Science and Religion - Are They Compatible ?
( 1 ) Science versus Religion – Proof versus Faith
Traditionally, people view these two disciplines as totally incompatible. Even Nobel laureates like physicists Steven Weinberg and Jacques Monod hold such a view. This is understandable because while the former depends completely on proof and evidence the latter relies mostly on faith. More unfortunately, there had been a many feuds between the two such as the persecution of pioneering scientists like Galileo and Copernicus by the Roman Catholic church due to their heliocentric theory putting the sun as the centre of the then known universe which appeared to contravene the importance of the earth as the centre piece of God's creation as described in the Bible. In fact, the Catholic church was misinformed on that particular issue thus leading to the unnecessary conflicts between science and religion at the time.
( 2 ) Scepticism vs. Dogma
Apart from the basically different approach required by proof and faith, there is a secondary effect flowing from the difference in the basic tenets of science and religion. The basic tenets have given rise to religious dogma and scientific intellectual scepticism respectively the former being needed for maintaining discipline among followers in religious organisations and the latter being mandatory to keep up a healthy dose of doubt to avoid blind faith in accepting any scientific theories without sufficient evidence.
( 3 ) Science vs. Philosophy ( one and the same at the beginning )
Going one step further the boundary between proof and faith can shift as human knowledge progresses. While religion has always been included under the branch of knowledge generally called philosophy which deals mainly with value judgment science has evolved beyond
philosophy to become a logically vigorous and empirical evidence dependent discipline. You will recall that Sir Isaac Newton's defining book on mechanics is called “ Philosophae Naturalis Principia Mathematica “ ( in Latin ) meaning “ Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy “. I cannot emphasize more strongly that philosophy as a branch of knowledge also depends entirely on logic but not as vigorously as science insofar as empirical or observational evidence is concerned because philosophy deals mainly with value judgment and abstract ideas.
( 4 ) The Big Question – “ Why is there something rather than nothing ? “
At an even more refined level there is science in philosophy and vice versa. For example, when philosophy deals with basic and fundamental nature of the human existence or the so called big questions of life the most fundamental of all philosophical issue is :- “ Why is there something rather than nothing ? “ as many great philosophers including Leibniz once asked. This big question actually implies another scientific question ( scientific means capable of being put to the test or falsifiable ) , namely, how did the universe come into being ? Philosophers will rebuke me by saying that the interrogative adverb should be why and not how. However, my humble opinion is that in the very beginning ( if there is really a beginning ) why most probably equals how because knowing the mechanism ( the how ) could possibly lead you to the reason ( why ) for the universe's existence. Of course, it is only a possibility. To give you an example from my own reasoning on this issue an analogy could possibly be drawn between time and space which is actually one at the Big Bang singularity because time is measured by the changes in things which must occupy space. One day is the time taken by earth to make one complete self revolution using the position of the sun as a marker.
Most philosophers will maintain that the above question is unanswerable because our common sense requires us to adopt a causality approach meaning that everything must have a cause. Otherwise, we will all go mad. Leibniz had adopted a limbo approach to this question which basically means unanswerable. However, my humble opinion tends toward a relative approach ( or the mirror approach ). Without nothing there cannot be anything and vice versa because something is the opposite of nothing and mutatis mutandis. A similar analogy can again be found in space and things ( or objects ). Without one you cannot have the other. I quote my argument from the prologue to my book The Universe ( page 22 ) :- “ More importantly, things and, hence events occupy space and are part and parcel of the whole illusion of reality. Things cannot exist independently of space and without things there is no space to be defined. Likewise, there can be nothing without space because things cannot exist in any dimension that is already full ( no more space ). all these lead me to my conclusion that everything is inter-connected. “
I will explain the “ illusion of reality “ in the section on Quantum Mechanics.
As regards philosophy in science, there is a particular branch of philosophy in science most notably that of the vigorous approach adopted by Karl Popper. He demands that all scientific theories be tested not only by finding evidence in support thereof but to vigorously try to refute them with opposing evidence. His method would require that a single piece of unfavourable evidence will annul any given scientific theory. This is scientific scepticism carried to the extreme. Nevertheless, this shows that science does have its own special brand of philosophy.
