This may be a peculiarly American obsession: the debate that rages about how science and religion might explain, and provide ethical guidance for, our understandings of nature.  The controversy of late has centered on interpretations of natural selection and evolution, and whether there is some role for an extra-human god, or intelligent designer, in explaining complexity.  A debate was held at Cambridge University in England recently that engaged some of these issues.

     This is a big, abstract topic, but I thought the I Ching might have something to contribute to the conversation.  So, I asked the question: what should we keep in mind when listening to the scientists and the religionists debate nature?  And the answer, I think (as you will see the response was somewhat indirect) is: neither has, or should have, a monopoly on our understanding; neither is a complete truth unto itself.

     The particulars of the response: Hexagram 42, "Increase," with pure yang lines in the first and fifth positions, tending toward Hexagram 23, "Splitting Apart."  For those of you familiar with the text, you will see that this is a challening response – so, I am open to any and all alternatives to my own interpretation.

      Here’s what I get out of this: "Increase" paints a positive and active picture.  It encourages creative activity – "it furthers on to cross the great water" – and constructive self-reflection:

Thus the superior man:
If he sees good, he imitates it;
If he has faults, he rids himself of them.

The lines are very encouraging:

Nine at the beginning means:
It furthers one to accomplish great deeds.
Supreme good fortune.  No blame.

Nine in the fifth place means:
If in truth you have a kind heart, ask not.
Supreme good fortune.
Truly, kind wisdom will be recognized as your virtue.

    For the question at hand, this response seems to suggest that we are responsible for our own knowledge.  We should rely on our inner resources of discernment and wisdom to weigh the merits of the competing claims of science and religion.  We must be active participants in the production of our understanding. 

    The commentary on the judgement wards us away from viewing science and religion in stark contrast: "This time resembles that of the marriage of heaven and earth, when the earth partakes of the creative powers of heaven, forming and bringing forth living beings."  If we think, roughly, of religion as "heaven" and science as "earth," we might find here a message: to look for the synthesis of the two.  Nature is a vast and mysterious combination of our critical faculties of observation and analysis (science/earth) and forces outside of ourselves and beyond our perception (religion/heaven).  This sort of synthetic orientation might be especially useful on questions of evolution ("forming and bringing forth living beings.")

    What seems to stand out here is the ethical issue: how do we determine what is right and wrong about our actions in nature?  Here there is a bit more clarity.  The oracle is telling us that neither science nor religion are ultimate ethical truths.  Rather, moral deliberation is a matter of personal conscience, or "heart."  When faced with ethical dilemmas we should not rely upon religious dogma or scientific objectivity; we should turn inward, follow what we find to be good, and reject the faults we find in ourselves. 

    The "Splitting Apart" image is rather opposite that of "Increase."  The sense here is of difficult times beyond our control: "The lines of the hexagram present the image of a house, the top line being the roof, and because the roof is being shattered the house collapses."  The two sides of the hexagram are pulling apart, and there’s not much that can be done to stop it.  Nonaction is called for.

    This could represent the irrconciable tension of the science v. religion debate.  Best not to take one side or the other because there is no safety in either.

     Another point comes out of this hexagram: nature is beyond our full understanding or control, clearly suggesting the limits of science.  But the answer here is not a unequivocal turn toward religion.  Rather nature has its own patterns and tendencies, not caused by an external God, but generated from within: "an alternation of increase and decrease, fullness and emptiness."  To apprehend nature (perhaps we can never fully understand it) we do not need to appeal to God, or to scientific rationality; we need only to quietly immerse ourselves in it and experience it. 

    I look forward to hearing from others with alternate interpretations…