Discuss the Relationship between Religion and Science.

The Relationship between Religion and Science
Name:
Institution:

The Relationship between Religion and Science
According to Plantinga (2014, par. 2), the relationship between the two fields has been characterized by conflict and overlapping principles. Science has rejected religion’s rationalization of certain things. Religion in turn, disagrees with the principles of science. For example, according to religion, Christianity, the origin of mankind was creation. Science on the other hand accredits mankind’s origin with theories such as evolution. Religion postulates the presence of a Superior Being who controls the earth and all in it (Plantinga, 2014, par. 1). These are some of the conflicts between religion and science. Science is a fact based discipline. The principles of science have to be proven and backed by facts and evidence (Gould, 1997, par. 17). Religion is based on belief and faith; things that are beyond human comprehension, things that must be accepted and rationalized only through the operation of faith. This represents the major difference between the two disciplines. There has been a convergence of ideas on the two. In relationship to the subject, Isaac Newton, a physicist, stated that, “Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind.” Althoguh Newton was opposed to atheism, research has indicated that few scientists believe in God (Scott, 1956, par. 3). This research paper seeks to look into the relationship between the two. It also looks into the significant question of whether the relationship between science and religion is characterized by conflict or concord. I am going to achieve this by making arguments for and against the above topic.
Statement of the Problem
In the modern day world, science and religion are not construed as complementary fields. This problem has characterized the relationship between the two disciplines. This discord can be blamed for a couple of reasons. One of the major reasons is the specialization in this modern world (Feynman, 1956, par. 1). The system of education and the labor market have been forced to evolve in specialization in order to cater for new demands in the society. For this reason, specialization in one field renders one almost incompetent to discuss or appreciate the other field. This means that the spirited debates that characterized previous eras are no longer part of the society. There is therefore no room to explore this topic in order to reconcile the divergent views. However, this does not mean that the relationship between the two is any less contradictory (Feynman, 1956, par. 1).
Any discussion that involves two fields would require one to have sufficient knowledge on each of the topics. A successful discussion must be premised on knowledge and not on ignorance. This means that specialization in a single field is problematic in this sense (Feynman, 1956, par. 2). People have either chosen to believe in one, depending on their areas of specialization. Perhaps the oldest problem in the relationship between the two is that they were pitted against each other. Scientists and pious groups were engaged in a competitive relationship. It is at this point that the divergent views emerged. Each group yearned to prove the other wrong. Most of the scientists seem to naturally lean towards science at the expense of religion and the pious people on religion.
These problems can be attributed to the content of each field. The focal point of religion is the belief in a Supreme Being, God (Feynman, 1956, par. 4). Religion rationalizes and attributes the reason for being, to God. Scientists on the other hand refuse to accept this world order. They seek further explanations for the way things are. They investigate to find facts and evidence in support of their scientific theories. Scholars have said that the problem is that scientists think that they know too much, or at least they think so, to simply sit back and accept that there is a Supreme Being that controls the earth and all in it. For them, reliance on faith is not sufficient. They go a step ahead to formulate theories and to support them with empirical evidence. This is the major theme of science. Science is about what can be proved empirically. For this reason, there is a difficulty dissociating from ones profession and one’s beliefs and life in general (Feynman, 1956, par. 5).
The above paradox of whether one can do one thing and believe in another is informed by the nature of these two disciplines. Can one be a scientist and still believe in religion? (Gould, 1997, par. 4) Both religion and science have parallel explanations for certain phenomena in life. For example origin of mankind, natural events, behavioral factors, among others. On one hand, science has created its own theories for origin of mankind and the earth as a whole. They attribute this to evolution. Scientists have widely researched on this topic and presented their findings, which have been inculcated into the education system. They hold this to be the true account of the origin of man. Religion on the other hand points to creation (Gould, 1997, par. 4). Man and all things on earth were created by a Supreme Being. He did so systematically and gave authority to man to rule over everything on earth. This is one example of the divergent views that create discord between religion and science.
