Science and Religion: Compatibility, Conflict, and the God Debate

Introduction

To grasp the full scope of religion and science, as well as the connection existing between them, it is important to acquire at least a general understanding of what each concept entails. Neither term is invariably rigid with a fixed, definitive meaning. In fact, both words' coinage dates to the relatively recent past, and their meanings have differed across cultures and eras. Two centuries ago, the word "religion" was seldom used. Aquinas and other medieval writers interpreted religion as prayer or piousness; beyond orthodoxy, no other "religious" systems were conceived of (Harrison, 2015). "Religion" as a term acquired its significantly wider present-day meaning largely through the efforts of early anthropologists.

Similarly, the word "science," as employed today, became widely known during the same century. Earlier, what we now call science went by a different name — natural philosophy or experimental philosophy. It was not until 1834 that William Whewell standardized the word "scientist," defining it as an expert in one of the various natural philosophies (Somerville, 2016). Scientific philosophers have long aimed to distinguish their field from other knowledge-seeking disciplines, especially religion. In 1959, Karl Popper declared that, unlike theories in religion, scientific theories are in principle falsifiable (Popper, 2010). Several scholars — for instance, Taylor (1996) — affirm that a distinction between religion and science exists, despite the historical contingency of both terms' meanings. However, they have not reached consensus on the precise means of separating the two spheres across different cultures and eras.

Distinguishing Between Science and Religion

One means of differentiating religion from science is the assertion that science deals with the natural world, whereas religion encompasses both the natural and the supernatural. Scientific explanations are generally held to fail when they appeal to God, angels, or other supernatural entities, as well as to non-natural concepts such as Qi, miracles, or karma. Neuroscientists, for example, explain human thought in terms of brain states rather than grounding their theories in an immaterial spirit or soul.

Naturalists distinguish between the epistemological concept of methodological naturalism — which constrains scientific investigation to natural rules and entities — and philosophical or ontological naturalism, which is a metaphysical position that rejects the existence of supernatural entities altogether (Forrest, 2000). Because methodological naturalism governs scientific practice rather than making claims about what ultimately exists, it refrains from commenting on whether supernatural entities do or do not exist (Okello, 2007). Such entities may exist; they simply fall outside the scope of scientific analysis. Rosenberg (2015) and a few other researchers maintain that taking scientific outcomes seriously entails negative answers to pressing questions about moral knowledge and free will. However, such stronger inferences are contested, as Muller and Bashour (2013) demonstrate in their work on the implications of naturalism.

The idea that religion and science can be separated under the framework of methodological naturalism is more widely accepted. Consider the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, in which philosopher of science Robert Pennock was called by the plaintiffs to testify whether Intelligent Design constituted a form of creationism and therefore a religious position (Pennock, 2000). Had the answer been affirmative, the Dover school board's policy would have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Drawing on prior research, Pennock argued that Intelligent Design, in appealing to supernatural mechanisms, was not methodologically naturalistic — and that methodological naturalism is a defining feature of science. While this is not an inflexible requirement, it follows from well-grounded evidentiary standards, including the capacity to test theories empirically.

Natural philosophers such as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, and Johannes Kepler occasionally invoked supernatural entities within their work, yet they generally preferred naturalistic explanations. This inclination toward naturalistic sources was likely reinforced by the prior success of naturalistic justifications. Some scholars have therefore argued that the success of methodological naturalism provides evidence for ontological naturalism (Wainwright, 2010). Explicit methodological naturalism emerged more fully during the 19th century, when Thomas Huxley and his associates founded the X-club in 1864 — a professional interest group aimed at promoting science free from religious doctrine. This group was partly motivated by a desire to remove competition from amateur-clergymen working as scientists, thereby opening the discipline to full-time professionals (Garwood, 2008).

Because the concepts of both religion and science resist precise definition, debate about the relationship between the two can quickly become unproductive. In 2014, Kelly Clark argued that it is only meaningful to examine the relationship between a specific scientific claim and a specific religious claim (Clark, 2014) — for example, comparing neuroscientific findings or quantum mechanics with the Buddhist concept of "no-self" or Islamic views on divine providence and fate.

This does not mean that there is a theoretical or essential incompatibility between religion and science. The two should not be declared incompatible simply on the basis of what they are. Undeniably, science operates through evidence and reasoned justification; religion typically appeals to faith and belief — though this by no means implies that evidence and reasoning are entirely absent from religion.

The Argument of Incompatibility Between Science and Religion

Carroll (2009) begins with an important clarification: one cannot necessarily locate a logical or theoretical incompatibility between religion and science. The two should not be declared incompatible simply because of what they are. Carroll acknowledges that science operates through evidence and justification while religion typically appeals to faith — but emphasizes that difference alone does not constitute incompatibility.

