SCIENCE, RELIGION DEBATED AT UNIVERSITY

"Why does the universe go to the bother of existing? ... [I]f we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principals by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.

-- Stephen Hawking in his book "A Brief History of Time."

It is arrogant of scientists to think that they can put a natural limit on the universe. At the same time, it seems sort of arrogant for a religious person to put limits on an omnipotent God, panelists said during a discussion on science and religion Wednesday.

The Common Hour panel titled "Science and Religion: Friends or Foes?" drew about 50 students to Rhodes Hall at Southeast Missouri State University during its 45-minute quest to answer why the universe exists.

The panel discussion was part of the "Embracing Diversity" symposium being held this week. A mural mixing images of Stephen Hawking, an astrophysicist, and a lagoon nebula where universes are created also was unveiled. The mural was designed and painted by Dr. Grant Lund, an art professor, as part of the university's 125th anniversary.

Lund drew the mural mixing the images of a universe creation with the realm of science. If the mural causes people to think about those ideas, it has served its purpose, Lund said.

Natural law putting limits on God is about as old as science itself, said Dr. Bill McKinney, a philosophy professor. "And I would think that's the last thing a religious individual would want."

But putting limits on God is a question that religious people often grapple with, said Dr. Andy Pratt, religious studies professor.

As you formulate your religious convictions, you have to go about it with the realization that science and religion aren't incongruent, Pratt said.

"You have to ask, Is it OK to reformulate my religious ideas in light of the new scientific ideas that I have gained?" Pratt said.

It is a false assumption to think that science and religion are so diverse that the two don't overlap or that they are enemies, the panel said.

"The title is a false dichotomy; they overlap," McKinney said. "The trouble comes when science tries to be religion or religion tries to be science."

There is a place for both in the world, particularly when discussing why the universe exists. Science looks at models and theories while religion is based more in individual feelings and experiences. Both deal with some of the same questions but take different approaches, said Dr. Allen Gathman, a biologist who teaches a religion and science course with Pratt.

Science and religion are more at a clash of viewpoints than all-out enemies, the panelists said.

"When you look at integrating the ideas you have to ask `To what end?'" McKinney said. "If it's to understand the universe and all its complexities, that's where you run into problems."