Difference Between Science And Religion Essays

This fall, PBS will broadcast ''Faith and Reason,'' a documentary written and narrated by Margaret Wertheim and partly financed with $190,000 from the Templeton Foundation, featuring interviews with scientists about God. In the last two years, a steady stream of books has appeared with titles like ''Cybergrace: The Search for God in the Digital World'' and ''God & the Big Bang: Discovering Harmony Between Science & Spirituality.''

The Conference

A Universe With Purpose

The Templeton Foundation also gave the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences $1.4 million for a heavily promoted conference called ''Science and the Spiritual Quest,'' held this month in Berkeley, Calif. For four days scientists, most of them Christians, Jews or Muslims, testified about their efforts to resolve their own conflicts over science and religion. All seemed to share the conviction that this is a purposeful universe, that there is a reason to be here.

''Theology is not some airy-fairy form of metaphysical speculation,'' said John C. Polkinghorne, a Cambridge University particle physicist turned Anglican priest whose books include ''Quarks, Chaos & Christianity'' and the newly published ''Belief in God in an Age of Science.'' Like science, he said, religion is rooted in encounters with reality -- though in the latter case these include spiritual revelations whose truths lie in the unreachable realm of the subjective. The pervading question was whether this kind of experience could ever be studied scientifically.

For most of the century people have espoused the view that science and religion should be kept apart to avoid the inevitable combustions. But to logical minds it has always been troubling that two opposing ways could exist to explain the same universe. Science and religion spring from the human obsession to find order in the world. But surely there can be only one true explanation for reality. Life was either created or it evolved. Prayer is either communication with God or a psychological salve. The universe is either pervaded by spiritual forces or ruled by nothing but physical laws.

One way out of the dilemma has been to embrace a kind of deism: The Almighty created the universe according to certain specifications and then left it to run on its own. ''God'' becomes a metaphor for the laws that science tries to uncover.

Or religion can be explained away scientifically. ''There is a hereditary selective advantage to membership in a powerful group united by devout belief and purpose,'' Dr. Wilson wrote in ''Consilience.'' He warned against letting this genetically ingrained drive overpower the intellect. ''If history and science have taught us anything, it is that passion and desire are not the same as truth. The human mind evolved to believe in the gods. It did not evolve to believe in biology.'' It is important not to confuse the universe as it is with the universe as we wish it would be.

The Theories

Limits of Science Can Lead to Religion

For many researchers, the whole point of science is to replace religious teachings with verifiable theories, and to pretend otherwise is self-delusion. ''We're working on building up a complete picture of the universe, which, if we succeed, will be a complete understanding of the universe and everything that's in it,'' Richard Dawkins, a University of Oxford biologist, said in a preview copy of ''Faith and Reason.'' He found it baffling that some of his colleagues struggle to keep God in the picture. ''I don't understand why they waste their time going into this other stuff, which never has added anything to the storehouse of human wisdom,'' he said, ''and I don't see that it ever will.''

But others, like the cosmologist Allan Sandage, have found that their search for objective truth has led them to questions that science cannot answer. ''The most amazing thing to me is existence itself,'' Dr. Sandage said at the Berkeley conference. ''Why is there something instead of nothing?'' This impenetrable mystery, he said, drove him to become a believer. ''How is it that inanimate matter can organize itself to contemplate itself? That's outside of any science I know.''

Science, like religion, is ultimately built on a platform of beliefs and assumptions. No one can prove that the universe is mathematical or that the same laws that seem to hold in the here and now can be applied to the distant quasars or to the first moments of time. These are among the tenets of the faith, marking the point at which reasoning can begin. ''Science is not able to question these issues,'' George Ellis, a professor of applied mathematics at the University of Capetown and a Quaker, said at the conference. ''It takes them for granted as its bedrock.''

It is not just the coincidence of the approaching millennium that is inspiring hopes for what would be the grandest of unified theories. Faced with science's success in modeling the world, people find it harder to accept religious teachings that cannot be verified. Many Christians were disturbed when radiocarbon dating suggested that the Shroud of Turin was not Jesus's burial cloth but a medieval forgery, and they hope that new scientific data, not religious fiat, will overturn the old research. Even the creationists realized long ago that they can't sway the opposition simply by asserting that their beliefs are true because they are written in the Bible. They proffer scientific proof -- pseudoscientific, those outside the faith would say -- that life and the universe were created as described in Genesis.

