Essay on Science and Religion
Science and Religion: Is There a Conflict?
(My Note: This is the entry that I submitted to the Essay Writing Contest sponsored by the Science & Religion Study Group of DLSU-Manila. If you would excuse a moment of minor self-congratulation, it has won me the 2nd prize in the said contest and made me 8000 pesos richer. Reading it again after 7 or 8 months, I should say that my views on certain, minor details have changed, but not on the general thesis. I should also acknowledge an embarrassing and shameful mistake I discovered about my essay. This is regarding my statement about Newton "...using the scientific method to investigate the apple's fall from a tree..." I shall correct this in another blog - in a way to show my respect and apology to one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians in history.)
It is but a noble pursuit for man to try to understand something as vast as the concept of reality. Like pebbles on the ocean, humans appear to be too minute to even fathom the depth and breadth of such an encompassing concept. Throughout history, people have tried in their own ways to contribute to the knowledge. Some claimed to have understood reality in its entirety, or at least have given an overall description of it. Others attempted modify the prevalent beliefs and bodies of knowledge. Looking at the bigger picture, this pursuit makes humans seem like pebbles and big rocks trying to cover the volume of the ocean of reality.
While it has continued for centuries and across people of different races and intellect, the journey seems to be far from over. No unifying model has been agreed upon by a recognized authority and an overwhelming majority. In fact, despite the notion that more knowledge is available, the questions surrounding the topic have not gone down in number and have even increased.
But what is equally remarkable is that humans have discovered disciplines which they can subscribe to in ascertaining reality. Two of the most influential and controversial among these disciplines are science and religion. Newton used the scientific method to investigate the apple’s fall from a tree and came up with the law of gravity. Christ exemplified the virtue of brotherly love and taught the way to spiritual salvation. The biology teacher explains that genes determine the individual’s hair color, facial features, etc. The pastor/priest tells us that man finds his purpose in life through the Higher Being.
(In discussing about religion, the focus is primarily on Christian tradition, teachings, and history in which encounters with science are more extensive. Surely, other world religions like Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism can find applicable, albeit essentially different, concepts that Christianity pertains to.)
Across the Timeline
While both systems are used to give us a better understanding of reality, history tells us that proponents of science and religion have not always been in total agreement with each other. Acknowledged authorities in the Church have clashed with those who have made scientific claims that appear to contradict the sacred teachings. One of the most prominent cases was the controversy sparked by Galileo in the 1600’s. Galileo supported the Copernican theory of a heliocentric system. This runs contrary to the structure of the planetary system as implied in Joshua 10:12-13 and Habakkuk 3:11 (NIV)*. When Charles Darwin put forth his theory of evolution, it elicited a controversy that led people to draw a line between science and religion. They contended that a person must choose one over the other since the two are irreconcilable. Either man was created on the sixth day of creation or millions of years after the Cambrian explosion. The Bible should be taken literally or you undermine its authority. The universe existed either because of a God or by chance.
This apparent conflict would go on and continue in the modern times. It would find its way in courts discussing whether evolution should be taught in school (Rothschild, 2005). Carl Sagan (1980), on the other hand, alluded to the irrelevance of the Christian religion since the physical universe, or the cosmos, is all there is. The scientific method, therefore, suffices.
Treading on a Single Territory?
Why then do the proponents of both sides find themselves in conflict with each other? Is it because of the inherent incompatibility of the two systems? Does it lie on the interpretation of data available to man? Is there a demarcation line that separates the two to make them exist independently of each other? Or can religion and science relate with each other in some other way?
A careful review of the events that transpired in history as well as the main thrusts of both science and religion should help provide answers to the aforementioned questions.
It should be noted that people have now settled that indeed the heliocentric system of Galileo applies to the earth and other planets. While some people continue to occupy opposite sides of the pole, others have agreed that evolution and creation are reconcilable with both accounts having different thrusts. Other issues like a rounded or flat earth have been resolved by an overwhelming majority and empirical evidence.
Reality and the Thrusts of Science and Religion
The concept of reality that is pertained to at the beginning of this essay refers to everything that is, independent of any system. It accounts for anything that is objective or subjective, even the counter-factual. Computers, books, photons, beauty and loyalty are all part of reality. They may exist as observable data, perceptible qualities or as anything that functions in nature. A broadest definition of reality allows both science and religion the freedom to carry out their queries.
How then does science deal with reality? It explains the processes that make up reality, particularly the physical/material aspect of it – nature. As a discipline, science deals with observable and verifiable data. It ventures on the “how” questions. Science carries out its queries by conducting experiments. Conclusions are based on logical coherence, theoretical bases, and empirical test results.
