Much has been debated on the topic of science vs. religion. What disappoints me however, is the frequent assumption that science equates to atheism, so that the argument is more about atheism vs. faith, in which science is allied to atheism. As an agnostic scientist, I prefer the open-minded approach in which there exists no conflict between science and religion but rather a complement that helps advance Man's knowledge and understanding of the existence and function of the cosmos.There was a time in Man's prehistory when he simply did not have the intellect to adequately rationalise on the nature or existence of all he saw. As he continued to evolve however, so developed his ability to reason and seek explanation. Now he could start applying rationalistic thought to reconcile with his fear of Mother Nature's might. Indeed, his early cogitations (albeit limited) led to the conclusion that Nature and the cosmos - as visible through the tiny vista of his naked eye - were created and governed by an all powerful collective of gods and demigods. More time gave way to further intellectual evolution and learning, until there emerged a divergence of two seemingly opposing approaches to the rationalisation of Man's visible surroundings: science and religion. Unfortunately for the early scientist, religion became enmeshed with the ruling classes and he was regarded more often than not, as an atheistic challenger to the Church's (ruling power) authority.
In reality, science and religion were not and are still not, mutually exclusive. I prefer to consider the premise of whether a scientist has faith or not, and to gauge this using a scale that spans from extreme atheistic science through to extreme religious fanaticism, connected by intermediate blends of scientific reasoning and religious belief. I suggest a scale of 1 to 6, starting at 1 for the atheistic scientists who scoff at the existence of an all-powerful being, then 2 for the agnostic scientists, 3 for religious scientists, 4 for faiths tolerant of science, 5 representing faiths sceptical of science, and finally, 6 for the other extreme: faiths abhorrent of anything that seeks to challenge the existence of their God. Note that a scientist may still be able to rate a 6, however, they simply carry out their profession without questioning or seeking to disprove the might of their god - indeed they may use it to help exert their faith upon the oppressed.
This leads to the point of my discussion on why science and religion have common ground: the scale proposed previously demonstrates that science is not disconnected from or in opposition to religion. Science is not a religion or faith and even someone rated a 1 on the scale doesn't have to be a scientist. It is the religious outlook of the individual that matters - not their profession. They may just happen to be a scientist, affording them the appropriate skills that enable them, should they wish, to challenge religion with a more advanced scientific rationale. For example, an atheistic scientist might use their skills to prove (in their mind) that God can't exist (as with Richard Dawkins and his book, the God Delusion, which we'll revisit in a later posting). Alternatively, a once-agnostic scientist may apply their skills to draw up sufficient evidence with well-reasoned inference to refute the existence of a God, leading the agnostic to switch allegiance to atheism. Or perhaps the agnostic might draw the conclusion that the scientist is simply using the best technology, analysis, and deductive skills possible to study and understand all that he sees of physical matter, whose shear existence can't possibly be random and therefore must be the product of an all-powerful being (a conclusion akin to Man's more primitive and wholly subjective conclusions!).
This means science is complimentary to religion: it enables the skilled practitioner (should they wish) to scientifically challenge and rationalise over whether an all-powerful entity (to which some refer to as a god) exists and hence reaffirm or refute one's faith or lack of.
However, there is much more to my argument that science and religion actually depend on each other for the advancement of Man's understanding of the Universe and everything. Historically there was neither commonality nor complement. Instead the Church virtually governed with a blend of religion and power, not unlike that still seen in some countries today (and scoring a 6 on the science-religion scale). So long as the scientist was developed techniques or discovered physical or biological processes that would not challenge the Church's standing or authority, he could continue his work. However, if the work did challenge the religious mandates of the day, the scientist, too concerned for their own safety or reputation, withheld publication. Darwin and Copernicus were prime examples. Thankfully most countries have emerged from oppression to democracy and free speech and indeed the church understands better what the scientist is simply doing. In fact it should welcome the latest challenges that help test their religious resolve.
In subsequent blogs I'll consider the thorny notion that the degree and mode of scientific advancement has often depended on wars sparked by religious disagreement (accepting that historically, religion was inextricably linked to the governing power of the day). I'll look at the God Spot and how this signifies common ground between religion and science. I'll also review the impact of Darwin and Copernicus on the science vs. religion argument and relate this to the effect of modern scientific advances on religion, such as pre-Big Bang physics, Einstein's theory of relativity, and time travel. And for a real challenge, I'll try to ponder over the stance of science vs. religion as it might exist in the year 2500. In the meantime, I welcome comments for discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment