The conflict between science and religion.
Two great forces have influenced and shaped human thought and development throughout all ages. These are the forces of religion on one hand and science on the other. Science can be defined as the systematic study of nature and natural laws with the aim of understanding and harnessing their power while religion can be defined as the theory and practice of God. These two forces have been at conflict, and it is the aim of this essay to examine the conflict in order to understand and appreciate its root causes and to determine if a cessation of the conflict is possible, and under what conditions such a cessation may be realized.
In the middle ages, religion was the predominant force in European civilization while science was still in its infancy. During that period, it was believed that the world was flat and was the center of the universe. Copernicus, a budding scientist of exceptional observational and analytical skill put forward the heliocentric theory which in essence claimed that the earth went round the sun, and for this so called ‘heretical’ teaching, the church persecuted him. Even when Galileo Galilei invented the telescope and proved Copernicus right, the religious authorities dismissed the heliocentric theory as heresy and placed Galileo Galilei under house arrest for all his trouble, setting the stage for the conflict between science and religion. With time, religion lost much of the power it once held and its place was taken by science. Today, the scientific authorities seem to be eager to repay the favor of persecution that most of its early scientists experienced. They are keenly seeking to tear apart any and all religious modes of thought, labeling them as nothing more than backdated superstitious beliefs based on misinformation and ignorance. However, it stands to reason that both sides have a role to play in the development and progress of the human race. To bring this fact to light, it is imperative to examine the essence of these two forces and the role they play in the existence of man.
Religion’s basic tenet, indeed its building block, its most fundamental component is faith. All religions in all cultures encourage its adherents to cultivate a form of faith-although not always called by this name- as away to contact God, the ancestors or any holy and sacred entities which are the focus of the particular religion in question. Indeed, the word religion is used interchangeably with the term faith (…he is of the Christian faith, etc.). According to the bible, faith is described as being “…the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…” (NKJV, Hebrews 11:1) This definition is suffices for our purposes, and as is evident, faith deals primarily with matters that are by definition absent from the immediate vicinity of the senses but are arrived at using the vehicles of the intuition and emotions such as hope and other such means. A concrete example is the concept of God. God is not accessible directly via the five senses, yet by believing that he is, that he exists, the believer can experience his reality. The greater the faith and conviction of the believer concerning God, the more real he becomes to them.
The principle modus operandi of science is to pose questions which it then seeks to answer by experimentation and other means. it is by asking questions that scientists build up their theories and develop their practices, rites and rituals (yes, science too has rites and rituals just like religion, only that they are clothed in terms such as experimentation process and scientific procedures). By asking why the apple fell to the ground, Isaac Newton was able to develop the theories of gravity and motion that bear his name. Questions have at their root a form of skepticism and doubt, for the scientist questions each and every fact that his intellect can grasp. For the scientist, nothing is beyond question and the more skeptical the scientist, the more scientific distinctions they seem to make. Questions drive the scientific process, and the answers to these questions are obtained through experimentation. Experiments are on the most part dependent on observation and data collection and analysis, and the senses are critical to the entire process. At this point, it is clear that science and religion operate in different domains. One is dependent on the senses for input which drives its processes while for the other the senses are output channels for other processes which preceded it. Science and religion cannot therefore conflict unless one impedes on the jurisdiction of the other[1], and this is the crux of the problem. (Feynmann, 1999)
Religion through metaphysical constructs may provide answers to complex questions such as the origin and purpose of life, the universe and all existence. These answers are metaphysical and symbolic since in some instances a direct and concise explanation may be impossible to arrive at. It is worth noting that sometimes science may also offer metaphysical and symbolic explanations in the form of theories. For phenomena that cannot be experimented on and are therefore beyond the reach of science, religious explanations and interpretations are best, while all phenomenon that can be experimented on are best left to science, although religious explanations may be held onto until science answers the questions fully and satisfactorily since it is neither possible nor desirable to leave questions answered merely because science is not advanced enough to tackle them. In the case of Copernicus mentioned previously, the religious explanation of a flat earth was sufficient, offering