On the other hand, religion explains the meaning of the inner self and its relationship with the rest of reality. Its focus is on abstract qualities like beauty, trust, love, etc. Religion primarily answers the “why” questions which are associated with purpose and meaning. Religion carries out its queries by seeking personal experiences that are expected to elevate one’s quality of living.
Rise of the Apparent Conflict
Based on the above definitions, science and religion cover different aspects of reality. Conflict arises when the religious makes scientific claims or when the scientist makes religious claims. The geocentric planetary system believer made the mistake of asserting a scientifically investigable claim, though it may not have appeared to be so at that time. The fault lies in relying on Scripture to explain the process by which the planetary system works. One factor that contributes to the danger of scientific interpretation of data in Scripture is the phenomenological style of writings by the authors. Given the limited scientific knowledge at that time, authors were inclined to describe things as they appeared from their personal viewpoint. Hence, the sun rises and the sun sets. It may also have been a matter of convention. Today, people still refer to the sun setting and rising without feeling anxious about the falsehood of the terms in a scientific sense. The atheist who claims that evolution throws God completely out of the picture with regards to the apparently intelligent design that is distinctly in nature relies on the scientific method to disprove a notion that is accepted to be transcendent even in the realm of religion. How could the concept of God be proven scientifically if science as a discipline is limited to the observable and verifiable? How is the notion of God disproved anyway when proving and disproving invokes the faculty of reason but seldom the faculty of faith?
Embarking on the single concept of reality but with different thrusts, science and religion should not contradict each other. Reality, per se, cannot contradict itself. At most, the presence of conflict demonstrates the limitations of the human being or the discipline employed, even the potential for assimilation. Humans err in interpreting data or making sweeping generalizations. The disciplines themselves are limited when they make exceptions to their input data.
Synthesis
For humans, as in other beings, reality is experienced through and within life. We experience our lives not in terms of the objective or the subjective. Instead, we live it in its entirety. As Ian Barbour (2000) mentions, “…we experience it in wholeness and interconnectedness before we develop particular disciplines to study different aspects of it.”
Experiencing life in its fullness provides a potential for partnership between science and religion. Ted Peters (1998) argues about the cost of avoiding warfare between the two disciplines by compartmentalizing them; science and religion “…would have to speak past one another on the assumption that shared understanding is impossible.” An opposite approach provides a better method of treating the two disciplines for what they are: two models that seek to understand, and therefore aid in unifying, the concept of reality. Science and religion, though with different thrusts, can gain a shared understanding of the overall picture that they seek to understand.
When my neighbor tells me about her pet dog, she can talk of such terms like the dog being a poodle, one-foot tall, and ten kilograms heavy. She can also say that the dog is her best friend, favorite pet and loyal companion. On the first instance, she talks of things that can be verified objectively; on the latter, she talks about her relationship and experience with the dog. Assimilating both accounts gives me a better picture in viewing the dog than I would otherwise have if I chose one over the other. This model can likewise be subscribed to how we should look at reality and relate the two disciplines with each other.
In life, we experience reality. And in reality, there is the synthesis of the objective and the subjective. It has no single direct source. Systems have been developed to study its different facets. The faculty of observation/reasoning and the faculty of faith are only two of the tools that we use to gain a better understanding of life and reality. Reality itself may never be fully understood. Man may be so limited by his capacity for knowledge, mortality, or possibly arrogance. His best bet is a synthesis of the disciplines that have been developed for the very purpose of helping him live life.
Implications and Application
How then should one behave when faced with an apparent conflict on the two disciplines? It is helpful to go back to their very definitions. The definitions by themselves make the reader more aware of the purposes of both science and religion. One helps us understand the details and processes; the other helps us understand an overall meaning and context.
Regarding the topic of evolution, some acknowledged authorities are still arguing and people are still questioning. While others have reached common understanding, this debate will continue to spark conflicts for as long as people refuse to acknowledge valid sources of truth other than those which they accept.
It should be noted that either side of religion and science has issues on its own. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle indicates that objectivity is lost at a certain level. The Church has had her share of problems with the Galileos and the Darwins of the scientific community. Perhaps, the scientific method is useful to its purpose only to a certain extent. The way of life that religion has taught us in history may not be always applicable in modern times. Ultimately, the person may be left to judge how to fill the gaps.
In light of the issues that are yet to be solved, it is equally helpful to employ the attitude of humility and open-mindedness. History tells us how conflicts arose when people claimed authority on domains they did not occupy. The present shows us that careful understanding of both sides can make way for synthesis. The future entices us with the prospect of scientists and religious leaders working together to gain common understanding via interdisciplinary approach to reality.
Conclusion
Finally, in this quest to comprehend reality, man has found two tools to help him. Now, not only does man embark on a journey that is as great and cosmic, he has also found ways on how to make his life better and his journey worthwhile. Man may be like pebbles in the ocean of reality, but never can he be the worth of even a million pebbles. Science and religion are two systems that have made him a dignified being.