But science, too, is feeling its limits, leaving a vacuum that religion is happy to rush into. Neuroscientists can explain the brain, on a rough level, as networks of communicating cells called neurons. But it is hard to imagine a satisfying theory of the conscious experience -- what it is like to be alive. And no amount of theorizing is apt to converge on a persuasive explanation of where the mathematical laws are written or what happened before the Big Bang. For all its powers to observe and reason, the mind ultimately encounters chasms. Then the only choice is to retreat or take the great leap and choose what to believe.

The Money

Dollars Fuel Effort To Put God in Science

For all the genuine philosophical longings, the recent drive to put God back in science would not be nearly so intense without the millions of Templeton dollars looking for places to land. ''We are searching for a serious rapprochement between science and religion,'' Charles Harper, the executive director and vice president of the Templeton Foundation, said at the beginning of the Berkeley conference.

The money and the inspiration come from the investor John Marks Templeton, founder of the Templeton Growth Fund and other ventures, who retired in 1992 to work full time on his philanthropy. The most prominent of Sir John's endeavors (he was knighted in 1987) is the annual Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, guaranteed to exceed the Nobel Prizes in monetary value. (Mr. Templeton thought Alfred Nobel snubbed spirituality.) Early winners of the Templeton award, first given in 1973, were usually religious leaders like Mother Teresa and Billy Graham. More recently the prizes, now more than $1 million, have gone to the political scientist Michael Novak and the physicist and science writer Paul Davies.

The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley is receiving $12.6 million from Templeton to help develop science and religion programs at universities worldwide. The American Association for the Advancement of Science received $1.3 million ''to help establish a science and religion dialogue.''

Last year the foundation's announcement that it would award grants of $100,000 to $200,000 for a program in ''forgiveness studies'' sent behavioral scientists scrambling to write proposals. Among the work being funded are ''Forgiveness and Community: A Game-Theoretic Analysis,'' ''Assessment of Forgiveness: Psychometric, Interpersonal, and Psychophysiological Correlates'' and ''Does Forgiveness Enhance Brain Activation Associated With Empathy in Victims of Assault?''

Those who submitted proposals were asked to include a section about how their research would address the issues clarified in Mr. Templeton's books ''Discovering the Laws of Life'' and ''Worldwide Laws of Life: 200 Eternal Spiritual Principles.'' A major focus of the foundation is publishing some 20 works by and about Mr. Templeton and encouraging scientific research on what its literature describes as ''optimism, hope and personal control.''

The Discourse

Polite Talk, But No Passion

Judging from the conference, no amount of money is likely to succeed in blending science and religion into a common pursuit. A kind of Sunday school politeness pervaded the meeting, with none of the impassioned confrontations expected from such an emotionally charged subject. ''Many of the speakers have been preaching to the choir,'' Dr. Sandage complained. ''There are no atheists on the program, only strict believers.''

Many of the speakers avoided grappling with religion directly, content to ponder mysteries that have disturbed scientists for decades. The Stanford University cosmologist Andrei Linde speculated on the tantalizing possibility that consciousness, the very hallmark of humanity, could be an intrinsic part of the universe -- as fundamental to the warp and woof of creation as space and time. After all, he said, our subjective experience is the only thing each of us is really sure of. All else is speculation.

''Our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions,'' Dr. Linde argued. ''I know for sure that my pain exists, my 'green' exists, and my 'sweet' exists. I do not need any proof of their existence, because these events are a part of me; everything else is a theory.'' It is to explain the source of these perceptions that we posit the existence of an outside reality, forgetting that this is just a supposition.

The existence of a real world is another of the tenets of the scientific faith. It is impossible to proceed without it. But many scientists would find the view that consciousness is the root of everything to be hopelessly anthropomorphic and even solipsistic. The conference might also have booked prominent scientists, like Stephen Jay Gould, who argue that consciousness, as powerful as it necessarily seems to its holders, may be just an accident of evolution. Behind the face of consciousness, one can choose to find God. Or not. Without a decisive experiment, it is a matter of personal belief, not of science.

The astrophysicist John Barrow of the University of Sussex spoke of another longstanding mystery: the dazzling cosmological coincidences that make life possible. If certain physical constants had slightly different values, stars would not have formed to cook up the atoms that made the biological molecules. Since early in the century, some truth seekers have taken this sort of argument as a reason to believe that the universe was created with people in mind.

But one is also free to choose the opposite belief: that the coincidences simply show that life is indeed an incredible fluke.

