitation, and on the other the contemplation of the beauty of holiness. What one side sees the other misses, and vice versa. For physical science you have in these lives merely ordinary examples of the operation of the principles of physiological chemistry, and of the dynamics of nervous reactions; for religion you have lives of the most profound significance in the history of the world..

Can you be surprised that, in the absence of a perfect and complete phrasing of the principles of science and the principles of. It would be a miracle if it were not so. It would, however, be missing the point to think that we need not trouble ourselves about the conflict between science and religion. In an intellectual age there can be no active interest which puts aside all hope of a vision of the harmony of truth.

To acquiesce in discrepancy is destructive of candor and of moral cleanliness. It belongs to the self-respect of intellect to pursue every tangle of thought to its final unravelment.

If you check that impulse, you will get no religion and no science from an awakened thoughtfulness. The important question is, In what spirit are we going to face the issue? There we come to something absolutely vital. A clash of doctrines is not a disaster — it is an opportunity. I will explain my meaning by some illustrations from science.

The weight of an atom of nitrogen was well known. Also it was an established scientific doctrine that the average weight of such atoms in any considerable mass will be always the same. Two experimenters, the late Lord Rayleigh and the late Sir William Ramsay, found that if they obtained nitrogen by two different methods, each equally effective for that purpose, they always observed a persistent slight difference between the average weights of the atoms in the two cases.

Now I ask you, would it have been rational of these men to have despaired because of this conflict between chemical theory and scientific observation? Suppose that for some reason the chemical doctrine had been highly prized throughout some district as the foundation of its social order would it have been wise, would it have been candid, would it have been moral, to forbid the disclosure of the fact that the experiments produced discordant results? Or, on the other hand, should Sir William Ramsay and Lord Rayleigh have proclaimed that chemical theory was now a detected delusion?

We see at once that either of these ways would have been a method of facing the issue in an entirely wrong spirit. What Rayleigh and Ramsay did do was this.

They at once perceived that they had hit upon a line of investigation which would disclose some subtlety of chemical theory that had hitherto eluded observation. The discrepancy was not a disaster — it was an opportunity to increase the sweep of chemical knowledge.

You all know the end of the story: finally argon was discovered, a new chemical element which had lurked undetected, mixed with the nitrogen. But the story has a sequel which forms my second illustration. This discovery drew attention to the importance of observing accurately minute differences in chemical substances as obtained by different methods. Further researches of the most careful accuracy were undertaken. Finally another physicist, Ashton, working in the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge in England, discovered that even the same element might assume two or more distinct forms, termed 'isotopes,' and that the law of the constancy of average atomic weight holds for each of these forms, but as between the different isotopes differs slightly.

The research has effected a great stride in the power of chemical theory, far transcending in importance the discovery of argon, from which it originated. The moral of these stories lies on the surface, and I will leave to you their application to the case of religion and science. In formal logic a contradiction is the signal of a defeat, but in the evolution of real knowledge it marks the first step in progress toward a victory.

This is one great reason for the utmost toleration of variety of opinion. Once and forever this duty of toleration has been summed up in the words, 'Let both grow together until the harvest. But we have not yet exhausted the discussion of the moral temper required for the pursuit of truth. There are short cuts leading merely to an illusory success. It is easy enough to find a theory, logically harmonious and with important applications in the region of fact, provided that you are content to disregard half your evidence.

Every age produces people with clear logical intellects, and with the most praiseworthy grasp of the importance of some sphere of human experience, who have elaborated, or inherited, a scheme of thought that exactly fits those experiences which claim their interest. Such people are apt resolutely to ignore, or to explain away, all evidence which confuses their scheme with contradictory instances. What they cannot fit in is for them nonsense.

An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion. This advice seems so easy, and is in fact so difficult to follow. One reason for this difficulty is that we cannot think first and act afterward.

From the moment of birth we are immersed in action, and can only fitfully guide it by taking thought. We have, therefore, in various spheres of experience to adopt those ideas which seem to work within those spheres. It is absolutely necessary to trust to ideas which are generally adequate, even though we know that there are subtleties and distinctions beyond our ken.

