A lot of discussions do not include a coherent meaning of what the terms religion and science stand for. Philosophers of science and Scientists themselves give a wide variety of definitions with great deal of similarities. For simplicity's sake I choose Karl Poppers definition: "A scientist, whether theorist or experimenter, puts forward statements, or system of statements, and tests them step by step. In the field of the empirical sciences, more particularly, he constructs hypotheses, or systems of theories, and tests them against experience by observation and experiment"[1]. Although he describes a scientist in this description; it captures roughly the scientific methodology. Religion however is more difficult to describe on account of the sheer variety of religious traditions. Religion can be understood as a subset of culture. Culture is the complete way of life shared by a people, community or nation. Elements of culture include:
- The cognitive: knowledge and beliefs
- The symbolic: verbal and non-verbal forms of communication
- The normative: values and behavioural expectations [2]
Religion can include all these elements. In fact, for many societies, cultural practices and values cannot be separated from religious ones. This is especially true for what orthopraxic religions such as orthodox Judaism and Islam. Such traditions place great emphasis on teaching modes of behaviour, regular practices and rituals.
Now if it is established that religion is a cultural phenomena then the comparison with the scientific enterprise is strange. The day to day business of science is purely a academic enterprise while religious traditions touch on the personal lives of people. Orthodox orthopraxic traditions however impact practically all areas of life. Although there are also normative values associated with the scientific method that respectable scientist and scientific institutions adhere to [3]. For the most part science is a academic discourse, that is, cultural norms are not required for its function. The relationship between science and religious beliefs become apparent where their discourse overlaps on the same topic. The cognitive part of religious played a tremendous influence on how pre-modern people viewed the world around them and the world beyond. The beliefs and doctrines of historical religions are pre-scientific, in other words, are not discovered through the scientific method. Many pre-date even the development of systematic philosophy. Later on, from the middle ages onwards, profession theologians tried to make fundamental doctrine live up to the scrutiny of rational discourse. These theologians and philosopher span many traditions including, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, Thomas Aquinas, Albert Magnus, Shankara, Nargarjuna etc. Much of this rationalization occur long after key doctrines of their faith became part of orthodoxy. So what we have here is a post-facto rationalization. This is not to undermine their efforts but it is a key difference with how scientific and even philosophic discourse takes place.
The relationship of science and religion is often talked about it terms of compatibility or hostility. I find both descriptions to be very simplistic. Religious institution did not always accepts scientific discovery but they were not always hostile. For example, contrary to popular opinions the European middle ages were a period of significant intellectual achievements between the 12th to 15th centuries [4]. Not to mention the great flowering of Arabic art and sciences in the Muslim work between the 9th to 14th centuries. The great variety of religious expressions can accommodate many propositions about nature and Man's place in it. The famous astronomer Galileo Galileo tried to support the heliocentric by a passage from the Book of Job (9:6)[5]
Nevertheless, there are fundamental differences between the scientific methodology and religious beliefs that make certain very difficult if not impossible to reconcile.
Nevertheless, there are fundamental differences between the scientific methodology and religious beliefs that make certain very difficult if not impossible to reconcile.
Notes
1. Karl Popper. A Logic of Scientific Discoveries, pg, 1 Taylor and Francis, 2005
2. Joanne Naiman. How Societies Work: Class, Power, and Change. 5th Edition, Fernwood Publishing 2012
3. Thomas Kuhn list a number of key values the scientific community share (or should) when evaluating theories: Accuracy, Consistency, Broad Scope, Simplicity, and Fruitfulness. This can be found in his essay: Thomas S. Kuhn, Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice, from The Essential Tension
University of Chicago Press, 1972. Retrieved from: http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~goguen/courses/268D/kuhn.html
4. For some of the intellectual achievements refer to Anthony Kenny's, Medieval Philosophy, Oxford University Press 2005. Part of the "A New History of Western Philosophy". Note that science and philosophy were intertwined and often refer to interchangeably before the 17th century.
5. Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, Translated by Stillman Drake. pg. 203, Anchor Book, 1957