It is but a noble pursuit for man to try to understand something as vast as the concept of reality. Like pebbles on the ocean, humans appear to be too minute to even fathom the depth and breadth of such an encompassing concept. Throughout history, people have tried in their own ways to contribute to the knowledge. Some claimed to have understood reality in its entirety, or at least have given an overall description of it. Others attempted modify the prevalent beliefs and bodies of knowledge. Looking at the bigger picture, this pursuit makes humans seem like pebbles and big rocks trying to cover the volume of the ocean of reality.
While it has continued for centuries and across people of different races and intellect, the journey seems to be far from over. No unifying model has been agreed upon by a recognized authority and an overwhelming majority. In fact, despite the notion that more knowledge is available, the questions surrounding the topic have not gone down in number and have even increased.
But what is equally remarkable is that humans have discovered disciplines which they can subscribe to in ascertaining reality. Two of the most influential and controversial among these disciplines are science and religion. Newton used the scientific method to investigate the apple’s fall from a tree and came up with the law of gravity. Christ exemplified the virtue of brotherly love and taught the way to spiritual salvation. The biology teacher explains that genes determine the individual’s hair color, facial features, etc. The pastor/priest tells us that man finds his purpose in life through the Higher Being.
(In discussing about religion, the focus is primarily on Christian tradition, teachings, and history in which encounters with science are more extensive. Surely, other world religions like Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism can find applicable, albeit essentially different, concepts that Christianity pertains to.)
Across the Timeline
While both systems are used to give us a better understanding of reality, history tells us that proponents of science and religion have not always been in total agreement with each other. Acknowledged authorities in the Church have clashed with those who have made scientific claims that appear to contradict the sacred teachings. One of the most prominent cases was the controversy sparked by Galileo in the 1600’s. Galileo supported the Copernican theory of a heliocentric system. This runs contrary to the structure of the planetary system as implied in Joshua 10:12-13 and Habakkuk 3:11 (NIV)*. When Charles Darwin put forth his theory of evolution, it elicited a controversy that led people to draw a line between science and religion. They contended that a person must choose one over the other since the two are irreconcilable. Either man was created on the sixth day of creation or millions of years after the Cambrian explosion. The Bible should be taken literally or you undermine its authority. The universe existed either because of a God or by chance.
This apparent conflict would go on and continue in the modern times. It would find its way in courts discussing whether evolution should be taught in school (Rothschild, 2005). Carl Sagan (1980), on the other hand, alluded to the irrelevance of the Christian religion since the physical universe, or the cosmos, is all there is. The scientific method, therefore, suffices.
Treading on a Single Territory?
Why then do the proponents of both sides find themselves in conflict with each other? Is it because of the inherent incompatibility of the two systems? Does it lie on the interpretation of data available to man? Is there a demarcation line that separates the two to make them exist independently of each other? Or can religion and science relate with each other in some other way?
A careful review of the events that transpired in history as well as the main thrusts of both science and religion should help provide answers to the aforementioned questions.
It should be noted that people have now settled that indeed the heliocentric system of Galileo applies to the earth and other planets. While some people continue to occupy opposite sides of the pole, others have agreed that evolution and creation are reconcilable with both accounts having different thrusts. Other issues like a rounded or flat earth have been resolved by an overwhelming majority and empirical evidence.
Reality and the Thrusts of Science and Religion
The concept of reality that is pertained to at the beginning of this essay refers to everything that is, independent of any system. It accounts for anything that is objective or subjective, even the counter-factual. Computers, books, photons, beauty and loyalty are all part of reality. They may exist as observable data, perceptible qualities or as anything that functions in nature. A broadest definition of reality allows both science and religion the freedom to carry out their queries.
How then does science deal with reality? It explains the processes that make up reality, particularly the physical/material aspect of it – nature. As a discipline, science deals with observable and verifiable data. It ventures on the “how” questions. Science carries out its queries by conducting experiments. Conclusions are based on logical coherence, theoretical bases, and empirical test results.
On the other hand, religion explains the meaning of the inner self and its relationship with the rest of reality. Its focus is on abstract qualities like beauty, trust, love, etc. Religion primarily answers the “why” questions which are associated with purpose and meaning. Religion carries out its queries by seeking personal experiences that are expected to elevate one’s quality of living.