Also, apart from the necessities of action, we cannot even keep before our minds the whole evidence except under the guise of doctrines which are incompletely harmonized. We cannot think in terms of an indefinite multiplicity of detail; our evidence can acquire its proper importance only if it comes before us marshaled by general ideas. These ideas we inherit — they form the tradition of our civilization.

Such traditional ideas are never static. They are either fading into meaningless formulae or gaining power by the new lights thrown by a more delicate apprehension. They are transformed by the urge of critical reason, by the vivid evidence of emotional experience, and by the cold certainties of scientific perception. One fact is certain: you cannot keep them still. No generation can merely reproduce its ancestors.

You may preserve the life in a flux of form, or preserve the form amid an ebb of life. But you cannot permanently enclose the same life in the same mould. The present state of religion among the European races illustrates the statements which I have been making. The phenomena are mixed. There have been reactions and revivals. But on the whole, during many generations, there has been a gradual decay of religious influence in European civilization. Each revival touches a lower peak than its predecessor, and each period of slackness a lower depth.

The average curve marks a steady fall in religious tone. In some countries the interest in religion is higher than in others. But in those countries where the interest is relatively high it still falls as the generations pass. Religion is tending to degenerate into a decent formula wherewith to embellish a comfortable life. A great historical movement on this scale results from the convergence of many causes. I wish to suggest for consideration two of them which lie within the scope of this article.

In the first place, for over two centuries religion has been on the defensive, and on a weak defensive. The period has been one of unprecedented intellectual progress. In this way a series of novel situations has been produced for thought. Each such occasion has found the religious thinkers unprepared. Something, which has been proclaimed to be vital, has finally, after struggle, distress, and anathema, been modified and otherwise interpreted.

The next generation of religious apologists then congratulates the religious world on the deeper insight which has been gained. The result of the continued repetition of this undignified retreat, during many generations, has at last almost entirely destroyed the intellectual authority of religious thinkers.

Consider this contrast: when Darwin or Einstein proclaims theories which modify our ideas, it is a triumph for science. We do not go about saying that there is another defeat for science, because its old ideas have been abandoned.

We know that another step of scientific insight has been gained. Religion will not regain its old power until it can face change in the same spirit as does science. Its principles may be eternal, but the expression of those principles requires continual development. This evolution of religion is in the main a disengagement of its own proper ideas from the adventitious notions which have crept into it by reason of the expression of its own ideas in terms of the imaginative picture of the world entertained in previous ages.

Such a release of religion from the bonds of imperfect science is all to the good. It stresses its own genuine message. The great point to be kept in mind is that normally an advance in science will show that statements of various religious beliefs require some sort of modification.

It may be that they have to be expanded or explained, or, indeed, entirely restated. If the religion is a sound expression of truth, this modification will only exhibit more adequately the exact point which is of importance.

This process is a gain. In so far, therefore, as any religion has any contact with physical facts, it is to be expected that the point of view of those facts must be continually modified as scientific knowledge advances. In this way the exact relevance of these facts for religious thought will grow more and more clear.

The Government Restrictions Index measures government laws, policies and actions that restrict religious beliefs and practices. The GRI comprises 20 measures of restrictions, now grouped into the following categories: 6. One of the consistent takeaways from a decade of tracking is the relatively high level of government restrictions on religion in the Middle East and North Africa MENA , which has ranked above all other regions each year from to The new study shows that the Middle East has high levels of restrictions across all four categories in , but the gap in government favoritism is particularly large: The average country in the MENA region scores nearly twice as high on measures of government favoritism as the average country in any other region.

Indeed, 19 of the 20 countries in the Middle East all except Lebanon favor a religion — 17 have an official state religion, and two have a preferred or favored religion. Additionally, all countries in the region defer in some way to religious authorities or doctrines on legal issues. However, when one spouse is Muslim and the other has a different religion such as Coptic Christianity , or if spouses are members of different Christian denominations, courts defer to Islamic family law.

