Science and Religion

Is science in conflict with religion? When religion expects unquestioning faith, there is a natural conflict. If religious ideas are open to testing, there is no conflict. Also, religion deals with realms of desire and inner experience that are outside of the scope of science.

Science and religion each have their bases in different experiential territories. Science is based on publicly accessible experience. Religion is based on inner experience. If science says that its methods do not apply beyond publicly accessible experience and religion says any revelations it has about publicly accessible experience should be open to the same kind of testing that scientific claims are, where is the conflict?

There are differences, of course. Science is more rigorously tested. Religion is more open to interpretation and there is a lot more variability in approach. Science can usually achieve wide consensus within the community of research once a theory has been sufficiently tested. Religion has many different “communities of research” using different methods. Therefore, individual choice and mutual tolerance is much more of an issue.

This will be made easier as religions give up unsupportable claims to unique authority and legitimacy. At the same time science needs to recognize that it has deliberately limited its scope to those experiences that can best be subjected to its methods. Beyond this, there are still whole realms of knowledge that are a part of human experience. It is true that they are less testable and definite than science, but they are still part of life. Religion explores some of these regions.

Religion also gives a whole pattern to life of which science can be a part. Religions include ethics, stories, songs, art, community life, and many other areas within their practice. They supply more of a complete picture of life. Religion can embrace science as one of our great human treasures once it is properly understood not to be a real threat to religion.

Science has already recognized that there are many areas beyond its scope, history, journalism, everyday problem solving, art, art criticism, craftsmanship, ethics, personal experience, parties, games, fun, love. Science can study some of these, but it cannot subsume them. Surely some of these are part of how we know the world. Religion is one of these different ways of knowing the world.

Part of the problem is a universalizing attitude on the part of advocates of both science and religion, but this attitude is not necessary to the functioning of either science or religion. It is like saying that the only real people are those in my group. Anyone on the outside must be less than human. We have long ago found that a live and let live attitude will get us much farther.

A counter argument to this play friendly approach to science and religion is that God knows best what He has created and therefore if He says something in His holy book, then science will just have to accept its authority. Science is only tentative. It has had to change its theories in the past. Eventually even the scientists will have to see that God is right and they are wrong.

But scientists are more than willing to admit that their theories may need revision based on future experience. Their theories are presented as the best view they have at this time. But defenders of religion who insist on the correctness of their theories will not admit that they may be taking creation stories from pre-scientific cultures as fact just on authority. Religion does not need to be in conflict with science, but arguments from authority invite such a conflict.

Suppose that the sacred scriptures are not books that come from a particular cultural setting and that they are not human interpretations of inner experiences. Suppose that they are direct words from God. Could it not be that we are misunderstanding them? Could it be that the text could have a different meaning? How do we know we have the right one? And didn’t God also create the human mind as a way to search out the secrets of nature?

There is a confusion about authority. Authority is a social concept. It has to do with who can make certain decisions. But much of our experience just happens. We can’t decide for it to not be that way. None of us has authority over whether the force of gravity pulls objects toward each other. It is just part of the pattern of our experience. There can be authority about whether texts can be changed and about what it means to be a part of a religious community but not about the basic structure of the universe. It is what it is.

So some of this is an argument about what people should be allowed to say. Religious people who insist on the authority of their text are in effect saying that we are not allowed to question the text. Furthermore, we cannot claim truth for texts that contradict this text. To question this text undermines the social structure of their religion, and they cannot tolerate that. It also calls into doubt the hopes that they have based on that text. It comes back to the problem of universalizing. If they could accept that their hopes could still be there even if they were to admit that their holy book contains some ideas that no longer apply or that apply in a different way than they originally understood, they could avoid this problem. For example, creation stories from all cultures can be very interesting and can have very deep inner significance. They do not have to be treated as scientific texts. There are many different kinds of texts with many different purposes.

Science and religion do not have to be in conflict if extremists on both sides will just back off. Each side needs to recognize their own human limits and to respect the territory of the other. Science has legitimate claims to being the best source of the well tested, coherent theories that cover the realm of publicly accessible experience. Religion has legitimate claims to opening up realms beyond science, the inner realms, the ethical, holistic patterns of life that can include science as one of their many treasures.