Religion Vs Science; The Origins of a Tired Battle

Religion and Science have always been at odds. This article aims to explore some of the fundamental reasons behind this age old rivalry, and also discusses some modern and historical court cases that illustrate the crux of the battle.

There are a lot of interesting parallels between the trial of Galileo Galilei v. The Inquisition in 1633 and the School Board of Dover v. Kitzmiller in 2005 which was a case brought to the US federal court that fought to have intelligent design presented in ninth grade science classes along with evolution. Ultimately, the case was not successful, and it was ruled that intelligent design is not a science. But why are science and religion historically at odds with each other?

Both of these cases represent religious concepts being directly threatened by scientific evidence to the point that legal action was taken. In each case, religious texts were undermined by the findings of science and attempted to debunk or undermine those findings. These kinds of cases are particularly threatening for those who choose to read the gospel literally.

Galileo was a revolutionary scientist in his day. This man, who was actually devoutly religious, lived in a time where the church had considerably more power in the world. By attempting to publish his manuscript about the sun being the center of our solar system, the church saw someone who was trying to shake the foundations of the word of God. After all, the bible states that the earth is the center of the universe. If someone comes along and points out that this is likely untrue, this means that there is a seed of non-truth in the scriptures which are meant to be regarded as ultimate truth. Galileo was accused of heresy and was confined to house arrest for the rest of his life. Pretty rough treatment.

Interestingly, this argument seems a bit silly from a modern perspective even though it still echoes true in different ways. It has been accepted as a fact, even by religious people, that the Earth revolves around the sun. No one is attempting to pass legislation that forces science teachers to involve the geocentric models in their teachings as a legitimate 'alternative' to the heliocentric model. The irony of the situation is that the theory of evolution is currently challenged by many religious people, and people fight for intelligent design to be taught in many states as a realistic, scientific alternative to evolution. It seems that many religious people are still threatened by the fact that the gospel may not be a literal interpretation of facts.

The case in Dover PA is similar to that of Galileo, because it was mandatory in the school at that time, that biology teachers should also present intelligent design alongside evolution as if it were indeed a scientific theory, which it is not. The case had a slightly different outcome, because it was ultimately ruled that such a mandate is not constitutional and that biology teachers should not be required to present something as scientific, which is not actually scientific. If you read my blog entry about spotting a pseudoscience, and you then read about intelligent design, you will realize that what you are dealing with does not meet the criteria of science. Many of us tend to forget that a scientific theory has to meet a lot of rigid scientific criteria and is NOT to be confused with the public's general concept of 'a theory', as in something that may or may not be true.

It long been proven that the sun does not revolve around the earth, and this does not deter religious people from believing in God even though they accept that the Earth is not the center of the universe. So it seems strange that evolution would today be such a threat today. Essentially, history has already proven that the bible is not a science textbook. and religious people accept that in reference to the heliocentric model. So what is the problem now and how is it different?

As Galileo pointed out, it appears that there is something wrong with the interpreter and not necessarily the text. Then again, the problems that religion has brought upon the earth (i.e. war, persecution, hate crimes etc.) have usually been more about people interpreting those religions to soothe their own insecurities or to justify their own egos. For example, a God who embodies love does not 'hate fags', but you might be confused if you attended a religious rally where many deeply religious fundamentalists would claim that he does in the name of Jesus, a man who unquestionably taught a message of love and acceptance. This is just one example of people interpreting a message in the way that they please and using it to hurt others.

Sometimes humanity can be very 'all or nothing' in its thinking. The point of religion is to sooth many of the big questions by simply giving an answer. So, if something comes along and rips open a big new hole for questions, it is contrary to the concept in itself. This is against the concept of science where we methodically look for and test answers and always accept that new evidence could be presented, that changes the answer tomorrow. Maybe this is a real root reason that science and religion are historically at odds. It may not be about these individual battles, but a radical difference in perspective which is difficult to rectify.

Of course, not everyone is a fundamentalist and many religious people are able to incorporate an understanding of science into their spiritual practice without feeling a threat, because they do not see the gospel as a literal interpretation but rather an allegory and a set of guidelines on how to live a good life.