Since both science and religion form part of the education curriculum, students in schools are introduced to these two disciplines early in life. In religious classes, students are taught about a Supreme Being. They are taught that He is responsible for creation, natural occurrences, and that they should turn to him for their needs. In science class, there is an absolute change in ideology. Origin of man is attributed to evolution and almost everything conceivable by man is explained scientifically. The dilemma here is evident (Feynman, 1956, par. 10). Does the student believe in science or religion or both? The education system creates a gap as it does not cater for the divergent views on these two. Instead, it teaches both and leaves the students to their vices. Fundamentally, science always leaves space for proving and disproving what is known, to further degrees. In science, one has to be eternally curious to thrive (Feynman, 1956, par. 11). Religion does not offer this opportunity. Religion postulates absolute truths that cannot be disproved. It offers no wiggle room in its beliefs. This presents another problem in the definition of the relationship between the two. It is also important to note that the U.S. is not a religious state, therefore one is not inclined to follow a certain way of life.
Literature Review
The relationship between science and religion is a controversial issue. Many scholars, scientists, theologians, and philosophers have carried out extensive research on the issue. The debated has raged for centuries. However, the enthusiasm has waned over the past few years. This notwithstanding, there is extensive literature on the topic.
According to Murphy (2004, par. 1), discussions on the relationship between the two fields have been biased on Christianity. This is attributed to the dominance of the religion in the West (Gould, 1997, par. 7). The relationship between the two is viewed differently depending on whether one is a liberal or a conservative Christian. For conservative Christians, science and religion have a minimal interaction. In line with Christianity, God can be understood from two perspectives; through the Bible and through nature. An ideal situation would be one in which science and religion present a unified front in relation to reality. This is, however, not the case. Science has contradicted religion on certain aspects of life (Murphy, 2004, par. 1).
Liberal Christian construe the relationship between religion and science as a complementary one. According to them, there is no convergence of ideas between the two. (Murphy, 2004, par. 2). One of the proponents of the liberalist Christianity was Immanuel Kant. He drew a distinction between practical reason or morality and pure reason or science. This school of thought proposes that these two are not mutually exclusive. This means that both are equally important and none is superior to the other. The key difference between the liberal and conservative Christians is how they interpret the relationship between the two disciplines. For the conservatives, religion and science are distinct of each other. They do not interact. For the liberal Christians, there is an interaction between the two.
For the liberal Christians, There are things that cannot be explained through science. Religion on the other hand offers explanation for these things. For this reason, if one fails to find an explanation from science, then they turn over to religion. It is in this sense that the two are complementary. For example, science explains the origin of mankind but does little in explaining the origin of life. A few theories have been formulated but none has adequately answered the question. Religion attributes the origin of life to a Supreme Being. According to the Scriptures, God breathed life into man. The origin of life according to Christianity was God. During the 1960s, there was emergence of liberal scholars who were of the idea that these two fields cannot be separated (Murphy, 2004, par. 2).
The relation between these two was underscored in Newtonian physics. According to this, the ways of the natural world were to be understood in relation to natural laws. The natural world was governed by natural laws. These were laws inferred from nature. They were available to all men through the power of thought. Philosophers at the time, such as John Locke, postulated that the power of reason was inherent to every man at birth and was uniform. Natural law is the same regardless of one’s location or convictions. The fact that Locke was a liberal philosopher is note-worthy. This natural law theory had a bearing on the understanding of the divinity of the world. Advancements in the field of science in the 20th century have necessitated the revision in the theories of causation (Murphy, 2004, par. 3).
The aspect of naturalism has also been a subject of sharp focus in this religion and science debate. What is the definition of naturalism? Does it extend to the idea that the supernatural exists? Both religion and science have their definitions of these term. Naturalism for Christians refers to the natural state of things. This state is derived from the power of God. All things existing naturally are attributed to God. Nature does not just occur, it is controlled, and things are the way they are because of a higher power. Christianity accommodates the supernatural. The religious beliefs extend to the existence of supernatural beings such as angels and demons. All these forces are responsible for the way things are. The issue of the realm of the supernatural is beyond the scope of science. Having established that, we then examine the concept of naturalism. In simple term, this defines what nature is in relation to science. Of importance is that it excludes the concept of the supernatural.