( 5 ) Proof vs. Faith
While proof is the bread and butter in science it does not mean that there is no faith needed in this pragmatic discipline. I again quote from my book ( page 37 ) on the argument that faith is also implicit in any scientific endeavour :- “ Whereas the scientists have tried to rationalize the physical world in terms of invariant laws and symmetries through the scientific method of logic and experiments without resorting to pure religious faith they have, nevertheless, relied heavily on their own particular form of faith. They believe in the ultimate faith that the universe is comprehensible to the human mind and that Nature always tends to be simple and symmetrical at the highest level. But why must this be so ? If scientists do not hold onto such faith or axioms or assumptions as they call them, there would be no scientific exploration into the unknown areas of Nature........Every unproven theory such as Alan Guth's Inflation survives on faith. The scientific world accepts Inflation because it is necessary for them to explain problems in the Big Bang Theory on the origin of the universe. Of course, Inflation will most probably be proven one day and may be pretty soon but till then it rides on faith for all its worth. Without faith there is no hope ( because no progress can be made if everything has to be proven first before any step forward is taken ) and without hope there will be no future and there may not be any need for charity either because if there is no future for the human race through progress ( both technologically and spiritually ) we will have all perished. Faith leads to hope and hope inevitably leads to dreams and dreams to progress. Hopes and dreams are the essence of LIFE. To deny faith is to deny LIFE itself. Every scientific law starts as an act of faith, the faith that Nature is comprehensible to us and that it is good to learn about the truth in Nature for the purpose of guiding our actions in life. With every achievement whether big or small in our quest for knowledge our faith in the above beliefs are reinforced. That is why many people believe that science is, in fact, a religion in its own right. “
As far as proof in religion is concerned theology is the concrete evidence that some kind of proof is still required in religion although the proving process is not done in the scientific way involving empirical and observational evidence.
( 6 ) Laws of Nature have God like qualities
My argument is as follows ( from page 198 of my book ) :- “ Despite this atheist attitude held by the majority of scientists, almost all of them rely on or believe in the laws of nature ( based on observable and testable evidence ) which possess the self-existing, self-organizing, all powerful ( every human being is subject to the laws of nature ), all permeating ( the various quantum energy fields existing throughout the universe ) and eternal characteristics that bear many God- like qualities. The only major difference between the characteristics of the laws of nature and God is that the laws of nature do not engage in spiritual correspondence with human beings. These laws are cold and impersonal unlike God to whom we can turn for help. Nevertheless, most of the God-like qualities are present in the laws of nature. Scientists may argue that in time we may be able to understand how the laws of nature have come about but it must again rely on the working of a higher set of laws with similar God-like qualities. Or worse still, it could be like the example of peeling an onion. One layer of mystery is removed by us only to find another layer underneath and finally when all layers have been removed by us nothing except the void is left. Or can we even say void with certainty because when there is no more substance to reveal the void in a comparative sense what is left is entity X or element X ! Or simply ????....... The saving grace seems to be in Quantum Theory which has put us or our consciousness in the centre of creation as the observer to at least validate the concept of the void by our physical presence and the act of making the observation. Notwithstanding this embarrassing situation, I think my point about the laws of nature having God- like qualities has been borne out in the above sequence of reasoning.”
( 7 ) Summary of my notes as set out above
The purpose of these notes is to set out some similarities between science and religion ( and by extension to philosophy of which religion is a branch ) in support of my view that the two are not totally incompatible. As a matter of fact, there is the infamous or controversial example of Scientology being recognized as a religion in some countries although most scientists would dismiss Scientology as voodoo science. Let me broaden the view to include philosophy generally. Far from being incompatible, philosophy and science are complementary to some extent. Some philosophers will even say ( and I agree ) that science is blind without philosophy ( because science does not have any value judgment on its end products which culminate in technology ) while philosophy is lame without science ( because pure reasoning cannot solve our daily problems ).
Now, let us turn to science to try to answer the Big Question – How or Why did our universe come into existence ? To this aim there are some indicators provided by cosmology which also hinges on two of the greatest scientific theories of the twentieth century – General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
JKHC ( October 14, 2013 )