Rise of the Apparent Conflict
Based on the above definitions, science and religion cover different aspects of reality. Conflict arises when the religious makes scientific claims or when the scientist makes religious claims. The geocentric planetary system believer made the mistake of asserting a scientifically investigable claim, though it may not have appeared to be so at that time. The fault lies in relying on Scripture to explain the process by which the planetary system works. One factor that contributes to the danger of scientific interpretation of data in Scripture is the phenomenological style of writings by the authors. Given the limited scientific knowledge at that time, authors were inclined to describe things as they appeared from their personal viewpoint. Hence, the sun rises and the sun sets. It may also have been a matter of convention. Today, people still refer to the sun setting and rising without feeling anxious about the falsehood of the terms in a scientific sense. The atheist who claims that evolution throws God completely out of the picture with regards to the apparently intelligent design that is distinctly in nature relies on the scientific method to disprove a notion that is accepted to be transcendent even in the realm of religion. How could the concept of God be proven scientifically if science as a discipline is limited to the observable and verifiable? How is the notion of God disproved anyway when proving and disproving invokes the faculty of reason but seldom the faculty of faith?
Embarking on the single concept of reality but with different thrusts, science and religion should not contradict each other. Reality, per se, cannot contradict itself. At most, the presence of conflict demonstrates the limitations of the human being or the discipline employed, even the potential for assimilation. Humans err in interpreting data or making sweeping generalizations. The disciplines themselves are limited when they make exceptions to their input data.
Synthesis
For humans, as in other beings, reality is experienced through and within life. We experience our lives not in terms of the objective or the subjective. Instead, we live it in its entirety. As Ian Barbour (2000) mentions, “…we experience it in wholeness and interconnectedness before we develop particular disciplines to study different aspects of it.”
Experiencing life in its fullness provides a potential for partnership between science and religion. Ted Peters (1998) argues about the cost of avoiding warfare between the two disciplines by compartmentalizing them; science and religion “…would have to speak past one another on the assumption that shared understanding is impossible.” An opposite approach provides a better method of treating the two disciplines for what they are: two models that seek to understand, and therefore aid in unifying, the concept of reality. Science and religion, though with different thrusts, can gain a shared understanding of the overall picture that they seek to understand.
When my neighbor tells me about her pet dog, she can talk of such terms like the dog being a poodle, one-foot tall, and ten kilograms heavy. She can also say that the dog is her best friend, favorite pet and loyal companion. On the first instance, she talks of things that can be verified objectively; on the latter, she talks about her relationship and experience with the dog. Assimilating both accounts gives me a better picture in viewing the dog than I would otherwise have if I chose one over the other. This model can likewise be subscribed to how we should look at reality and relate the two disciplines with each other.
In life, we experience reality. And in reality, there is the synthesis of the objective and the subjective. It has no single direct source. Systems have been developed to study its different facets. The faculty of observation/reasoning and the faculty of faith are only two of the tools that we use to gain a better understanding of life and reality. Reality itself may never be fully understood. Man may be so limited by his capacity for knowledge, mortality, or possibly arrogance. His best bet is a synthesis of the disciplines that have been developed for the very purpose of helping him live life.
Implications and Application
How then should one behave when faced with an apparent conflict on the two disciplines? It is helpful to go back to their very definitions. The definitions by themselves make the reader more aware of the purposes of both science and religion. One helps us understand the details and processes; the other helps us understand an overall meaning and context.
Regarding the topic of evolution, some acknowledged authorities are still arguing and people are still questioning. While others have reached common understanding, this debate will continue to spark conflicts for as long as people refuse to acknowledge valid sources of truth other than those which they accept.
It should be noted that either side of religion and science has issues on its own. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle indicates that objectivity is lost at a certain level. The Church has had her share of problems with the Galileos and the Darwins of the scientific community. Perhaps, the scientific method is useful to its purpose only to a certain extent. The way of life that religion has taught us in history may not be always applicable in modern times. Ultimately, the person may be left to judge how to fill the gaps.
In light of the issues that are yet to be solved, it is equally helpful to employ the attitude of humility and open-mindedness. History tells us how conflicts arose when people claimed authority on domains they did not occupy. The present shows us that careful understanding of both sides can make way for synthesis. The future entices us with the prospect of scientists and religious leaders working together to gain common understanding via interdisciplinary approach to reality.
Conclusion
Finally, in this quest to comprehend reality, man has found two tools to help him. Now, not only does man embark on a journey that is as great and cosmic, he has also found ways on how to make his life better and his journey worthwhile. Man may be like pebbles in the ocean of reality, but never can he be the worth of even a million pebbles. Science and religion are two systems that have made him a dignified being.
References:
Barbour, Ian (2000). When science meets religion. New York: Ian Barbour.
Peters, Ted (1998). Science and theology. Colorado: Westview Press
Rothschild, Scott (2005). Evolution court in session. At http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/may/06/evolution_court_in/ (accessed: November 30, 2005).
Sagan, Carl (1980). Cosmos. New York: Random House.
*Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version (1978). International Bible Society.
posted by Rom
0 Comments
permanent link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home