In the middle decades of the Twentieth Century there was a
lot of time devoted to arguments between science and religion. They were still
going on when I was at school. Now it seems like a lot of time wasted. For it
now seems obvious, to me at any rate, that there can be no conflict between
good science and good religion because they deal with entirely different
aspects of the human experience. They use different methods and ask entirely
different questions. Many of my religious friends are eminent scientists and
find this no problem at all. The problems start when attempts are made to use
the approaches of religion to tackle scientific questions, and vice versa; but
there is no requirement to do this.
What is not always so well understood is that exactly the
same point applies to religion and history. The job of academic historians is
to find and analyse evidence in an effort (doomed never to be unchallengeably
successful) to find out exactly what was going on in the past. The job of
history teachers like me is to try to communicate the findings of the scholars
to the general public, especially to the young.
Where some religious people come unstuck, and many critics
of religion, is they try to apply the methods and standards and questions of
History as a discipline to religious stories.
Very few of the stories in the Bible (a great library of
stories, poems, philosophy and so on) were produced by writers who had any
intention of thinking or writing like modern historians. Every one knows that
one of Jesus’s main teaching methods was to tell stories, and in this he was in
a long tradition. The stories of Jonah, and of Job, for example, are as much
stories as the story of the Good Samaritan and (at last I come to my main point) none the worse for it. For a story can
contain as many truths, and matter for life-enhancing thought, as any piece of
history.
“Othello” for example says a huge amount about the impact of
jealousy on love. Young people probably get more truths, and ideas to discuss,
about love and marriage and about the role of women in society from “Pride and
Prejudice” than from any other single book. “Richard III”, as we all know, is
not good history. But it contains all sorts of thought-provoking truths about
the court as jungle.
And it is stories that are one of the main types of
religious writing. The very earliest religion we know about consisted of human
beings making up stories to try and explain the world and to tackle the big
questions that the methods of science and history could not answer.
So, this Christmas, do not worry about whether there
“really” were angels, or where the Wise Men “really” came from, or whether Mary
“really” was a virgin. Listen to the stories, enjoy the stories and think about
the stories. They are full of food for thought, and great truths.
Here are two that strike me.
Herod may or may not have ordered the Massacre of the
Innocents exactly as described. But the story contains a great truth, which is
that killing innocent people for the sake of public security is something that
governments do. Sometimes it seems impossible to avoid it – consider the
bombing of cities during the Second World War - but it is a terrible evil. Herod
is not a comic pantomime villain, nor a one-off cruel king, but a character to
provoke thought in all rulers who wield authority over security forces.
Then there are those intellectuals searching for God – the
“Wise Men”. And where do they find God? In a new-born baby, child of refugees,
in an out-house. As Evelyn Waugh, among others, has pointed out, the Magi
arrived late, misunderstood what was going on and inadvertently provoked the
Massacre of the Innocents. Plenty of great truths and life-enhancing reflection
for all would-be intellectuals in that story.