What’s true of religion is true of science
A caricature of Charles Darwin as an ape published in The Hornet, a satirical magazine | photo courtesy of wikipedia.org
In the continuous battle between science and religion, there are several hotly contested issues: the debate over abortion, stem cell research, the origin of life and (especially) the existence of God.
These are not likely to be settled in the foreseeable future. After initial assessment, it is easy to think of science as the antithesis of religion and vice versa. They are polar opposites, like yin and yang, like light and dark. However, these seemingly contrary forces are also more interconnected and interdependent than most people think.
Even if they are to be thought of as absolute opposites, several incidences in their respective infancies hold an almost laughable irony. One of the most polarizing figures in this debate, for an example, is the English naturalist Charles Darwin: a soundly religious man who believed in God as the ultimate lawgiver.
In addition, today some of the harshest critics of religion have moved their focus in science (namely evolutionary science) off of the field and onto the man (Darwin), almost worshiping him.
In some related historical incidents, according to most historians, the modern scientific method was first developed by Islamic scientists, and Buddhism actively encourages impartial investigation of nature: also known as science. The irony is amusing to say the least.
Beyond these specific examples, the interdependence and parallels in method of these two disciplines are numerous and far reaching. Religion and science are, at their roots, both ways to explain the world around us.
They both require some amount of imagination in their advancement; scholars of both have historically been thought of as highly creative individuals. Both require analytical reflection on personal human experience while being practiced.
Though many religious individuals may disagree, there is a degree of moral commitment in science not unlike that which religion is built on. This isn’t the incredibly politicized science practiced by scientists whose biased research is the result of their grants and funding coming from corporations with agendas. It is the kind of science that is in its purest form in which the only motivation is the search for the truth.
Some of the numerous debates, which are subcategories of the larger relationship, are old news. One of the earliest clashes — Nicolaus Copernicus’ view against a flat Earth and subsequent fear of religious persecution — is all but laid to rest now. A very small minority of people still believe the earth to be flat, and of course, they are entitled to their opinions and to ignore NASA’s evidence and what not.
The age of the Earth is another one. A larger group, but still a minority, believe it to be around 6,000-years-old, and they are free to ignore the entire field of geology or any ancient fossils discovered to be older via carbon dating. Of course science never really proves anything. It just provides evidence for a theory until counter-evidence disproves it.
It seems the one thing science may have the hardest thing disproving is the one that most of religion is fundamentally built on: the existence of God.
Then there are the more closely and fiercely debated issues. Pro-life of pro-choice? Embryonic stem cells used to save human lives or as the equivalent to human life? Evolution, creationism or intelligent design?
I’ll have to get back to you on those…
Comments
Scarlet
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 7:09 p.m.
Thanks for the high school biology lesson. However on the english front, as Tom Wilkinson said earlier, none of the words you capitalized are pronouns. Also your argument for the existence of a "Supernatural Source" is based off a 9th grade biology textbook? For real?
Forever27
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 10:48 a.m.
@Ahmed, generally religions just recycle old stories from previously established religions; just with new characters and twists. An example off the top of my head is the Immaculate Conception. The Roman God Mars (coincidentally, adopted from the Greek god Ares) was conceived when the mother (Juno) was touched by a magic plant. There are myriad examples of parallel stories that surface in different religions.
kmgeb2000
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 8:43 a.m.
@ChelseaBob: Too bad carbon dating has little to do with developing the age of the earth as the usable age limit for this tool is 58,000 to 62,000 years. A variety of radiological dating method are used, such as Potassium-40 and lead-lead decay pocesses. Michigan is "home" to a rock formation known as the Kona Dolomite which is over 2 billions years old. But that's not the only cool part, as it also has evidence of algal layers being over 2 billion years old.
Tom Wilkinson
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 5:32 a.m.
First off REBBAPRAGADA, capitalizing words like Energy and Substance do not automatically invest them with special significance. Both science and religion may assert any hypotheses without apologizing for the origin. Karl Popper distinguished between discovery and validation. Scientists may have dreams in which they develop some insight into the physical world. They do not have to justify this, but they must then move on to the validation phase where hypotheses are tested. I understand that no theory can be 'proven', only falsified, but scientists continue to strengthen their validations through experimentation. Religionists also assert hypotheses but somehow think that empirical validation is unnecessary; revelation is a legitimate path to truth and faith will suffice. The difficulty with this that this mental process is used to arrive at contradictory positions. The saints believe that the gods have informed them to be compassionate; the religious terrorists believe that the gods have told them to commit mass murder. Both have an equal claim to the 'truth', but it seems that faith and revelation are not reliable paths to any stable or consistent truth.
ChelseaBob
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 5:29 a.m.
Carbon dating is no longer a good tool to "prove" the age of the earth. Recently, scientists have discovered that decay of carbon is not consistent and can be dramatically affected by sunspot activity. This highlights the fact that carbon dating itself is simply a theory. (The scientific method demands a theory be proven by recreating experiments. It is not possible for us to observe carbon decay over 10 million years). We do not know how old the earth is. The 6000 years postulated by some religionists is their best guess based on their interpretation of religious texts. Neither side of that debate should build too much upon guesses and theories.
Ahmed Chaudhry
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 5:32 p.m.
@atnaap: I don't know if scientists necessarily have the duty to fight those people tooth and nail. I believe that the only responsibilities scientists have is to perpetually search for the truth and let the evidence become overwhelming enough to do the talking. @forever27: Would you agree that usually when future "evidence" surfaces for religion, a newer religion tends to pop up just as theories do in science? I put "evidence" in quotes because obviously it is not nearly the same as scientific evidence, just the religious equivalent. I only ask because I believe there definitely are some similarities. I do like most of what you both had to say however; very good points
Forever27
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 10:05 a.m.
The most glaring and most important difference between religion and science is the process by which people arrive at their conclusions. Religion makes a claim and assumes it to be true until proven false. Science makes a claim and assumes it is false until all experimentation that can be done is done. Also, if future evidence surfaces, science is willing/able to change and adapt to it without the collapse of the foundation for the entire field.
theodynus
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 8:50 a.m.
Faith in the supernatural is beyond the reach of science. Science, which is a method for evaluating hypotheses, has nothing to say about untestable claims. It is agnostic. Science and religion get along just fine when religious people refrain from making claims about the physical world. There's no irony in Buddhist, Muslim, Christian or Zoroastrian scientists. Unfortunately, the religious are constantly making testable claims (creationism, Noah's flood, the age of the earth, etc). Their claims have been consistently rejected by scientific testing. The theory of evolution is just as well established as the theory of gravity. Yet religious fundamentalists lobby politicians to set policy based on false claims. Scientists have a duty to fight these people tooth and nail. I think you're confusing science and skepticism. Science is a method. Skepticism is a philosophy and has plenty to say about having blind faith in the supernatural. That many scientists are skepticsand few religious people areis part of the reason science and religion are often considered incompatible.