For hundreds of years, there have been several debates that have permeated our history as unsolvable questions, long abandoned for any hope of an answer, and instead left to be used as mental exercises for philosophers and sociologists. Is the development of artificial intelligence ethical? Should mankind experiment in genetic engineering? What came first, the chicken or the egg? While all of these prompts are all equally significant and worthy of consideration, no other debate has manipulated the course of history quite like the question of whether science and religion can coexist or not.
However, while both have long been considered to be polar opposites and thus incompatible on the most basic level, has there truly been an effort to compare the two's similarities, instead of only recognizing their differences? It is of my belief that while there are indeed definite cleavages between the two fields, there is also a substantial amount of crossover between the two, and that surprisingly, science and religion are more alike than previously believed.
Before delving into the parallels between science and religion, however, it would do well to define them in a way that can simplify later comparisons between the two. As American sociologist William Sims Bainbridge has said, "The relationship between religion and science cannot be explained by merely stating they are opposing forces." This being said though, the very nature of science and religion seem to oppose each other by definition.
A common assertion when it comes to comparing science and religion is that while science is based on the empirical, religion bases itself off of the supernatural. This is true, since science is built upon proven facts from experimentation and observation, adding validity to the claims of science that religion can lack when asserting its own claims. This can be attributed to the fact that religion is older than what we modernly view as "science", meaning that people from times where religion was more prevalent may have been limited by the technology at the time to define their worldview, while modern people have more options than subscribing to a religion to inform their perception of the world around them.
However, attributing the popularity of religion to a simple lack of technology to prove it wrong in the past cannot account for the modern population that still follows the teachings of religion in their everyday lives, despite science having advanced significantly since back then. This illustrates how the conflict between science and religion is much more complex than a simple question of difference in understanding of the world.
This is where we approach the first significant difference between science and religion: the distinction in basing a perspective off of what is observable, and what isn't observable. While scientists may claim a superior validity than the teachings of religion due to their verifiable observations and provable hypotheses, clergymen can instead respond with the retort that what they claim has no basis in what is observable to mankind- instead operating on what different religions can call a spiritual, spectral, or otherwise non-physical plane.
Another significant difference between religion and science is in their purpose. Science has always explored the how of our world: how does gravity work, how does the moon affect the tides, how do bees dance their way into finding flowers. Religion instead preoccupies itself with the why of our existence, dealing with spirituality and philosophical questions rather than explaining away how the world works. However, this has several exceptions, which have all led to many debates.
Arguably the debate most representative of the clashing between science and religion, the argument surrounding the theory of evolution and how it opposes what religion has taught for centuries has been one of much contention for the last few decades. In recent times, the ideas presented by Darwinism and the theory of evolution have challenged long-established ideas about how man came to be, along with why much of the world looks the way it does today, as taught by religion. The clash between nigh-irrefutable proof of evolution against the age-old conceptions about the origin of man once again boiled down to the general conflict between science and religion, between what is observable and what is not. Despite the evidence presented by the scientific community, several religions have rejected and ignored the theory of evolution, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
This sort of stubborn behavior is representative of yet another divide between the two fields- the use of an open belief system vs a closed belief system. An open belief system means that information, criticism, and new ideas are all accepted and that discussion is encouraged, whereas a closed belief system doesn't tolerate new ideas or information, instead adhering strictly to a specific code or established understanding about a subject matter.
Religion stands as one of the more notable closed belief systems of modern times, as it has come into frequent clashes with new scientific discoveries and progressive social stances more often in recent years. In most religious communities, critique and questioning of a religion tend to be met with rigid dismissal and in some cases, more extreme expressions of dissent, whereas in the scientific community, critique is not only welcomed, but even encouraged, as it is a core principle of science that all theories should be tested extensively, and be replicable by anyone in order to verify the assertions made by scientists.
While those who oppose religion will cite the absence of a culture of critique as evidence that most religions are founded upon nothing, religious people have contested this belief by stating that the power of religion comes from faith rather than fact, presenting the two as equals in terms of validity. It boils down to a matter of personal opinion: does believing in something hold the same amount of reason as knowing something?
Interestingly enough, people have found ways of blending science and religion into entirely new belief systems that are wholly based on the compromise between the two fields. Even at the time of science's very conception, there existed some crossover, since the very first scientists were clergymen who experimented to better understand the world they lived in, and by proxy, better understand the religion that defined their world. With the understanding that science was literally borne from religion, it is easier to accept that perhaps there is a compromise possible between the two fields- the existence of religious scientists and religious people who support science are walking proof of this.
Deism is the poster child for the perfect mix of both science and religion, representing what many consider to be the closest blend of the two that works effectively at providing equal merit to what feels like two opposing fields. While it holds beliefs common to many religions, such as the existence of a God that created the universe, deism uses an open belief system to allow for science to blend with religion best, accepting new information and theories about how the world works, while using religious ideals to explain what can't yet be explained.
Deism has a unique set of guidelines that are meant to define what true "Deist thinking" is, outlining what beliefs align and don't align with the commonly accepted deist canon. Amongst these guidelines are some pertaining to the existence of a god, like the assertion that God exists and created the universe, or that God gave humanity the ability of reason and logical thinking in order to govern themselves. Other guidelines focus on denying the validity of more traditional religious beliefs, in order to separate themselves from standard religions and further reinforce as a religion that is based on fact, for example, denying the concept of "divine revelation" as a basis for what ideals to believe and follow, meaning that Deists fundamentally reject all religious texts that were written by alleged prophets.
While following these guidelines has distinguished Deism from other religions and discouraged more religious people from subscribing to the belief, Deism has found immense popularity among scientists who describe themselves to be religious, but feel uncomfortable with how modern religions tend to ignore or detest scientific contradictions to their narratives. Deism makes use of the concept that science and religion aren't opposites, but potential supplements to cover the faults of the other, a thought echoed by renowned thinkers like Albert Einstein, who had said that "...science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind. The freedom to accept scientific fact while still subscribing to the idea of a greater power is very attractive to people, and thus illustrates why Deism should be considered the perfect mix of both science and religion, and touted as the prime example for their capacity to not only coexist, but also complement each other.
After the extensive research on this subject that I had conducted for the purposes of writing this opinion piece, it is of my opinion that the common belief that science and religion are opposing forces by nature is incorrect. As American historian of science Stephen Jay Gould has stated, "... science and religion aren't necessarily contradictory... they approach different areas of existence and therefore can exist side by side." The reality of their relationship depends on the individual balancing their faith in both beliefs, while some may choose to interpret them as being opposing forces, they can indeed exist in harmony as complementing schools of thought.
SOURCES:
https://www.ineos.com/inch-magazine/articles/issue-7/debate/#:~:text=Religion%20and%20science%20both%20offer,subjective%20belief%20in%20a%20creator.
https://revisesociology.com/2018/08/14/differences-between-science-religion/
https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/social-studies/beliefs-in-society/science-and-religion/
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2020/08/26/on-the-intersection-of-science-and-religion/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Comments
Post a Comment