According to Plantinga (2014, par. 66), naturalism has been cited as another angle to view the relationship between religion and science. Naturalism is pitted against science. Naturalism should not be construed as a single-scoped concept. It is a broad term that refers to several scenarios. Nature is defined as just being. There is nothing more to nature than simply what we perceive as nature. This excludes the supernatural. This is a very basic definition of the term as it does not explain much. From this definition, it is not clear what nature itself is. There is need to set up parameters in defining nature (Plantinga, 2014, par. 67). In what is termed as scientific naturalism, any entities not conceived under science are deemed to be non-existent. As science does not extend to the supernatural realm, naturalism in the scientific sense does not include God, angels, or demons. Naturalism in the epistemological sense supports scientific methods as being the only proper methods (Evans & Evans, 2008, par. 10).
According to Plantinga (2014, par. 68), naturalism has some semblance of religion. It is however not a religion. It resembles it in the sense that it performs certain functions as religion does. Religion provides answers as a cognitive function. Questions of relating to the after-life, reason for human existence, among others are typically answered by religion. Naturalism is seen as an attempt to answer these questions too. Theories such as evolution seek to answer some of these questions. Darwinism is premised on natural selection and mutation. Natural selection in this case has been termed as unguided. It is based on nature selecting and retaining those traits that are supposedly favorable for survival. Scholars have argued that if evolution was guided by a Supreme Being, God, then there would not be much speculation and doubt as to the theory. This is because man would have evolved in the likeness of God, and any characteristics retained would be retained on the will of God. There would be some sort of design to evolution. These argument of naturalism further gives perspective on the relationship between science and religion.
Literature on this subject reveals that there are divergent views on the relationship between these two fields. Research has been conducted to establish whether people support the explanations given by science on certain issues. This is in relation to origin of the species, as it is one of the most contended issue in this debate. According to Scott (1956), 55% of scientists believe that evolution is solely responsible for origin of the species.
The Nature of Science
In this section, I analyze what constitutes science. What inquiry constitutes conditions sufficient to warrant them as scientific in nature (Plantinga, 2014, par. 3)? This is an important query in the understanding of the nature of science. The aim of science has been said to be the explanation of things being. This is achieved by providing theories and proving these theories. It has to be noted that empirical facts are the corner stone of science (Gieryn, 1983, pp.785). Science is inhibited by the fact that it cannot in theory or in fact, refer to the existence of supernatural beings. Science therefore does not go beyond what is considered as naturally existing. This is a deviation from religion whose ideologies are purely based on the supernatural and emotions (Gieryn, 1983, pp. 785). That is; the presence of demons, God, and other beings such as angels. Other scholars argue that science is not a subjective discipline. The realm of science only deals with that which is public and can be shared. With all these definitions of science, it is clear that science is a wide and complex area of study (Plantinga, 2014).
According to Plantinga (2014, par. 6), in relation to this, scholars and philosophers alike have opted to define science in terms of examples of what constitutes science and what does not (Gieryn, 1983, pp. 781). This too is not void of controversy. Various fields of science differ in their subject and content. Theoretical physics, for example, is a theoretical field of science. This simply requires that the theories be empirically backed. Other fields involve only that that is true and can be proven by facts. What brings these fields to all fit in the definition of science is that they are all aimed at producing empirically satisfactory theories. One can draw conclusions that science is a bunch of activities that have a systematic outlook aimed at establishing a certain truth. These activities must also be empirically backed (Gieryn, 1983, pp. 792).
Nature of Religion
As with science, the definition of religion is not a straightforward one either. Also, it is much easier to simply give examples of religions, such as; Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, among others. The complexities of arriving at the definition of religion manifest themselves in trying to establish the conditions necessary for something to be referred to as such. Religion involves living one’s life in conformity to certain principles (Plantinga, 2014, par. 9). The question that arises here is, how do we distinguish religion from a phenomenon such as Confucianism which is a way of life? One might argue that religion requires the belief in a higher deity with supernatural qualities, such as God (Plantinga, 2014, par. 5). However, not all religions conform to this idea. One of the distinction between science and religion is that the belief that there exists and intelligent designer is unique to religion (Plantinga, 2000, par. 10)
There are fundamental questions about our very existence that cannot be answered by science. In this light, scholars have questioned whether a structure of beliefs that offers answers to these questions, should be considered as a religion. Do beliefs by themselves constitute what is defined as religion? The answer to this question is largely negative. This is because religion is not simply a string of beliefs, rather it is the function of the belief in the life of and individual or as a community that counts (Plantinga, 2014, par. 10).