It was hard to know what to make of some of the presentations. Mitchell Marcus, chairman of the computer science department at the University of Pennsylvania, speculated that the craft of artificial intelligence -- designing thinking computers -- is a modern realization of the school of Jewish mysticism based on the Kabala. According to this ancient teaching, it is not quarks and leptons but the first 10 numbers and the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet that are the true fundamental particles: the elements of the divine utterance that gave rise to creation. ''Computer scientists,'' he declared, ''are the Kabalists of today.'' The ancient rabbis are said to have used magical incantations to create beings called golems. The programmers create their simulated creatures with incantations of computer code.

The audience politely applauded after each presentation. But there was little sense of intellectual excitement, that people were coming to grips with the disturbing issue of whether there really is a God.

Most of the presentations consisted more simply of heartfelt testimonials about the difficulties of constantly being pulled by two powerfully conflicting attractions, the material and the spiritual, the known and the unknowable. And some of the speakers seemed to believe that, for all the efforts to bring them together, science and religion must inevitably go their separate ways. ''Would I do science differently if I weren't a Quaker?'' asked Jocelyn Bell Burnell, chairwoman of the physics department of the Open University in England and a Quaker. ''I don't think so.''

Dr. Sandage, the cosmologist, matter of factly put it like this: ''I don't go to a biology book to learn how to live. I don't go to the Bible to learn about science.''

As science continues to draw its picture of the physical world, each question it answers will inevitably raise more. So there will always be mysteries, the voids in human knowledge where religious awe can grow.

Continue reading the main story

I wrote the following piece in December of 1998 for LRN 131 class…
(in the interest of consistency, I’ve made a few edits before posting)

“One of the greatest tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war.” – Francis Collins

    For many decades now, there has been an ongoing debate about the differences between science and religion, and the issues that set them apart from one another. While many renowned scientists, philosophers and scholars have extensively contrasted the two schools of thought time and time again, there has been little discussion comparing the similarities they share. Yet, upon juxtaposing science and religion, there appear to be quite a few core beliefs held by both ideologies.

    To begin, both science and religion are based upon a never-ending search for a greater knowledge, wisdom and understanding of the universe. Most religions strongly emphasize the idea that seekers and scholars must obtain wisdom, understanding and knowledge of self, the earth, and also of the universe in order to become closer to and more familiar with Spirit (also known as “Consciousness”), and the Universal Creator of such. This is done using holy texts, nature symbology, traditions, and prophecy. Similarly, science emphasizes the idea that  researchers and scholars must identify, understand and unify all forms of knowledge and wisdom throughout the universe in order to become closer to Nature (also known as “reality”). This is done using textbooks, symbolism, hypothesis, and ideas. With all of this in mind, science and religion appear to operate as two independent schools of thought, with each being in possession of a library of useful information for humanity to sort through and process.

As expected, however, some do not completely agree with the idea that science and religion have similar goals, or that they even overlap, whatsoever. Many actually view the two areas of focus as mutually exclusive. As Bryan Appleyard put it, “science and religion are two completely different ways of understanding reality.” Some feel that religion deals with transcendental concepts, such as a Universal Creator, the Soul, Spirit and the Everlasting/Afterlife (concepts that can not be proven to exist by modern science), while science deals in substance. As stated by Francis Crick, the “majority” of neuro-scientists “believe that the idea of the soul is a myth.” However, there is an obvious problem with this somewhat dismissive over-generalization. Even if religion does deal solely with “the unseen” (which is not actually the case, as I will discuss, shortly), science does not deal solely in the material world. This belief contradicts two of the most important aspects of science: hypothesis and theory.

Carl Hempel made a very powerful argument for the existence of theoretical entities (entities that show strong signs of existing, but have never been physically observed). Generally, he said that if science were to study only things that can be observed, researchers would only have a limited range of understanding, and a limited account for why things happen. In Hempel’s view, by using theoretical entities in science, researchers are able to gain a much more comprehensive and exact account of the things happening in our world. It is easily observable that history tends to agree with Hempel. Science is wrought with examples wherein theoretical science alone forms the basis for a new science that is only later proven to exist using physical means. From Pasteur’s unseen pathogens, to Newton’s invisible gravitational force, to Einstein’s imperceptible photons, science thrives on ideas and possibilities.  In many cases, it is only upon theorizing about the existence of an invisible unknown that physical science is properly directed towards “discovering” it in our physical reality. Even some scientific instruments are created simply to confirm or deny the feasibility of a theory!

