Thoughts on Religon and Science
Hank and Travis came over last night for some much needed video gaming. In the course of our conversations, several topics came up: Authorship of the Pauline letters, Creationism, logical consistency of being anything less than a 5-pointer, ect… Towards the end of the night, we talked some about Christianity and Science. Before I post some about that, I want to preface my posts with the following on my take on the relationship of science and religion.
The answer: No… well, sort of. Here is how I got there. So, are Science and Religion opposed? No, they are not. In fact, they often work(ed) together. Religion is very much in the business of explaining reality. In doing so, they co-opt the science that makes the best sense to them. For example, Aquinas used Aristotle and Christianized him to the point to which the Catholic church made his science official Church dogma. Recent creationists try to use science that seems to agree with their aims to refute the science that does not. Hubble’s discovery of the motion of the galaxies was a boon to the hopes of creationists in general because the subsequent Big Bang theory implied there was a creator behind it, whereas the Steady State theory needed no such “ummph” to get it started. Now, the question is, are the creationists and atheists doing good science? I’ll leave this one with a quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.
I hear often the complaint that Science presupposes Naturalism. This is because Science simply does not concern itself with God. It measures; it devises theories; it explains. Science does an excellent job telling us:
- Who?
- What?
- When?
- How?
What it does not do is tell us why. Whats that? Do I hear an objection?
Wait a second Henry. Science tells me why water boils when it reaches 100″C!
Well, you see, it does not give us the meaning of why water boils when it does. Instead, it really tells you how water boils. Take any scientific question - or historic, for that matter. The same thing applies every time. The historian can assign meaning or significance to his or her narrative, but at that point, they are not really doing exact and pure history. They are grafting interpretations onto the text. Not that doing that is bad, but it is not pure history.
Religion, on the other hand, gives us this why that Science lacks by Science’s very nature.
So, are Religion and Science opposed? Yes. But only in their subject matters. Sir William Bragg put it best:
“Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything.”
This is how I can have a keen interest in both Religion and Science. I yearn to understand how the world works and why the world works.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
What really humors me is that many atheists are saying that we need to replace religion with science. I feel that is as foolish as abandoning science for the sake of religion. I feel that Henry Michael is right in that sceice is not explaining why but only how. I just wish that one of my atheist friends would realize this truth. I do not degrade him for being an atheist, I just would realize that science can only explain so much and the religious texts only explain so much. I think that many people on both sides of the debate would see that truth.