The conflict and Concord
So far, I have established that although the relationship between science and religion is marked with conflict, both converge at certain points. Ironically, some of the founding fathers of science were considered to be Christians. These include; Galileo, Isaac Newton, and Copernicus. Some even went to the extent of claiming that science and beliefs that were considered theistic had a deep connection. This connection is attributed to certain aspects of religion such as creation. Christianity postulates that the world and all in it were created by a Supreme Being. God is the creator of all mankind, in His own image. Further, God is construed as all- knowing exerts His will upon everything, and acts upon this will to achieve His ends. This is compared to human beings, who have beliefs and can acquire and synthesis knowledge (Plantinga, 2014, par. 18). Human beings also act according to their will, to the extent permitted by social norms and laws.
According to Thomas Aquinas, human beings in their action try to imitate God, who created them in His own image. According to Aquinas, science is an endeavor aimed at the acquisition of knowledge. As such, pursuing scientific knowledge can be viewed as an augmentation of God’s image. Aquinas thus links the fundamental concept of science with religion. Without God, and His image, the concept of knowledge would not exist, thus science in effect is an extension of religion (Plantinga, 2014, par. 18)
There is also the theory that creation was contingent. God possess certain properties such as omnipresence, and omnipotence (Plantinga, 2014, par. 19). These properties are essential to Him. On the other hand, creation was not as a result of any obligation. It was out of free will that God created the universe and everything in it. This lines up with the empirical nature of science. Knowledge is not as a result of obligation but is perceived. Science cannot be derived from a vacuum or abstract principles, it is through observation and experimentation that science thrives (Gieryn, 1983, pp. 786).
Despite of the above, there still exists deep conflict between religion and science. Galileo launched an attack on religion specifically the Catholic Church as being traditional and repressive (Plantinga, 2014, par. 28). He compared the church to science which he claimed was progressive and reasonable (Gieryn, 1983, pp. 783). Scholars at the time also questioned the content of the Bible, such as the passage where Joshua stopped the sun amidst battle (Joshua 10: 12-15). In the New Testament, Jesus walked on water, changed water into wine, and performed several other miracles. Science has questioned such biblical events (Plantinga, 2014).
Another bone of contention has been the theory of evolution. Christians believe that the origin of mankind was creation and not evolution as asserted by Darwin (Gieryn, 1983, pp. 784). The theory of evolution details how man evolved from a primitive form to his current state. Disciplines of science such as psychology explain human behavior based on history and evolutionary chain. This conflicts with religion, points to a higher power that controls people and earthly occurrences. According to David Sloan Wilson, religion and its beliefs are fictitious and only designed to enable individuals to function within adaptive units (Plantinga, 2014, par. 53).
In conclusion, both religion and science are not entirely different. There are similarities and differences in between the two disciplines. Science strives to find out the reason behind certain things by the use of empirical data and facts. Religion on the other hand attributes them to the presence of a higher power (Gieryn, 1983, pp. 784). They explain these things through faith. The disparities between the two do not mean that people should choose a single path to follow. As seen above, some of the widely known scientists were religious too (Plantinga, 2014, par. 19). For this reason, the value of each should not be diminished by the other. A conflict should not exist between the two as each has its own authorities. (Gould, 1997, par. 16). They should all be used for the betterment of the human race.

Works Cited
Evans, John and Evans Michael. (2008). Religion and Science: Beyond the Epistemological Conflict Narrative. Retrieved on 6th July 6, 2015 from http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/IycspzYIud9m5Zzzf2t7/full/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134702
Feynman, R. (1956). The Relationship of Science and Religion: Some Fresh Observations to an Old Problem. Retrieved on 23rd June 2015 from http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/49/2/Religion.htm
Gieryn, T. (1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795. Retrieved 23rd June 2015 from http://www3.nd.edu/~sskiles/boundaries/Gieryn%201983.pdf
Gould, S. (1997). Non-overlapping magisterial. Retrieved on 7th July 2015 from http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys3000/phys3000_fa11/StevenJGoulldNOMA.pdf
Murphy, N. (2004). Religion and Science. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on 6th July 2015 from https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/religion-and-science/religions-implications-for-science
Plantinga, A. (2014). Religion and Science. Retrieved on 23rd June 2015 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/
Scott, E. (1997). Do Scientists Really Reject God? Retrieved on 6th July 6, 2015 from http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god