Carroll (2009) further describes how the scientific field works by proposing theories, using those theories to generate predictions, and then testing those predictions against empirical evidence. Scientists then judge, on the basis of available information, which theories appear most plausible. Formalizing such judgments is difficult — philosophers of science do not yet have a precise account of how these judgments are made — but at a practical level, the process is reasonably well-defined. Scientists want their theories to fit the facts, but they also want consistency with other well-established concepts, along with clarity, simplicity, and broad explanatory scope (Carroll, 2009). A theory that explains more using less input is preferred. Although this process does not prove anything with certainty, a sufficiently successful theory may be judged far superior to alternatives — and theories such as Steady State cosmology, phlogiston combustion theory, and Lamarckian evolution are, by these standards, scientifically untenable (Carroll, 2009).

Strictly speaking, Carroll (2009) argues that the hypothesis that God exists is weak from a scientific standpoint. This may account for the fact that very few cosmologists believe in God (Carroll, 2005). The author holds that the concept of God is imprecise as a scientific hypothesis: it does not require a good fit with data, and it adds complexity without a corresponding gain in explanatory power. This is not a purely theoretical conclusion. The God hypothesis could, in principle, fit the facts better than alternatives — and distinguished religious thinkers have claimed it does. Their error, Carroll suggests, is analogous to that of Steady State advocates (Carroll, 2005). Half a century ago, the Steady State model was scientifically reasonable; the idea of God was similarly reasonable two thousand years ago. Over time, however, human knowledge has advanced considerably, rendering both positions less tenable. A similar line of reasoning, Carroll notes, applies to creation stories and miracles (Carroll, 2005).

Conclusion

Objectivity may be understood as the reliable acquisition of unbiased knowledge through the systematic examination of external realities. Yet when researchers employ qualitative interviewing and observation to study religious life, the question arises whether they can truly grasp the meaning of that life for participants in an unbiased way — without imposing their own value judgments, preferences, and emotions. When scholars serve as instruments of data collection and interpretation, their worldviews and biases inevitably enter the research process. A researcher does not arrive at the table as a blank slate; rather, they bring interpretive frameworks rooted in both religious and non-religious cultural norms. These frameworks shape how they explain and interpret others' religious and spiritual experiences. Scientists and scholars tend, often unintentionally, to project their personal views onto the phenomena they study — making those views appear as observable realities. This may be precisely why applying scientific principles to the study of religion remains so fraught.

One may therefore reasonably conclude that religion and science pursue their respective aims through fundamentally different strategies. Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, Johannes Kepler, and other great scientists maintained their belief in God even as their scientific work relied entirely on naturalistic approaches. They appear to have been unwilling — or to have believed it impossible — to use scientific theory to prove God's existence. In sum, achieving religious insight through scientific methods must be regarded as, at best, an extraordinarily difficult undertaking, and perhaps an impossible one.

References

Bashour, B., & Muller, H. D. (2013). Contemporary philosophical naturalism and its implications (pp. 1–199).

Carroll, S. (2009). Science and religion are not compatible. Retrieved 13 November, 2017, from http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/23/science-and-religion-are-not-compatible/

Carroll, S. M. (2005). Why (almost all) cosmologists are atheists. Faith and Philosophy, 22(5), 622–640.

Clark, K. J. (2014). Religion and the sciences of origins: Historical and contemporary discussions. Palgrave Macmillan.

Clouser, R. (2006). Prospects for theistic science. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 58(1), 2–15.

Dutch, S. (2011). Why science cannot address the existence of God. University of Wisconsin–Green Bay. Retrieved 13 November, 2017, from

Forrest, B. (2000). Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Philo, 3(2), 7–29.

Garwood, C. (2008). Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea. St. Martin's Press.

Harrison, P. (2015). The territories of science and religion. University of Chicago Press.

Okello, J. B. O. (2007). A history and critique of methodological naturalism [Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses].

Pennock, R. T. (2000). Tower of Babel: The evidence against the new creationism. MIT Press.

Popper, K. R. (2010). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.

Rosenberg, A. (2015). Disenchanted naturalism. Retrieved 13 November, 2017, from http://intertheory.org/rosenberg.htm

Somerville, M. (2016). On the connexion of the physical sciences. Anboco.

Taylor, C. A. (1996). Defining science: A rhetoric of demarcation. University of Wisconsin Press.

Wainwright, W. J. (2010). The Oxford handbook of philosophy of religion. Oxford University Press.