What is the difference between faith in God and faith in Gravity?

We can have faith in gravity, because we have unquestionably proved its existence in repeatable experiments over and over again. I do not fear that when I get up in the morning, that my foot will float to the ceiling when I step out of bed, because it has been tried, tested and true in all of my physical experiences that gravity is real. It can keep you on the ground and it can kill you. I do not have to be a scientist to be sure of this, although if I needed some research to back up my hypothesis that gravity is real, there is more than enough in the archives. Some people may argue that this is just the work of God, but scientists have proven quite thoroughly, that God was at least using a math equation and the physical properties of the Earth when he made gravity.

Faith in God is a bit different because we cannot test faith in a control situation and ensure that we get the same results every time. Science is not able to say that there is no God and science is not able to disprove the existence of the soul. By definition, this is not really a matter for science (not at this point in time at least) because science is a methodical search for the truth. We design experiments, we observe the natural world. This is not about what should be or what feels good, or what a book says, but about what “is” according to our observations and experiments. Believing in God is a belief in something that you have not experienced with your five senses, but believe is there. Science is quite the opposite because in order to have faith in a scientific concept, we must see that it exists over and over again. Essentially, these two kinds of faiths are polar opposites, because one is based on the existence of reliable observation and predictable outcome, while the other is based on what we cannot see in the realm of our earthly senses.

Then again, science can be treated and believed in with the fervor that a religion can, and our faith in science could be compared to our faith in God. We accept all sorts of wild notions as true simply because science says so: Black holes, sub atomic particles and time travel. It also sounds like a bunch of voodoo, in a sense, and most of us have no way of actually confirming that it is legitimate, but we believe in it because it is science. Another crucial difference between science and religion is that while religious books will always stay the same, science constantly changes as it searches for new truths.

Was the big threat of Galileo's manuscript that it implied that humanity is nothing special?

Galileo's findings did imply that we may not be so special, because the Earth may not be the center of the universe, and this was important for religious teachings of the day. Earth was not the center of the universe because it was great, it was at the center and the BOTTOM. Earth was a special place to suffer and nowhere was closer to hell or further from heaven than it was. This was a convenient way to control people on earth and to get them to behave; so that they could eventually rise above those countless heavens and into the sky after a lifetime of good behavior, or make a quick and easy decent into hell which was just around the corner.

Evolution is similar as it also illustrates that we may not be the miraculous beings of free will that the bible says we are, and it points out that we actually descended from animals. This creates a critical issue because it not only makes the story of genesis to be untrue on a literal level, but it also means that we descend from animals, and religion makes a sharp divide between animals and men. Once again, the bible says that men are the only beings with souls and they are the only beings capable of good or evil, because we are the only beings that have any choice in our actions. Animals are so low on the totem pole, that God does not hold them accountable. They do not have souls or free will. They are beasts of burden, put on earth to entertain and help us.

This thinking of division is critical to the entire concept that determines whether we get to go to heaven or not and is a convenient control mechanism as well because religion has the power of forcing us to behave in accordance with certain principles, because we fear eternal damnation. Let's take it a step further and discuss what neuroscience has to say about how most of our decisions are made before we think we make them and that over 90% of our lives are run on an autopilot we are hardly aware exists. Psychology and neuroscience deeply explore our cultural conditioning and can predict our (often animalistic) behaviors quite well. Basically, science gets closer and closer to showing that we, just like animals, live in an infinite universe where we are nothing special and our planet is certainly not at the center. This threatens the entire concept of religion, because the concept is that man is special because he alone is capable of evil and misbehavior. This fear of our own free will is essentially what gets us to follow a doctrine and to experience the guilt and fear that is necessary to fulfill it on a literal level. Our belief that we are special engages us to behave according to the rules of religion, and not to make our own decisions about things.

If we are indeed like animals; not special, an evolutionary cooincidence and something which was not always here and which will be replaced one day, then this presents a problem for religion which controls us through convincing us that we are terribly special; God's chosen people.