Science vs. Religion

To listen to the media one might come to the conclusion that science and religion are at odds with each other. Are they? Do they need to be? What is science? What is religion?

One of the most common definitions we're familiar with for science is the third one listed in the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. When it comes to religion the same dictionary refers us to the word religious which is defined as: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality. Hmm, ultimate reality, knowledge, basically the search for truth, doesn't sound like they're all that different.

"But one is based on ignorant blind belief while the other uses hard facts," you may be screaming. Since we're looking for similarities here, let's apply the scientific method to religion and also see if there isn't any need for unsubstantiated belief or faith in science.

Though there are variations on the scientific method we will use the following:

1. Definition - Define what we're trying to find out
2. Observation - Observe and gather information
3. Hypothesis - An effort to use logical reasoning to explain the data
4. Experimentation - Perform experiments and document results
5. Analysis - Analyze the results
6. Conclusion - Decide what the data mean
7. Peer Review - Make sure others can repeat the experiment with the same results
8. Refine - Wash, rinse, repeat as necessary to confirm

The scientific community understands that there's a difference when using this method for social sciences in contrast to the natural sciences, but it's still a good method. My intent here is not to prove or disprove anything, nor to write an exhaustive doctoral thesis on the matter, but simply to demonstrate how the scientific method can be, and has been, applied to religion.

1. Definition: Is there some sort of supreme creator of the universe? 2. Observation: The universe exists. It is complex. 3. Hypothesis: Humans can create things. A being with greater knowledge (i.e., science) could create complex things. The hypothesis is that a supreme creator exists. 4. Experimentation: If a being exists there should be a way to communicate with it. If our minds were created by another being, this other being should be able to read the thoughts from our minds. The experiment is to use our thoughts to try and communicate (i.e., prayer). 5. Analysis: Thoughts were used to communicate. Thoughts (communications) came back to the mind as well as a change in feelings. 6. Conclusion: Communication was achieved with the supreme creator. 7. Peer Review: Millions upon millions--if not billions--of others have tried the experiment with the same results. 8. Refine: The results of the experiment are consistent and communication becomes easier as we learn to refine the experiment.

Remember, just because we can't build a machine to detect or recreate something going on (e.g., prayer), doesn't mean it can't exist. We currently don't have a machine that can recreate gravity; that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

OK, how about the flip side? Is faith ever required for science? First let's define faith by referring once again to Webster's: firm belief in something for which there is no proof : something that is believed especially with strong conviction. Most Darwinists seem to have a very strong conviction that the missing link exists, yet to date there is no proof; a missing link has never been found. Does science require faith? Check.

Looks like science and religion have a lot in common. Since they are both efforts to discover truth, they should not be at odds with each other. Instead of scientists fighting with religionists and religionists fighting with scientists, how about we work together to come to the knowledge of the truth?