However, government favoritism has barely increased in the Middle East over the course of the study, partly because it started at such a high level that there was not much room for growth on the scale. In the other four major geographic regions, meanwhile, there have been notable increases in the levels of government favoritism of religious groups.

Some of the largest increases occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, in , Comoros passed a constitutional referendum that declared Islam the state religion. In the Asia-Pacific region, government favoritism of particular religious groups also has increased since For instance, in Turkey, the government passed a law in giving Muslim religious authorities at the province and district level the authority to register marriages and officiate at weddings on behalf of the state.

Most countries with the highest scores in government favoritism as of including Afghanistan, Bahrain and Bangladesh have Islam as their official state religion.

But not all the countries on this list favor Islam. In Greece, Iceland and the United Kingdom, different Christian denominations are the official state religions. At the country level, one of the largest increases since in the favoritism category occurred in the Pacific island nation of Samoa. In , the Samoan government began to enforce a education policy that makes Christian instruction mandatory in public primary schools. Again, the Middle East-North Africa region has higher levels of these restrictions than other regions, although after an initial rise from to , the overall level of government laws and policies restricting religious freedom has been relatively stable in the MENA region as a whole.

Other regions have seen recent increases in restrictions in this category — particularly sub-Saharan Africa, which experienced a sharp rise in government laws and policies restricting religious freedom between and Rules on government registration of religious groups contributed heavily to the high scores in this category across all regions. Many countries require some form of registration for religious groups to operate, and at least four-in-ten countries in the Americas and more than half the countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the Asia-Pacific region and Europe had a registration process in that, at a minimum, adversely affected the ability of some groups to carry out their religious activities.

In the Middle East and North Africa, this was the case in more than eight-in-ten countries. In some cases, governments recognize only a specific set of religious groups and deny registration and, hence, official recognition to all others. Elsewhere, bureaucratic hurdles create cumbersome registration processes that disadvantage particular groups. For example, in Eritrea, the government recognizes and registers only four religious groups — the Eritrean Orthodox Church, Sunni Islam, the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Eritrea — and since no other groups have been registered or allowed to perform religious activities and services.

The countries with the highest scores in the category of laws and policies restricting religious freedom are spread across Asia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. In China, for example, only certain religious groups are allowed to register with the government and hold worship services. However, there were reports that the Chinese government arrested, tortured and physically abused members of both registered and unregistered religious groups. It is also illegal for Muslims to convert to another religion.

Since , Hungary has experienced a large increase in its score in this category. A new law in changed the registration process for religious groups and effectively deregistered more than groups, adversely affecting their finances and ability to offer charitable social services.

There has been a bigger increase in government limits on religious activities — such as restrictions on religious dress, public or private worship or religious literature — in Europe than in any other region during the course of the study. A growing number of European countries have placed restrictions on religious dress, with regulations that can range from prohibitions on wearing religious symbols or clothing in photographs for official documents or in public service jobs to national bans on religious dress in public places.

In , five countries were reported to have such restrictions in Europe, but by , that number had increased to 20 countries. The number of European governments that interfered in worship or other religious practices also has been on the rise since In Moldova, for example, several local councils in banned Muslim worship in public.

In Germany, a district court ruling in Cologne in criminalized male circumcision for nonmedical reasons, classifying it as assault. Following complaints, the federal government introduced a new law later in the year to address the concerns of both Muslims and Jews by allowing the practice for religious reasons.

Government limits on religious activities also have increased markedly in the Americas, where the number of countries where governments interfered with worship rose from 16 in to 28 in In Canada, for example, the Supreme Court denied constitutional protection to a territory of spiritual significance to the indigenous Ktunaxa Nation in The Ktunaxa Nation had in sought a judicial review of a decision to approve the construction of a ski resort on land that was central to their faith, claiming it would impinge on their religious practices and violate their religious freedom.

