Commentary: are science and religion compatible?
The short answer is no, just an uneasy truce. Scientists agree to not declare the “resurrection” and other miracles as highly improbable, unsupported by evidence and contradictory to all other known physical principles. Similarly many religionists accept scientific theories (partially) and not engage in war against science, while still maintaining traditional creeds of god created all things and gave human beings everlasting souls. This is my very sceptical view of the broad “understanding”.
Science and religion seek to explain our existence and the world about us. Science uses empirically-based evidence to provide physical explanations for our world. Religions use ancient texts and interpretations by religious leaders and intellectuals to impart their vision of god’s will for us and our world. Given changes in scientific knowledge, religions may re-interpret their sacred texts to be more acceptable or simply deny science and retain their ancient explanations.
Science assumes a strictly physical reality that displays a non-designed regularity that can be understood. Science investigates the world with a bottom-up approach so it examines the parts to understand the whole – so-called reductionism. Moreover science encourages skeptical thinking by seeing all knowledge as provisional. Over the last 500 years science has proved amazingly successful at explaining our world by using this empirically-based research, disciplined testing and regular peer reviews. Many superstitions have been replaced by scientific explanations.
Religions assume that all existence has a purpose and that we, as humans, have special significance. Typically an all powerful entity exists in the non-physical reality but created all things in our physical one. Humans, unlike all other living things, exist in both worlds with non-physical souls and a physical body. Most religions use ancient texts and later interpretations to describe the world, its origins and as well as human purposes. Believers are expected to have faith – belief without evidence – that these words were written by people and inspired by god. Even though many people see some of the religious stories as metaphorical or naive inventions of earlier civilisations, conservative believers still take these stories as literal truth.
When religions talk about god and even souls there is probably no clashing with science. However when religions make pronouncements about the physical world – as they must to have any relevance – then they are on science’s patch. Scientific methods can be used to check the likelihood of religious physical claims. Not surprisingly this creates flash-points of dispute. Some obvious examples come to mind. Firstly, there is no independent physical evidence that any miracles – violations of natural laws – have occurred. Also, secondly, Evolution presents enormous metaphysical problems for most religions. All life evolved naturally; our existence came by chance; and humans are like other living things and therefore unlikely to have non-physical aspects such as souls are some of the obvious implications. Everyday, finally, neuroscience is chipping away at the sanctity of a separate mind with physical descriptions of our mental processes.
Technically religions and science could exist in parallel if religions never talked about the physical world and science continues to ignore any non-physical existence. Unfortunately, as even the religious leaders know, the physical reality affects our everyday concerns. Talking about gods, ghosts and spirits without mentioning our actual physical world is of little practical interest to anyone.
Alex McCullie
No comments
