| Science and Religion |
| Ever since Darwin published On the Origin of Species there has been a conflict between the scientific and religious communities. One side always seems to claim that the other fails to explain everything in a satisfactory matter. At first glance, it would seem that there is merit to this problem. After all it appears that science may one day be able to empirically explain the workings of the natural world. This would seem to make God unnecessary. After all if we can explain everything why have this being that just seems to be an unnecessary mechanism. Ockham�s very sharp razor seems to come in handy in this situation. However, is this really the case? Is there truly a conflict between science and religion? After all, if we truly analyze the situation don�t we find that science and religion are truly trying to explain different aspects of the same problem? This is the problem that I will discuss in this paper. The first side of the argument is that God and religion are incompatible. This is the stance many scientists will take. They say that the workings of the world can be explained through naturalistic explanations and that the belief in some supreme being is unnecessary. Why should be hold on to these antiquated ideas with the mountain of scientific evidence before us? Look at the ancient Greeks. They believed in a whole pantheon of gods. They thought that these gods were the explanation for all the events in the world, from the rising of the sun to the turning of the seasons. However, now we can explain these events scientifically. We have no need for the �greek gods� any longer. For that matter we have no need for any �God�. It is an unnecessary complication. Instead we can look towards evolution and other scientific concepts for the explanations we need. These are orderly scientific processes that can be proved in a laboratory setting. They are a much better answer for life�s questions than some made up nonsense about some powerful deity. Of course, along similar lines theists make a very similar argument. They claim that the mountains of scientific evidence in support of empirical answers are misleading. Many of these theists are young earth creationists. They believe that the earth is roughly 10,000 years old. They believe that the scientists that claim that empirical evidence rules out the existence of God are undermining the fabric that makes up our lives. Often times they are more than willing to refuse to accept the most obvious evidence in order to hold on to there beliefs. They staunchly believe that science is in direct contradiction with everything that they believe and hold true. Instead they look to their own theories to the creation of the earth as the real explanations. Things like the flood theory. The flood theory claims that the appearance of the fossil record is the result of Noah�s flood. The remains seem to be at different places in the rock because they drowned and sunk to the bottom at different times. Another theory says that the different species are the result of Cosmic Design. They claim that species haven�t evolved. Instead a Divine Being created each individual species independently. This gives the appearance of a progressive fossil record, but this appearance is misleading. Creationists have made, these and theories like them their own science, appropriately named Creation Science. Now Creation Science and evolutionary science are radically different. However, they do seem to share one aspect. They both believe that traditional science and religion are incapable of mixing. There is another view though. This view is also radically different from others. This is the idea that traditional science and religion CAN mix. One side can accept the other with out having to over look any scientific evidence or drop the idea of God. Despite the fact that this would seem very obvious to many people, it is often over looked by the people on both sides of the debate. If you look at the problem though, the solution is quite evident. Science and religion are answering different aspects of the same question. Science answers the how while religion answers the why. Now, at first glance these two things seem quite similar, they quite different though. Science is very good at answering how things work. Evolution is an explanation of how we have evolved here on earth. It seems to be a very good explanation for how this happened. However, it doesn�t explain WHY it happened. Despite scientists� claims that empirical explanations are the answer to everything, they can�t seem to explain the why. To prove this point I will flesh this inability out. Since Darwin published On the Origin of Species we have taken leaps and bounds in evolutionary science. These leaps and bounds have taken great steps towards proving Darwin�s theory. They have shown, in detail, how we and other creatures have evolved. It stops short of answering one question though. Why evolution is there in the first place. For that matter, science doesn�t seem to explain why anything happens. This is because WHY is not the question that science is supposed to answer. Why things happen is the realm of metaphysical systems. Now, you might ask what is a metaphysical system? A metaphysical system is nothing more than a logical idea of an often non-scientific nature to which we can apply a set of subjective criteria. The purpose is to discover a system that seems to fit the criteria the best (an example of these criteria are Wainright�s twelve criteria). These metaphysical systems try to explain why things happen in our life. One example could go as follows: The universe, which can be traced back to the big bang but seems to have no physical explanation as to why it came into existence, is the creation of a Cosmic Deity. In this example I have briefly shown how science and metaphysics can be used to solve different aspects of the same problem. Through science we can show how the universe has unfolded starting with the big bang. However, science can�t explain why the big bang occurred and why the universe was created. They why is then answered by the metaphysical system of the universe being the creation of a Cosmic Deity. Now, in truth this is just a brief example. For a true metaphysical system to be of any worth it would have to go into much greater detail. However, I hope you can see how it would work in theory in answering the WHY aspect of a question while science answers the HOW. My personal views on the subject are that science and religion can coexist. As a matter of fact, I think that they complement each other remarkably well. This is because they are answering different aspects of the same question. People on both sides of the debate are going to have to look at the situation in a different light though. For the hard-core empirical scientists, they must come to realize that despite our vast scientific knowledge there are still something�s that can�t be explained. They will have to accept that science is the realm of the how. This is what science does best. It only seems to have trouble when it tries to explain why things happen. For the theists, they are going to have to accept that science is a valuable tool but does threaten the existence of God. God�s existence is a metaphysical issue and tries to explain why things happen. They will also have to accept the fact that metaphysical systems do not explain HOW things happen, as they often wish to do. No matter how hard you try you can�t make a religion out of science and a science out of religion. This is because they answer fundamentally different questions. When you put the two answers together though, you get a much clearer understanding of the world around us. |