Are science and religion
compatible? Science and religion are two different ways of acquiring an
understanding of the universe we live in. Although the conclusions they reach
at times contradict one another (as Galileo so famously discovered in Renaissance
Europe[1],
and as immunization clinic volunteers more recently discovered in Pakistan[2]),
neither science nor religion is defined by its content, but rather by its
methods. Hence the question: is it possible for both perspectives to be
recognized as worthy human enterprises? Can an individual person be
simultaneously engaged in both? I’ve encountered two reasonable answers.
The first, held by many intelligent
friends of mine including several scientists, is that the two are “nonoverlapping
magisteria[3]”,
that is, they are tools for promoting understanding in entirely different
domains of inquiry. One deals with the empirical, that which can be observed
and quantified; the other deals with the spiritual, that which is so
fundamental to the operation of physical reality that it cannot be examined by physical
means. The neuronal membrane potential can be measured; G-d cannot.
The second view, favored mainly by
those who prefer the term “atheist” to “agnostic”, is that religion is
inherently flawed as a means of learning about the universe. Science is
rigorous, self-correcting, open-minded, and perpetually skeptical, whereas
religion is fuzzy, establishmentarian, dogmatic, and resistant to challenges.
Truth is truth, they say, and one’s approach to ascertaining truth must make
sense, in any domain. Religious faith, proponents of this view hold, doesn’t
stand up to scrutiny. It is intellectually primitive at best, lazy or even
dishonest at worst.
Neither view is likely entirely
correct. The first ignores the fact that science specifically precludes faith: if it can't be demonstrated, or conversely, falsified, it can't be asserted.
The second ignores the fact that many highly intelligent, thoughtful people hold
religious beliefs. Carl Sagan, posthumous champion of the modern-day atheist (a distinction he might abdicate, were he still alive),
quotes an anonymous religious leader in his 1996 book The Demon-Haunted
World[4]:
“Honest
religion, more familiar than its critics with the distortions and absurdities
perpetrated in its name, has an active interest in encouraging a healthy
skepticism for its own purposes… There is the possibility for religion and
science to forge a potent partnership against pseudo-science. Strangely, I
think it would soon be engaged also in opposing pseudo-religion.”
Does religion promote or discourage
skepticism? If religious thinking does in fact permit questioning, doubt, and
revision of cherished beliefs, then certainly a productive, progressive relationship with
science is possible. But what form would that take? How does religious
skepticism work? How does it resemble, and how does it differ from, the
scientific method? I welcome any insights you might have.
