Definition of Science and Definition of Religion
The dichotomy between science and religion forces people to choose between simple positions in every decision. However, logic has proven that one cannot be a believer in science and religion at the same time. The question as to the validity of either religion or science has, therefore, taken center-stage in most debates. However, the truth of the matter may lie somewhere in between the two positions, in my opinion, and the validation of one may not necessarily invalidate the other automatically. Julian Huxley notes that evolutionary man has no room for the supernatural since he cannot take refuge in the arms of an invisible creator when he needs to plan for a future dominated by the new religion -science (notes). Einstein was also a keen observer of the links that exist between the two positions, and even wrote a book stipulating his views regarding the matter. In this paper, I will review and try to expound the views held by scientists and theologians regarding the definitions of science and religion.
As stated above, my position is that science is a field that seeks to understand the physical nature through the understanding of previous observers expressed in a way that we can know from our viewpoint. Religion is the viewpoint of the source of intelligence and, in my opinion, does not bother with the techniques used in creation but tries to explain the reasons behind it. From a purely analytical viewpoint, a scientist can find it very difficult to believe in religion. From a religious perspective, a believer has no means to prove that physical nature exists due to the reasons they propose. These paradoxes have, therefore, remained the biggest differentiators between believers in religion and scientists. Blind reliance on one explanation always mutually excludes all evidence to prove the definition of the other. Skeptics of this viewpoint, such as Richard Dawkins, however, maintain that evidence for the overlap between religion and science is shallow at best and illogical (notes). This paper will try to argue for the connection between the definitions offered by science and the explanations presented in religious sources such as the Bible.
The main idea is to relate science and religion and develop the viewpoint that “science dictates to religion” (notes). Science explains the origin of everything as a big bang that created the physical reality, and life evolved through a series of trial and error experiments by this natural environment. From this viewpoint, the scientific reason for the evolution of intelligence is unclear, whereas religion gives it in offers a plan without offering scientific proof. Faith, in its part, fails to provide any physical evidence for the claim that God created the earth and life. The chronology also varies from religion to religion, and none of these religions can offer any concrete proof of the claims. In other words, religion provides reasons for intelligence and rationale while asking for faith when the evidence is required. Science, on the other hand, offers succinct proofs for theories developed by scientists without providing satisfactory reasons for why things evolved the way they did. The viewpoint presented tries to bridge this gap by defining religion as the explanation for science and vice versa.
Albert Einstein, described as an unapologetically religious man, wrote that God could explain the harmony that exists in nature and describe why science can provide such elegant proofs fo things hypothesized by theorists (Einstein). This view is but a simplistic definition of the relationship that exists between science and religion. Although proving one position beyond doubt would be preferable for our human understanding of the physical nature and the reason for creation, likely, we may never fully understand these concepts. Religion would require scientific methods that can view the beginning of time (which is a paradox in itself). At the same time, scientists would have to accept faith as scientific proof if they are to validate the hypotheses proposed in religion (notes). This step would invalidate all other scientific theories since the introduction of faith as proof of something automatically refutes the hypothesis experimentally. Unless future scientists develop methods of observing history, scientifically, religion and science will always be at loggerheads on most facts.
The viewpoint expressed in this paper is not new to science, and various prominent philosophers and theorists have proposed different hypotheses that offer some forms of proof for this link. These theories include metaphysical philosophies on knowledge, while others such as positivism categorically blindside the religious viewpoint in favor of science (notes). Proponents, for my perspective, argue that the sacred texts present the physical reality as perceived by our natural senses, such as physical sight, while explaining the reasons why it appears that way. Science, however, seeks to understand the underlying mechanisms behind the physical reality to plan for future eventualities. As such, it is, therefore, highly unlikely that one may ever provide definite proof of the other, although this lack of evidence may in itself validate this viewpoint. Hopefully, advances in science will someday find mechanisms to link the two positions or disapprove one in favor of the other permanently. Scientists, however, have hypothesized that this task in itself can be said to be the root of intelligence. In my opinion, the proof may turn out to be even stranger that the views offered in this paper.
References