In other regions, too, government limits on religious activities have risen over the course of the study. This includes the Middle East-North Africa region. For instance, limits on public preaching have increased notably since , when 13 countries were reported to have such restrictions.

In , 18 out of 20 countries in the region reportedly limited public preaching. These types of restrictions are not limited to minority faiths. In Jordan, for example, the government monitored sermons at mosques and required preachers to abstain from talking about politics to avoid social and political unrest and to counter extremist views. The Jordanian government began distributing themes and recommended texts for sermons to imams at mosques in , and those who did not follow the recommendations were subject to fines and preaching bans.

Additionally, in sub-Saharan Africa, the government has increasingly regulated the wearing of religious clothing. In , four countries — Cameroon, Chad, the Republic of Congo and Niger — banned Islamic veils for women in response to terror attacks within their borders. Among the countries with the highest levels of limits on religion, myriad policies restricting religious activities are enforced.

In the Maldives, for example, it is a criminal offense to promote a religion other than Islam, punishable by up to five years in jail. Restrictions in this category also are common across Central Asia. As of , the government in Turkmenistan continued to deny visas to foreigners if they were suspected of intending to do missionary work; the government also prevented the importation of religious literature.

Spain has experienced some of the largest increases in its score for government limits on religious activities since In , several cities in Catalonia introduced bans on the burqa and niqab full-body and head coverings as well as face-covering veils in public buildings. Not only are there higher levels of government harassment of religious groups in the Middle East-North Africa region compared with other regions, but MENA also has experienced the biggest increase in this category since the baseline year.

This category measures types of harassment ranging from violence and intimidation to verbal denunciations of religious groups and formal bans on certain groups. An increasing number of governments in MENA have reportedly used force against religious groups including detention and forced displacement since In Algeria, for example, more than Ahmadis were prosecuted due to their religious beliefs in The Asia-Pacific region also stands out as relatively high in this category.

In , there were numerous reports of large-scale abuses against the Rohingya, a Muslim ethnic minority in the country. The military reportedly carried out extrajudicial killings, rapes, torture, beatings, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and restrictions on religious practice, which contributed to large-scale displacement. There also were reports that Rohingya were denied citizenship.

Harassment also increased in Europe and Americas since the baseline year of the study, particularly between and Some incidents of government harassment — which can include derogatory statements and intimidation by public officials — were in response to record numbers of migrants entering Europe in In the Americas, the sharpest increase in the government harassment category occurred between and That year, there was at least limited harassment in 32 countries, compared with 28 countries in In Cuba, for instance, members of religious groups advocating for greater religious and political freedom reportedly were threatened by the government.

When it comes to increases since in this category, Bahrain stands out. Anti-government protests that began in took on a sectarian dimension, with the Sunni government targeting mostly Shiite opposition protesters and religious leaders.

Authorities cut off access to the village, used live ammunition to clear the area and killed five civilians, injured many others, and arrested nearly people.

The Social Hostilities Index measures acts of religious hostility by private individuals, organizations or groups in society. The SHI includes 13 measures of social hostilities, grouped into the following categories:. Social hostilities involving religion have been consistently high in the Middle East-North Africa region compared with other regions throughout the length of the study.

This is true across all four subcategories of social hostilities. But social hostilities in MENA have been relatively stable between and Meanwhile, the largest increase in the category of social hostilities related to religious norms — and, in fact, in any category — occurred in Europe.

In , just four European countries were reported to have individuals or groups who used violence, or threat of violence, to try to force others to accept their own religious practices and beliefs; by , it had risen to 15 countries. There also was an increase in assaults on individuals for religious expression considered offensive or threatening to the majority faith.

In , six European countries were reported to have such hostilities; by , that number had climbed to 25 out of a total of 45 countries in Europe. And in a separate incident, a Muslim woman was attacked by two women who took off her veil and verbally abused her for being Muslim.