As for the claim that religion solely deals in transcendental matters, there is a mountain of historical evidence that completely contradicts this erroneous idea, as well. To begin, for thousands of years, Judaism  Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and many other faiths have practiced strict dietary laws on the basis of avoiding things  “unclean.” And, from the draining of blood from slaughtered animals, to the removal of fat in meat preparation, to the banning of pork, crustaceans, and red meat consumption, science long ago confirmed that all of these daily customs are, in fact, biologically-sound, healthier ways of living. Aside from this, many religions also practice strict hygienic laws in order to maintain “cleanliness,” or “purity.” From the careful separation of latrines during community planning, to the removal of bio-waste, to the quarantine of those with sores, or leaking fluids, to the quick burial of the dead, to the banning of adultery, incest, bestiality and sodomy, these traditions have proven themselves as effective methods for reducing the proliferation and spread of disease in ANY society, let alone a religious one.

With all of this elaboration upon the physical versus the invisible, it is also worth mentioning the fact that Einstein’s theories about the eleven dimensions of the universe place our physical reality within four dimensions, leaving science with seven invisible dimensions to speculate about, and hypothesize on. And, interestingly enough, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all base their entire religion and texts upon descriptions of  the seven levels of what they interchangeably call “the heavens,” “the invisible,” “the afterlife,” or “the everlasting.” This particular number pattern is too apparent to simply be dismissed as coincidence, and the connections between all of these events should be explored, not ignored…

Continuing on with the main point of this writing, another parallel that exists between science and religion is that both ideologies are based on faith. Religion, for one, is based on a faith in a Universal Creator, His law, and its authority over the universe, as well as everything within it. Science, on the other hand, is based on faith in the laws of the universe, and their authority over all of creation. The relationship between science, religion and faith can best be described by John F. Haught, who stated that “the disinterested desire to know, out of which science grows and flourishes, finds its deepest confirmation in a religious interpretation of the universe… Religion’s claim that the world is a finite, coherent, rational, ordered totality, grounded in the ultimate love and promise, provides a general vision of things that consistently nurtures the scientific quest for knowledge and liberates science from association with imprisoning ideologies… Science, to be more specific, cannot even get off the ground without rooting itself in a kind of a priori ‘faith’ that the universe is a rationally ordered totality of things.” In Haught’s terms, science could not function without grounding itself in the assumption that the world is measurable and understandable place; an assumption which religion also proposes. He took his reasoning even farther, claiming, “even the reductionist agenda of modern science is an oblique expression of fundamentally religious longing.” In his observations of science, Haught identified the use of a previously-formulated thought pattern, and he was certain that religion was responsible for this “borrowed” view.

For a historical outlook on the relationship between science and religion, look no further than the ancient civilizations of Sumer, Egypt, Aztec and Maya. These “cornerstones” of modern society, with their many intellectual advancements, each formed and grew using their very own hybridized scientific-governmental-religious systems of control, with the ruling caste on top serving as a form of “God Incarnate.” Using decree, these leaders of society hand-selected a small number of servants, who made up the priest caste, and served as the representatives of the Temple. These priests were to make sure that the Temple always remained full of grain, textiles, gold, jewels, and other valuables. Of course, these stores were meant solely for the enrichment of the lives of the ruling caste, the nobility caste, and the priest caste, by whatever means they saw fit. In these ancient times, priests were chosen based upon either their “noble blood,” or upon showing strong skills in mathematics /astronomy /medicine / law (interpretation), as these were the “invisible” talents (or “magic”) required to maintain authority over the masses. Upon taking title, priests would work hand-in-hand with the scribe caste in order to horde and control knowledge, bottle-necking information under the tyranny of a compartmentalized, hive-minded hierarchy, while enforcing a total food monopoly using information about celestial cycles and seasons, as well as advanced water irrigation techniques. These tools of control were used by the “elites” to collect tribute (taxes) from the masses, so as to parasitically keep themselves perpetually on top, while paying a soldier caste for protection from violent revolt by the masses against their corruption. When humanity traces back the roots of science, religion and even government, they all began as part of a single, gigantic entity of oppression, creating massive social imbalance using “hidden knowledge,” and an highly controlled “initiation-based” system of recruitment.