a token answer until science advanced enough to prove the heliocentric theory right through the invention of the telescope. The conflict that ensued was probably due to the fact that the religious authorities of the day may have felt that by relinquishing control over their token answer, they may be actually be losing their power, an erroneous assumption since the issue of the shape and orientation of the solar system and by extension the universe had nothing to do with the core source of their religious power; faith in God was not dependent on the individual characteristics of planetary bodies and their movement, and any such connection was purely fictitious, as evident by the fact that the church still flourished even after Copernicus’ heliocentric theory was accepted as an undisputed fact. When science on the other hand tries to prove or disprove the existence of God or the precise efficacy of prayers, things which depend to a large extent on the faith of the believers, it is acting beyond its domain and the results of such experimentation normally never meet the precise state of constancy that science demands of its subjects. The conflict between science and religion is currently fueled by the works of Charles Darwin who proposed the theory of evolution, with scientists claiming that man evolved from lower life forms, primate being our closest “relatives”. the scientists have fossils that they interpret as concrete evidence of their assertions, while the religious folk view the concept of evolution as anathema, nothing but pure heresy since they believe God created all things, and they interpret the verses in the scriptures that say man was created in the image of God to mean that God probably has a humanoid form. Both sides have convincing arguments but in my opinion it is a matter of interpreting the available data on both sides. Only by examining the interpretation of the available data and evidence and making new distinctions and shedding light on the issue from new perspectives can the issue be resolved conclusively once and for all.
Although the conflict has been going on for ages, it is possible to hold onto both science and religion without compromising on the efficacy of and power of either. Isaac Newton, a scientist of the highest rank who made monumental contributions to science was also a deeply religious man and when he wasn’t working on his scientific interests, he was busy expounding the biblical books of the Old Testament. Charles Darwin looked to his Christian faith as a source of inspiration and strength, more so as he grew older. The genius Albert Einstein is famous for his quote that “…God does not play dice..”, meaning that all the order, harmony, mathematical patterns and precise workings of all the various universal laws could not have come into being by chance, that a vastly intelligent being ,God,was responsible for it all.
The conflict between science and religion will not go on indefinitely. Science will eventually advance to the point of understanding how faith works. It does not take a genius to see that faith has its principles, properties and characteristics that enable it to work as it does, that faith can be said to be like other universal and natural laws. Once science is able to break through and systematically outline how faith works, the conflict will be over. That day is not as far away as it seems. Science recognizes some elements of the workings of faith, specifically how “…our beliefs shapes the world around us” (Brooks, 2008). The placebo effect which is common knowledge among scientists as well as medical and pharmaceutical personnel can be seen as an instance of faith operating through the patient’s belief to determine if and how fast they recover from an illness.
Science without religion leads to a deadened, dull and mechanistic society. Religion without science deprives man of the hidden gifts that Mother Nature intended us to find. Both working in tandem will lead to a meaningful and fulfilled existence. Now is the time to embrace all that is true and discard all meaningless attachments to the status quo that may hinder our progress.
References and further reading.
1. Copernicus, heliocentric theory. Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus
2. Galileo Galilei. Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
3. NKJV. The Holy Bible. New King James Version. Copyright 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson Inc.
4. Feynman, Richard. (1999).The pleasure of finding things out. perseus books.
{Richard Feynman had an exceptional mind of possibly genius status who was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1965 for his work in quantum electrodynamics. He offers refreshing insights into the conflict between science and religion. Highly recommended reading.}
5. Brooks, Michael (2008).13 things that don’t make sense-the most baffling scientific discoveries. Doubleday publishers. New York.
{Discusses the placebo effect in depth, as well as offering interesting insights on the scientific process and how science handles ‘scientific mysteries’}
6. Klopfer, Bruno (1957).psychological variables in human cancer, journal of prospective techniques 31 (1957), pp 331-340.
{An interesting case study whereby a patient was able to recover completely from lymphatic cancer after requesting for an experimentational drug named krebiozen. The faith component of the placebo effect are clearly brought out in the peculiar events that make up this case study}
[1] Further details can be obtained from the work of Richard Feynman as outlined in the reference section.
No comments:
Post a Comment