Religion and science have historically had a close relationship, but advances in science have intensified the conflict between the two. This article examines whether religion and science are compatible, and whether they can work together toward a common goal, through the lens of the evolutionary theory versus creationism debate.
Religion and science have had a close relationship throughout history. A look at the history of science shows that the relationship between the two fields has changed over time. It’s not that long ago that science began to explain natural phenomena. From ancient times to modern times, religion, not science, has explained natural phenomena such as the origin of life and the structure of the universe. This has given religion enormous power, and science has served as a means of validating its explanations. Newton sought to use science to confirm the existence of God, arguing that the existence of gravity to fill an otherwise empty universe was proof of divine intervention. As science developed, however, it began to move away from religion. The long-accepted theory of the heavenly bodies was challenged by the geodynamic theory, and God’s creation was challenged by the Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory. Furthermore, some modern scientists deny religion and try to disprove it. This has led to many controversies between science and religion, one of the most central of which is the debate between creationism and evolution regarding the origin of life. While evolutionary theory has become almost accepted as orthodoxy in the scientific community, religion still insists on creationism. As a result, religion is increasingly distancing itself from science. This trend has led to the rise of atheists, and religion is losing ground. Thus, religion and science seem to be incompatible. Let’s take a look at the compatibility of religion and science by analyzing the two positions of evolutionary theory and religion.
First, let’s take a brief look at the history of the conflict between evolution and creationism. There have been many confrontations, some well-known and some not. One of the more well-known debates is the 1860 Huxley-Wilberford debate. In this debate, Wilberforce asked Huxley if his ancestors were monkeys, would he descend from his grandfather’s side or his grandmother’s side, to which Huxley famously replied that he would rather be the offspring of two monkeys than a human being who turned a blind eye to the truth. Later, the evolution vs. creationism debate spread to education. At the time, evangelicals in the US state of Tennessee passed a law banning the teaching of evolution in public schools. Scopes, a high school teacher, defied the law and taught about evolution, and was eventually convicted. After much public outcry, Scopes was released from prison, but the controversy was far from over. Much controversy followed, but there were signs of reconciliation after Darwin’s death in 1882, when he was buried in a church.
Following in the footsteps of Darwin in the 19th century, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins are two of the most prominent modern advocates of evolutionary theory. In addition to differences in the theory itself, there are also differences in their stances on the realm of religion and science. First, let’s take a look at Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA principle. Gould believes that science and religion have their own non-overlapping magisteria. He argued that science has a magisteria that deals with facts and theories about the empirical world, while religion has a magisteria that deals with moral values and spiritual matters, and that these two areas do not overlap. He saw religion and science as compatible, but his premise was that they are separate. Some evolutionists, following Gould’s principle, do not attach much atheistic significance to evolutionary theory. Their theory of evolution is about the origin of species, not the origin of life. In the first place, evolutionary theory is not concerned with the origin of life and reserves judgment on creation for religion. This is because science and religion are thought to be in different camps. However, religion and science have been closely intertwined since the earliest days of human history, so it’s hard to see them as completely separate realms. It’s hard to see an intersection where there isn’t already a debate going on. Science provides answers to what we don’t know, and religion has always fulfilled this role to some extent, so seeing religion and science as separate spheres can be interpreted as an attempt to avoid debate.
In contrast to Gould, Richard Dawkins takes a different view. Dawkins argues that the hypothesis that God exists is one of the scientific hypotheses about the universe and should be analyzed skeptically like all other hypotheses. He brings religion into the realm of science to point out the weaknesses of the hypothesis. His argument doesn’t deny the roots of religion, of course, and he makes a compelling case for why atheists should have a place in a society where they are not recognized. But in doing so, he emphasizes the negative aspects of religion and reduces its function to a social phenomenon. This makes it seem impossible for religion and science to be compatible. Dawkins tries to use science to argue for the absence of God in religion. But this approach is flawed. The logic behind the denial of religion is the unscientific nature of religion. Of course, this logic can be weakened by looking at religion from a scientific perspective. Whereas science is based on human rational judgment, religion tries to explain things that are beyond human understanding, and that’s not its primary function. Religion serves the spiritual side of humanity, and it also serves as an escape from reality. In other words, religion has many different functions, which is why scientific logic cannot be used to destroy it.
It seems impossible to stop the debate by drawing a clear line between the realms of religion and science. It is not appropriate to view them as completely separate, as Gould does, nor should we try to explain one in terms of the other, as Dawkins does. We’ve already discussed the two positions on evolution, but we also need to discuss religion. Most religious people don’t perceive science as antithetical to religion. However, there are some people in the religious world who take extreme positions. Dawkins criticized them, calling them fundamentalist believers. Claims that the universe is only 6000 years old, or that God has constantly intervened in the evolutionary process, are criticized for ignoring scientific findings. Their arguments are nothing more than a declaration that religion is moving away from science. We shouldn’t discuss religion in terms of science, or try to explain the world in terms of religious dogma, but this doesn’t mean that religion and science are incompatible. Neither extreme position is right.
Dawkins’ The God Who Made Us empowered many atheists. They have relentlessly questioned religion with the logic of reason and science, and religion has responded in kind, sometimes harshly, sometimes with tolerance. In 2013, something remarkable happened. Pope Francis responded to an atheist’s question in a letter. The atheist was then invited to the pope’s residence, where they shared their positions. These letters and conversations, along with comments from intellectuals of the time, have been collected and compiled in Letters from the Pope to an Atheist. This book reveals a remarkable dialog between atheists and the Pope. In previous books on the conflict between religion and science, the two have seemed incompatible, but in this book, we get a glimpse of the way forward. Despite their initial disagreements, they find that they have a lot in common, one of which is that they have the same direction as human beings. Depending on what we’re aiming for, we can either be led to a history of destruction or to a better society. Basically, humans live in pursuit of their own happiness, but this pursuit of happiness can lead to a lack of love for others. Therefore, the direction of humanity is to love humanity and pursue the common good. Religion and science may have different means of realizing this, but they are only shells. Religion should realize this through divine love and providence, and science should realize this through inquiry and experimentation.
The dialog between them is not only based on their intrinsic similarities, but also on their respective efforts. We can see from the dialog that the atheist was very knowledgeable about God and the Bible. He didn’t just present scientific logic. He knew what God’s love was, what it meant, and how it was described in the Bible, even if it wasn’t his own opinion. He listened to the Pope’s answers, questioned what he didn’t understand, what didn’t make sense, and steered the conversation in the right direction. The Pope also showed courage in that he did not take a fundamentalist stance despite his high position in the religion. This is evident in his criticism of the fallen Church and his reestablishment of Church truths. In particular, he has shown respect for science by acknowledging the theory of evolution and the Big Bang, leading the conversation about divine providence. By acknowledging each other instead of rejecting them, they realized that they had a common purpose and were similar to each other as human beings.
In this article, we have examined the history of the conflict between evolution and creationism and the respective positions of each side, and reflected on the compatibility of religion and science and the way forward. The dialog between the Pope and an atheist at the end of the chapter is one example of how religion and science can work together, but there are other ways they can work together. This could be the answer to the compatibility of religion and science. Science and religion are not interchangeable, nor are they completely separate realms. Throughout history, religion and science have changed, and now they need to walk together with a common purpose: love for humanity. However, this will not happen naturally, and it will take hard work on both sides.
