Is science and religion in conflict ?

Puanthanh Gangmei *

In my interactions with both atheists and religious geeks, I have been fed with many types of arguments, even this whimsical one - which comes first, science or religion? Mr. Atheist asserted that science was right there from the beginning of the universe, and Mr. Religion argued that it was God who created the universe.

Then Mr. Atheist countered by demanding a proof for God. And the endless debate goes on. The relationship between religion and science has been a subject of study since classical antiquity, addressed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others. Perspectives from different geographical regions, cultures and historical epochs are diverse, with some characterizing the relationship as one of conflict, others describing it as one of harmony, and others proposing little interaction.

There was a time when almost all scientists were theists. And that was also a time when almost all people at every level of society were theists. To publicly disavow the existence of God was, at best, to ensure ostracism and, at worst, to be forced to choose between death and renouncing the evidence compiled through a life’s worth of work.

Some says science and religion have had a long, rich history of conflict, most famously with the case of Galileo, who was found guilty of heresy for discovering one of the basic truths of our solar system. Likewise, Charles Darwin has been vilified for the last 150 years for discovering a fundamental concept that underlies all of biology and medicine and unifies all of the life sciences.

But is science and religion really in conflict? Some may not agree with that. So they bring up an analogy of a tray and a cup. The purpose of a cup and tray is to serve tea. Can a tray and a cup be in conflict? It cannot and can. A tray and a cup cannot be in conflict on their own unless it involves a person(s) to bash them up. That person, however, can serve the tea in a cup and then place it on a tray which may be more pleasing to the recipient though that very person can also serve tea without the other.

This simple analogy informs that worldviews or ideas cannot be in conflict on their own even the most contradicting. ones. It is human beings that hold on to those worldviews or ideas, and it’s up to them how they intend to use and present them. But the issue at hand isn’t one of beliefs or worldviews, which by definition is subjective and prone to intense biases.

Instead the issue is an episte-mological one: Can science and religion be reconciled, or are they contrasting concepts at their very core? Science and religion were mutually exclusive, the former dealing with the natural world and the latter with questions of a spiritual nature, and thus the two shouldn’t be in conflict.

Let me abruptly ask this simple question. Is there anyone who knows everything? I don’t think any sensible person in this world will claim to know everything. Can a theist tell us when God created the universe or can he or she point us to the place where God dwells?

On the other hand, it is also asinine to reject something outright just because we don’t have a concrete proof today. I don’t think all religious people think that their scripture contains all knowledge; they go to school and university and seek the help of medical science. Of course there are those wellness movement misguiding believers that God will heal them and that they don’t need medical assistance.

And there are those atheists who deny God because of the problem of evil or because theists have not yet presented them a convincing evidence for the existence of God. Today is everyone’s opportunity to know more and know the truth. Ultimately, there is no conflict between religion and science. The conflict is in the minds of the theists and atheists who desperately attempts to preserve his or her worldviews and vilify or destroy the other.

“Religion is self-preserving and science is self-correcting.” This statement is one of the trending topics in the current discussions especially in the social media. This is partly true and partly wrong on both sides. Yes, religion is self-preserving, however, it is also changing, reforming and correcting in the light of scientific breakthrough.

Scientific thinking is being inquisitive, skeptical, and taking nothing for granted. Prestige, fame, success are irrelevant. Perfect theories are irrelevant. The smallest piece of contradictory evidence can refute your grand unifying theory. And science encompasses all that. It is an emergent concept. And this is what is self-correcting.

Scientists, on the other hand, are not self-correcting. Some are more so than others but none are perfect. Scientists are people and thus inherently fallible. They are subject to ego, pride, greed, and all of life’s pressures, such as the need to pay a mortgage, feed their children, and having a career.

In the common vernacular “science” is often conflated with the scientific enterprise, the way scientists go about doing science. This involves all those human factors and more and, fair enough, it is anything but self-correcting. But to argue that this means science isn’t self-correcting is attacking a straw man because few people are seriously arguing that the scientific enterprise couldn’t be better. We should always strive to improve the way we do science because due to our human failings it will never be perfect. However, in this context we also shouldn’t forget how much we have already improved it.

Science aids scripture interpretation. I believe that scripture is an accurate representation of the truth. The problem is that humans are allowed to interpret it. Humans are not always truthful, knowledgeable, or wise. Those of faith have been known to get it wrong quite often. We want to know the truth., We want the best possible interpretation of scripture, and, science has proven over the years to aid in that pursuit.

A great example of this is the fact that the science/consensus' once believed that the earth was flat. Both secular and reli gious population believed this. When by mathematics it was eventually proved that the earth was spherical. The scriptural text that references a round earth was employed to support that, scientific understand. (Isaiah 40.22) It was science that taught, us that the world was round but scripture supported that , science, and therefore scripture was trusted all the more.

Many, would like to claim that science was wrong and religion was right in this case. That is a false interpretation of what actually happened. Instead both religious people and the general population/science were wrong. Up until this point religious people had misinterpreted that verse, and secular people had misinterpreted the natural world. Both were wrong. This is an-important point when we look at the current conflict. There are many cases when both the religious and the scientific community are wrong. However because of the nature of science, eventually science should lead to the truth.

My contention is that, ultimately, the existence of a deity is a question of science. Some may be surprised by this because they recognize that science is the systematic study of. phenomena in the natural world while religious belief deals; with the supernatural, or powers and entities outside the spectrum of what we would consider our natural reality.

As much as theists would choose to deny it, all of these are questions of science, because even if their deity is a productof a supernatural realm, possibly an alternate universe that we cannot detect or measure, once that entity begins to interact with our reality - our natural universe - then it becomes a question of science.

Science is not a static body of knowledge. It is a dynamic changing arrangement of understanding. Science wins when it removes bad interpretation of the natural world. Religion wins, when it carves away bad interpretation of scripture. There are times when religion can only do this with the help of science. Therefore, those who interpret scripture need sci- ence. It is by science that scriptural interpreters have a better understanding of the scriptures.

So, what’s the point? The point is that an accurate view of God and his creation requires both scripture, and science. If scientists are forced to come to religious viewpoints by their research, then we are doing our society a disservice. On the other hand, if religious people are mocked and ridiculed for coming to religious by way of science, then science is also doing society a disservice.