In sub-Saharan Africa, hostilities related to religious norms also have risen since the baseline year of the study. In , incidents of violence used to enforce religious norms were reported in eight countries, while in , 31 out of 48 countries in the region experienced this type of hostility. In Burkina Faso, for example, armed men entered classrooms in multiple schools and threatened to kill teachers if they did not teach the Quran to their students.

In , there were reports of attacks on people accused of practicing witchcraft in five countries — Angola, Central African Republic, Lesotho, Liberia and South Africa. Since , there also has been an increase in hostilities over conversions in the region. In , five countries in sub-Saharan Africa experienced such hostilities; by , that number doubled, to 10 countries. In Djibouti, for instance, Christian groups reported that Christian converts faced discrimination in employment and education.

Several Western European countries rank among those with the highest scores in the category of social hostilities related to religious norms. In Germany, for instance, one sociologist estimated that there were thousands of conversions to Christianity — more than during all of the previous 50 years — linked to the rising number of refugees.

Germany and Uganda had some of the largest increases in social hostilities related to religious norms. In Uganda, for example, Christians were beaten and three were killed for religious reasons in Muslim-majority areas in Interreligious tension and violence involves acts of sectarian or communal violence between religious groups.

Such tensions can carry over from year to year, and are not necessarily reciprocal. Interreligious tension and violence was the most common type of social hostility in the early years of the study. In the Asia-Pacific, Europe and Middle East-North Africa regions, the specific measure of tensions that involved numerous cases of physical violence between religious groups dropped in recent years in at least some countries. This may be in part due to Salafists being closely monitored and restricted by the government after the deadly Bardo Museum attacks in Still, in , more than half of countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia-Pacific region, and more than eight-in-ten countries in the Middle East-North Africa region, experienced some kind of communal tension between religious groups.

Communal violence has long been common in India, which continued to score high in this category in There also were tensions between Christians and Muslims in Nigeria — the most populous country in Africa, and one that is almost evenly divided between the two religious groups.

For example, Muslim herders carried out retaliatory attacks against Christian farmers after herders said they did not receive justice when the farmers killed members of the herding community and stole their cattle. Despite a modest decline in overall interreligious tensions since , there were still some notable increases in this category, particularly in Syria and Ukraine. Syria has been experiencing a civil war since that has had a large sectarian component, with violence between religious groups reported throughout the conflict.

Religious violence by organized groups includes the actions of religion-related terrorist groups, religion-related conflict, and the use of force by organized groups to dominate public life with their perspective on religion. Since , the largest increases in this category of social hostilities have occurred in Europe and the Middle East-North Africa region.

As in all other categories of government restrictions and social hostilities involving religion, the Middle East and North Africa has seen the highest levels of religious violence by organized groups. Over the years, the actions of religion-related terrorist groups have increased especially sharply in this region. In , four countries in this study were recorded as having more than 50 injuries or deaths from religion-related terrorism incidents.

By , that figure climbed to 11 of the 20 countries in the region. These include deadly attacks in Egypt in , when armed gunmen carrying the ISIS flag attacked a Sufi mosque in northern Sinai, leaving dead. And on Palm Sunday, suicide bombings at two Coptic churches in the country — which ISIS claimed responsibility for — left 45 people dead. In Europe, meanwhile, organized groups have increasingly used force or coercion in an attempt to dominate public life with their perspective on religion.

In the baseline year of the study, this type of hostility was reported at the local, regional or national level in a total of 21 European countries. By , that figure had risen to 33 countries. For example, in Finland, the Nordic Resistance Movement, a neo-Nazi group, published anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim material and organized small-scale training camps and rallies. In September, roughly supporters of the group marched through the city of Gothenburg on the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur, clashing with police and thousands of counterdemonstrators.

Many of the countries with high levels of religious violence by organized groups have active Islamist militant groups within their borders. Nigeria is among the countries with the largest reported increases in religious violence by organized groups since In a particularly high-profile case in , the group kidnapped more than schoolgirls — who were mostly Christian — from a school in Chibok in Borno state.

Social harassment of religious groups is a broad category that ranges from actions by individuals to mob violence.