Can Science and Religion Ever be Compatible?

Picture: NASA and ESA via Wiki Commons.

When Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding, he provided evidence for an explosion that spawned the cosmos of stars and worlds we observe today (the Big Bang). When Charles Darwin discovered evolution through natural selection, he provided evidence for ancestral species that look nothing like those which currently reside on Earth. Both discoveries were groundbreaking enough to force some religious believers to reinterpret scripture. As a result, schisms opened up between traditionalists and progressives.

Within Christianity, Genesis became metaphorical for progressives, while traditionalists demanded a literal interpretation. Somewhere between these two camps, Intelligent Design (ID) emerged as an attempt to reconcile the conflicting views. It sought to scientifically prove that some organisms could only have been created by an intelligent being. Even though ID endorsed some areas of evolutionary science, it relied on the absolute certainty of God. Thus, ID failed because it was inherently biased. While scientists attempt to derive answers, the ID Christians started with an answer and tried to prove it correct. This is one of the reasons why science and religion are diametrically opposed. Christians start with an answer and work backwards. Scientists start with a question and work forwards.

It's worth mentioning that scientists have no particular desire to bring religious beliefs into question, though an objective search for truth will have casualties. The apparent conflict has caused religious believers to think scientists have adopted a set of anti-religious absolute truths. However, when Newton's theory of motion was supplanted by Einstein's, the old equations were changed. This example illustrates that no scientific theory is deemed sacred or absolutely certain. As such, scientists don't believe with certainty that the universe `came from nothing' as some religious folk would contend. That is merely an unproven theory.

Miracles are another source of contention between science and religion. When religious people declare something to be a miracle, they're effectively asking scientists to stop looking for an answer. For example, if enough people had declared fire to be a miracle, we might still be living in caves, holding onto each other for warmth. Indeed, why investigate the cause of something if a god made it happen magically? One might ask if religious people deserve to live in a world of phones, computers, motorcars and medicine. These are advances that relied on scientists looking at physical, chemical, and biological processes, and saying "this is not a miracle".

Perhaps the most incontrovertible reason why science and religion aren't compatible is a purely philosophical one. Religion endorses belief in absolute certainty, whereas science relies on nothing being absolutely certain. For this reason, they're inherently incompatible, and agreement is only found when the produce of science is consistent with something that religion has already deemed to be absolutely certain.