Yes, there is a war between science and religion


The Muslim Times Chief Editor’s comments: I agree with most of the ideas in this article by an atheist. But, I believe, these ideas need to be complemented by the ideas and articles linked below for the Transcendent God and Afterlife

Source: The Conversation

By Jerry Coyne; Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago

As the West becomes more and more secular, and the discoveries of evolutionary biology and cosmology shrink the boundaries of faith, the claims that science and religion are compatible grow louder. If you’re a believer who doesn’t want to seem anti-science, what can you do? You must argue that your faith – or any faith – is perfectly compatible with science.

And so one sees claim after claim from believersreligious scientistsprestigious science organizations and even atheists asserting not only that science and religion are compatible, but also that they can actually help each other. This claim is called “accommodationism.”

But I argue that this is misguided: that science and religion are not only in conflict – even at “war” – but also represent incompatible ways of viewing the world.

Opposing methods for discerning truth

The scientific method relies on observing, testing and replication to learn about the world.

My argument runs like this. I’ll construe “science” as the set of tools we use to find truth about the universe, with the understanding that these truths are provisional rather than absolute. These tools include observing nature, framing and testing hypotheses, trying your hardest to prove that your hypothesis is wrong to test your confidence that it’s right, doing experiments and above all replicating your and others’ results to increase confidence in your inference.

And I’ll define religion as does philosopher Daniel Dennett: “Social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.” Of course many religions don’t fit that definition, but the ones whose compatibility with science is touted most often – the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam – fill the bill.

Next, realize that both religion and science rest on “truth statements” about the universe – claims about reality. The edifice of religion differs from science by additionally dealing with morality, purpose and meaning, but even those areas rest on a foundation of empirical claims. You can hardly call yourself a Christian if you don’t believe in the Resurrection of Christ, a Muslim if you don’t believe the angel Gabriel dictated the Qur’an to Muhammad, or a Mormon if you don’t believe that the angel Moroni showed Joseph Smith the golden plates that became the Book of Mormon. After all, why accept a faith’s authoritative teachings if you reject its truth claims?

Indeed, even the Bible notes this: “But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”

Many theologians emphasize religion’s empirical foundations, agreeing with the physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne:

“The question of truth is as central to [religion’s] concern as it is in science. Religious belief can guide one in life or strengthen one at the approach of death, but unless it is actually true it can do neither of these things and so would amount to no more than an illusory exercise in comforting fantasy.”

The conflict between science and faith, then, rests on the methods they use to decide what is true, and what truths result: These are conflicts of both methodology and outcome.

In contrast to the methods of science, religion adjudicates truth not empirically, but via dogma, scripture and authority – in other words, through faith, defined in Hebrews 11 as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” In science, faith without evidence is a vice, while in religion it’s a virtue. Recall what Jesus said to “doubting Thomas,” who insisted in poking his fingers into the resurrected Savior’s wounds: “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

Read further

Suggested reading

Science: The Only Present Day Arbiter Between Religions?

If the Atheists and the Christians Debate, Islam Wins!

Deism: Common between Islam, Christianity and Judaism

Ten Raised to Five Hundred Reasons for Our Gracious God

Did Noah Take Kangaroos with Him in the Ark?

Dr. Abdus Salam: Islam and Science Concordance or Conflict?

Science in the Service of the Scriptures

Religion and Science: The Indispensable God-hypothesis

Every Ray of Light Gives Us Eternal Hope in God’s Providence

Stephen Hawking: ‘There is no heaven; it’s a fairy story!’

2 replies

  1. The issues I see are when science makes a new discovery or shows something as fact but theists reject it because it conflicts with their religious belief. This seems counter productive to me.

  2. Of course. It has taken fundamentalists, both the Christians and the Muslims, 170 years and counting, to come to grips with evolution, by which I mean common lineage of all life forms on our planet.

    Even those who believe in evolution sometimes have difficulty accepting the connection between the primates and the humans.

    However, there are different implications for the Christians and the Muslims from the discoveries supporting evolution.

    Charles Darwin: An Epiphany for the Muslims, A Catastrophe for the Christians:

Leave a Reply