The Beauty of Science and Religion
Published perspective may not represent that of The Knowledge Loft’s.
All rights reserved.
Albert Einstein once said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind”. In my opinion, science and religion have been closely intertwined throughout history and such as statement is indeed erroneous. In this essay, I define ‘science’ as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. We see that the purpose of science and scientific enquiry itself can be attributed to the curiosity of mankind itself, our desire to know more about ourselves, the universe, our life and roles in it. I have interpreted the words “at war” as “in conflict”. We see that religion is a human phenomenon that defies easy definition because it is extremely varied. For simplicity’s sake, I will define religion as a strongly held system of beliefs, values and attitudes that one lives by. I believe that religions are not homogeneous. This essay is also not a debate about atheists and spiritualists. Rather, it is an inquiry into and discussion on the purpose and nature of religion and science and why they are not at war. Also, I see logical fallacies in turning the science vs religion debate into a simplistic either/or choice. Therefore, the primary questions in today’s essay are one, if it is really impossible to believe in both science and religion and two, what are the different methods of enquiry for these two schools of thought.
Historically, science has had a close and complex relationship with religion. Throughout history, religious doctrines and motivations have often been central to scientific development, while scientific knowledge has had profound effects on religious beliefs. In my opinion, it is difficult for us to separate science and religion as both have deep meaning for us. I personally believe that it is an error to polarize science and religion because there is general misunderstanding of their roles in society and within an individual. In my opinion, attempting to understand life and the universe fully without using either science or religion is akin to completing a jigsaw puzzle after throwing out certain jigsaw pieces. We see agreement today, that for science to progress, it must be ready to admit to the existence of things beyond the material. It can be seen that certain things in the world appears to require both science as well as religion for explanation. For example, the creation of life, existence of consciousness, life after death experiences, clairvoyance et cetera.
First, let us examine the historical development of science relative to religion.
We see that both science and religion are in the pursuit of the truth – knowledge about life and the universe. We see that in rural tribes that survive to this day, scientific discovery is seen as a gift from the gods. They believe that humanity was given knowledge to make tools, plant crops, advance in technology because they worshipped the gods and sought them. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism and Christianity all developed many centuries before the existence of the scientific method, followed by Islam about a thousand years prior to the modern era. These classical religions show an appreciation of the natural world, were unafraid of scientific explorations and technological process – all of which are inherent in science itself. For example, it was the Early Islamic intellectuals that first discovered algebra, the telescope and preserved many of the world’s earliest scientific texts. In Europe, it was the Christians who funded the OxBridge universities, believing that the study of Law, Medicine and Theology was key to societal progress. Christian scientists have drawn parallels between the inflationary theory and the big bang theory to explain their concepts of the creation of the universe. They also use the theory of relativity to explain the concepts of a god that is omnipresent and omniscient, who is both Alpha and Omega in the Universe. This is a never ending list, and it comes to show that with an open mind, science and religion are very much alike. Therefore, there is little reason for conflict between the former and latter and thus, it is unlikely for them to be ‘at war’.
Furthermore, early scientists have held strong religious beliefs and strove to reconcile science and religion. For example, scientists like Galileo and Pascal saw little difference between science, religion and philosophy and developed their theories from all disciplines. Mendel, one of the earliest founding fathers of genetics, was a priest. The main contributor to the scientific method – Aristotle – was also a monotheist that has beliefs tied very much to christianity. In essence, the founding fathers of modern science were great if not staunch believers of religion. If religion really conflicts with science, they would not have been able to develop scientific thinking and knowledge as it clashes with their innate beliefs. Therefore, there is little justification for conflict between the former and latter and thus, it is unlikely for them to be ‘at war’.
Next, let us examine the inherent contradictions and concessions in the topic itself.
Today, there are three types of individuals. Individuals who believe solely in faith and the unnatural, individuals who believe in the coexistence of both the aforementioned and science, and lastly, individuals who believe solely in science. We see that scientists who so fervently believe in the scientific method to the extent where they see science as the one and only true way to knowledge have already formed a religious belief for science. This mindset is known as scientism. Therefore we see that even for scientists that do not believe heavily in god or the like, they have already subscribed to a form of religion. That in its very sense nullifies any form of debate between science and religion.
To say that “science is at war with religion” means that science conflicts with religion. This conflict is frequently attributed to the different questions they seek to answer. Science tells us what we are and why we are this way. It questions observable and verifiable phenomena. It gives us material technologies to solve things in the material world. Science pursues knowledge for the sake of understanding how the universe works. However, it is essentially amoral. Religion on the other hand tells us who we are and whom we ought to be. It attempts to answer the ‘why’ questions of value and morals. It gives us immaterial solutions to solve things in the immaterial world. For example, in answer to the question of why Evil exists, Science may present gene therapy as a way to literally doctor out violence from our system while Christians may present the forgiveness and love of god as a transformational power. Some may point out that it is precisely because of the difference in answers that causes this conflict. However, it is precisely such a difference in the questions that they are trying to answer that makes them complementary to each other. This concept is especially evident in a justice system for example. We see that in two of the key tenets of justice: rehabilitation and retribution. The most obvious manner to prevent a male rapist from repeating the act is to chemically castrate him, that would be a direct material solution to a material problem and is a form of retribution many courts enact. However, there is no reason why the chemical castration cannot work hand in hand with rehabilitation, which in many cases are supported by faith based reform. As the former and latter essentially work hand in hand with each other, there is no reason for conflict and certainly little justification for war. As such, the idea that religion and science are at war is erroneous.
I however concede that Science is actually in conflict with “crackpot religions” that are based on mere superstition. Religious scientists see science as an effective way of discovering truths about our physical world. Scientific methods like the controlled experiment, precise calculations and empirical proof to test our hypothesis have allowed us to discover that the earth is not flat, it orbits the sun and that bacteria are not evil spirits. Science can be used to quickly disprove the harmful misconceptions of the Flat Earth Society and Solar Temple Cult. We recognize that with scientific discoveries, many ancient pagan beliefs have also died out. Nobody really believes that the sun’s rise and fall is caused by the sun-god Apollo riding across the sky in his blazing, golden chariot. The fact is science does inherently contradict these kinds of unorthodox religions for the simplest fact that they are not answering material questions with material answers.
In conclusion, science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness. Science can therefore purify religion from error and superstition, whereas religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each are able to draw each other into a wider world where both are able to flourish. We established that there are clearly scientists and religious organizations that are unorthodox and discriminatory. Assuming that we are only looking at orthodox, unprejudiced science and religion, then they can absolutely coexist. In fact, they need to work together – Science gives Religion a concrete methodology to confirm truths, and Religion providers guidance and wisdom in the way Science is used. We see that such a relationship is more than blind faith – it is an intelligent trust. A true religion will not deny reality and will be willing to look at the reality of Man and the world with brutal honesty. This is similar to the demand that Science makes on us all. Therefore, if science and religion are both in pursuit of the truth and the welfare of humanity, such a pursuit unites them and there should not be any inherent conflict between the two.