In the Dublin Unitarian Church there is the famous stained glass window which features the three images; that of Christ, of the philosopher and of the scientist. These images represent three important sources of knowledge, of wisdom, of truth. In the Republic of Plato Socrates describes how the study of mathematics should be considered to be a precursor for the study of philosophy. The mathematical statement 1+1=2 contains numbers (1 and 2) and operations ( + and =) which, together with explanations as to what these operations actually mean, provide a statement which starts with uncontroversial first principles and then leads to certain conclusions. Socrates states, in the Republic, how philosophy similarly starts with uncontroversial first principles and, through the application of the laws of logic, will then seek to come to certain conclusions in a manner somewhat analogous to mathematics. There are very strong similarities between the mathematical method and the philosophical method.
I will now turn to the nature of the scientific method which operates along similar lines to the methodologies discussed above. Some time ago I was a postgraduate philosophy student with the Open University. On one occasion I attended a day school in Dublin. During a coffee break my tutor took me aside. I later learned that this probably involved some stray remark made by me on the OU internet chat room regarding the Adam and Eve myth. My tutor, with whom I at all times throughout the year had a good relationship, nervously asked if I was an advocate of Creationism, the pseudo-scientific "theory" of the origin of species. I had, at all times, on the OU chat room been open about having religious affiliations and this had been considered suspect by the "liberals" of both the OU staff and student body. I explained that creationism could not be even considered to be a scientific theory of any kind whatsoever. A theory that is derived from the statement "I read it in a very old book" cannot be even considered as scientific in any sense of the word. I remarked that the Book of Genesis was, perhaps, a religious commentary on the events surrounding the invention of agriculture and the profound changes in the way humans lived that this brought about. However my tutor, on the other hand, seemed to think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was something akin to a large boulder. When one pointed at this rock, it seemed, one demonstrated that religious beliefs were nonsense. A little naive for a philosophy tutor, perhaps. I explained that Darwin had been trained as both a botanist and a zoologist. When in the Galapagos Islands he noticed anomalies in the flora and fauna as compared with other parts of the world. He analysed these anomalies using his biological training and the sort of methodological analysis described above. This resulted in the Theory of the Origin of Species. I remarked to my tutor that the theory had, in fact, failed. Accusations of creationist sympathies from my tutor! I explained that Darwin's theory did, with great accuracy, explain the origin of the great amount of variations exhibited by individuals within species. However Darwin's proposed mechanism did not explain how species actually evolved from other species. The fossil record shows that this is very likely to be the case.
Neo-Darwinism attempts to fill this gap in theories concerning the origin of species. Genetic mutation caused by natural radiation sometimes creates useful changes in one species resulting in the creation of another. A good stab at the problem. But for this model to be accurate the age of the universe would have to be some ten times older than our present estimate given such factors as the levels of natural radiation etc. The Theory of Evolution, I explained to my tutor, was incomplete. Further accusations of creationist sympathies were rebuffed by my explaining that most theories were incomplete. Evolution is the only credible scientific theory in existence regarding the origin of species even if it is incomplete and creationism is a bogus "theory" which has nothing whatsoever to do with science but more to do with fundamentalist religious intolerance and bigotry.
Imagine a Church of England vicar with a few "A" levels in the sciences. Such an individual would understand the appropriate applications of scientific knowledge on the one hand and religious practice/belief/knowledge on the other. Such individuals have sometimes suggested that God intervenes in His creation in order to fill the gaps which science cannot explain. Recent scientific speculation has suggested that the universe itself generates statistical anomalies which would overcome the timescale problem of Neo-Darwinism. Opinions among scientists on this aspect of the Theory of Evolution may, indeed, vary. But this is so because there is as yet little conclusive evidence of an objective nature on this aspect of evolutionary theory.
Our greatest rival for the religious affections of the Irish people is Pope Benedict. He speaks out against the dangers of "relativism", the idea that all opinions are equally valid and that there is no objective truth. Of course opinions concerning the nature of, say, a Picasso painting would entail a greater level of subjectivity than, for example, a law of physics. But the Picasso painting exists, objectively, independent of any observer. Differing opinions refer to this objectively existing object. On the other hand Isaac Newton "invented" his second law of motion, F=ma, by, figuratively speaking, gazing at his navel. However he then tested his idea in real world situations to see if it was correct. Until the early 20th century it was thought that Newton's second law was absolutely accurate. Einstein then proved that it was only a very close approximation. A glossary of philosophical terms in my possession states that "truth is the conformity of the mind to reality". The scientific and philosophical methods seek, on an ongoing basis, to refine the accuracy of this conformity.
My dictionary defines dogma as "theory or doctrine asserted on authority without supporting evidence". Surely therefore any resort to dogma for evidence is a concession to relativism. Resort to dogma is not, of course, exclusive to the Catholic Church. It is usual in most Christian Churches. The figure of Jesus in the window of the Dublin church flanked by the philosopher and the scientist is a depiction of the Unitarian approach to religious truth. This Truth is of an absolute nature but any one individual may only have an imperfect vision of this Truth. And each individual is required to refine his/her vision of this Truth on an ongoing basis according to a religious methodology analogous to that of science or philosophy.
[Special thanks to Jennifer Flegg and "Religion on the Brain" in the January 2006 issue of Oscailt which, in part, inspired this article.]

Brendan Burke MA(Phil).
Cork, Jan. 16, 2006.