In another similarity between science and religion, each claims to be the “real” truth. And, once again, many purists and elitists view them as mutually exclusive. Scientific materialism, or scientism, for example, is based on the idea that scientific analysis is the only means of understanding what things really are. In Crick’s terms, “there is no need for any other kind of explanation than that provided by pure science, since there is no other kind of reality than the purely physical.” Many religious institutions also teach their followers a similar ideology. In Haught’s terms, “many Christians in the United States, and elsewhere, maintain that the Bible teaches the ‘true’ science and that secular science should be rejected if it does not correspond with the letters of the scripture.” Yet, objectively, both science and religion have independently revealed enough truths to give them each a degree of credence, while also treating them both to a healthy dose of skepticism.

In an interesting study of human behavior, it seems that stubborn-minded dogma and ideology is another thing that religion and science both share. The same way that blind adherence to religious faith often leads to religious dogma, the faith-based aspect of science also forms the basis of scientific dogma. And, while “religion” still dictates the terms of spiritual life for so many, science, in its own way, has become the self-proclaimed “religion of reason,” dictating the terms of reality for the world, and also steering the course of humanity.

Many keen-eyed readers can still make one strong argument against the thesis presented in this essay. While science attempts to obtain concrete evidence of theories through the formulation and testing of hypotheses, and the calculation of highly probable or deductive theories, religious institutions do nothing to provide any solid evidence of their claims of the existence of a Universal Creator, or its claims of an “Everlasting/Afterlife.” Many religious believers, of course, cite the testimonies contained within their ancient holy books, and those testimonies that they witness in worship, as their “proofs.” This is circular reasoning, of course, because that which is to be proven is being used as proof. Many, such as Karl Popper, have even gone as far as to claim that certain aspects of religion seem to be “beyond falsification.” On the other hand, the Hebrew “Ten Saying” (“commandments” is a misnomer) of the TaNaKh do, in fact, follow a logical, self-evident, self-balancing, set of voluntarysocio-political laws, classifiable as Natural Law because they represent a core portion of a long-standing natural order among social animals. Incidentally, these particular laws are very testable, with highly reproducible results when applied completely,within small groups of kindred beings. And, they are recognized by Judaism, Christianity and Islam as well, accounting for all three of humanity’s major religions.

While the original Hebrew “Law” does, in fact, show scientific merit, as it is either borrowed from, or pays homage to Natural Law, unlike most other core religious concepts – a great deal of scientific events have actually been tested and have been proven to be “very highly probable,” and “very highly reproducible.” And, this is because scientific theories typically involve the use of universal laws (laws that are invariable and therefore universally accepted) to fortify theories that have been concluded using either probabilistic, (achieved using high probability), or deductive-nomological, (achieved using deduction), explanations. Most likely alluding to these, Carl Sagan once stated, “one of the reasons for its success is that science has built-in, error-correcting machinery as its very heart.” However, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, “scientific books tend to ‘mask’ or cover up the squabbles and conflicts that underlie the evolution of scientific understanding. They give students the impression that scientific method is a straight-arrow way to the truth, whereas the actual history of science indicates that growth in knowledge is not nearly that direct.” In other words, we must always remember that science is not exact, with nothing considered completely true, but rather, only more and more highly probable. This, as described by Carl Hempel, is due to the fact that nothing in this world can be either completely proven or disproved. Meanwhile, much of the underlying rationale behind the scientific acceptance of “highly probable” laws and conclusions over concrete “fact” is due to our human inability to absolutely know the future. But, in leaving such an opening, science lends itself the ability to consistently progress towards future goals.

There are many parallels between science and religion, and little reason to place them completely at odds. Some historical evidence even indicates that science and religion may have possibly originated from a single source of knowledge that subsequently branched off, or that the two may actually represent distinct paths leading in the same general direction, while intertwining and intersecting at various points in the timeline of human culture. Viewing these two schools of thought as opposing ideologies represents the logical fallacy of the false paradigm. Those who “choose” to invest in either science or religion to the exclusion of the other only cheat themselves of some much-needed perspective, considering that the unknown is as vast as the Universe, itself!

Bibliography

1. Hempel, Carl G.; Philosophy of Natural Science; Prentice Hall, NJ; 1966.

2. Haught, John F.; Science and Religion: Is Religion Opposed to Science?; Paulist Press; 1995.

3. Sagan, Carl; The Demon-Haunted World: Science and Hope; Ballantine; 1996.

4. Haught, John F.; Science and Religion: Is Life Reducible to Chemistry?; Paulist Press; 1995.

Tagged comparing, crick, faith, haught, hempel, invisible, physical, religion, sagan, science. Bookmark the permalink.

0 thoughts on “Difference Between Science And Religion Essays

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *