Science and religion are often interpreted as separate realms with separate destinations. However, both fields of knowledge share the concept of the unknown. While science is continuously seeking to understand how the natural and social world function, most systems of religion attempt to provide reason for the very functions science seeks to explain. The two fields of knowledge often compliment each other. Religion creates new questions for science and suggests the reasoning behind scientific discoveries, and scientific discoveries enforce existing religious belief for some people. In a utopian society, both fields of knowledge could exist without conflict. However, the social world is far from ideal. Of the thousands of existing religions, many are already in conflict with one another. Adding an empirical scientific explanation of the world into varying beliefs has — and will most likely continue — to create conflict between the two fields of knowledge. However, the tension that exists between the two forms of understanding is unnecessary.
The division that occurs between the two fields of knowledge is promoted by extremists in each group. Within different faiths, there are fundamentalists who believe in a literal interpretation of their religious text, which they use to denounce science. Within science, there exists an ideology called scientism, which condemns any source of knowledge that is not achieved through a scientific method (Hutchinson, 2011). Fundamentalists fail to acknowledge science and its discoveries as being objective through measurements and experiments. Scientism fails to acknowledge any source of understanding that isn't science, especially religion. Both extremes refuse to acknowledge the influence each field of knowledge has on one another. However, not all religious people are fundamentalists, and not all scientists follow the belief of scientism.
It could be argued that both extremes are invalid; this argument is what often leads to the conflict between the two fields of knowledge. To begin, the ideology of scientism is hard to support, because ‘belief’ does not exist in science–even if that belief is a hyper-support of science. In addition, this ideology fails to recognize disciplines that are used daily to understand the world, such as ethics and art.
Science provides substantial evidence to explain many issues that may conflict with particular religious beliefs, thus rejecting most literal interpretations of religious doctrine. The origin of the universe is a topic that has created significant conflict between science and religion. In science, the Big Bang is used to explain the origins of the universe. The standard model of Big Bang cosmology is the Lambda CDM model. The Lambda CDM model is a mathematical parameterization of Big Bang cosmology, and it is widely used because it accounts for the expanding universe and the cosmic microwave background, among other cosmic phenomena (Greason, 2016). Similar to many religion’s belief, the Big Bang Theory supports the idea of a beginning to the universe. Science provides evidence for such a finite past, and religion attempts to provide an explanation for the beginning. The conflict arises when literal interpretations of scriptures conflict with scientific evidence or when purpose is attributed to such origins.
The universe, the world, the human species–are all contingent. In the origins of each, there was an insane amount of precision that allowed for the circumstances we acknowledge today. The strong anthropic principle provides ‘anthropic coincidences’ that attempt to explain why the universe is “just right” for the existence of humankind (Schombert, 2018). While the rationale for the anthropic principle is often circular reasoning, the provision of anthropic coincidences emphasize the meaning of existence and of the universe. Much of cosmic evolution was inevitable, some of the construction was probable, yet there were parts that were highly unlikely. British astronomer, Fred Hoyle predicted the presence of nuclear resonance in the structure of carbon and oxygen. The structure of both elements is considered to be anthropic because of the extreme precision of resonance that is needed in each element for the existence of life as we know it to be possible. Hoyle predicted that the energy level of carbon must be above the combined energy levels of 8beryllium and 4helium in order for an abundant amount of carbon to be created; however, at the same time, he stated the the resonance of oxygen must be below the combined energy levels of carbon and helium, otherwise all of the carbon produced would be turned into helium (Hoyle, 1981).
The anthropic principle of cosmology can be considered a union of the two fields of knowledge. While the principle is very human centric, it suggests a reasoning for the natural world that science cannot currently explain. Even if science were to produce evidence discrediting fundamental elements of religion, the tendency of anthropocentrism would prevail, and many who identify as being religious would maintain a belief of reason for all of existence.
If someone were to ask me to place myself on a religious spectrum, I would have to simply say, “I don’t know.” Everyday, I wear a portrait of Mary, the mother of Jesus, around my neck. Her portrait shines on a gold metal pendant I received when I was ten years old. I was raised Catholic, however, I never truly felt comfortable in any organized religious environment, nor do I believe in any set religious doctrine. Even the concept of Mary and her story is something that I don’t believe in, nonetheless is possible in the natural world. I keep this necklace around my neck not as a symbol of religion, but of comfort. In times of hardships, I find myself speaking to ‘god.’ Whenever something is out of my control or I feel alone, I find solace in the idea of a higher power. While my ideas of god and religion are definitely skewed by Catholic and Western culture, I realize that to the world, there are millions of gods available to worship or seek comfort in. Regardless of science, the concept of which god(s) to believe in baffles me. I don’t think I would ever be able to follow a set religion with set scriptures. However, I am human. I can’t imagine a universe without purpose; even if I could, I don’t think such universe would be very interesting.
As long as there continues to be people who are completely adamant towards their field of knowledge, there will always be conflict between science and religion. In a sense, both disciplines are built on faith –not necessarily in a religious connotation– regarding the unknown. Science, ever-changing, seeks to find answers for the unknown. Even when discoveries result in substantial evidence that suggests an answer, one trial has the ability to completely falsify a hypothesis. Religions provide partial evidence supporting the existence of their god(s); believers are required to have faith when believing in such an obscure being. Regardless of their methods, the two fields of knowledge attempt to explain the natural world. Once religious fundamentalists acknowledge the operations in which the natural world behaves, an ease in tensions can occur.
The two fields of knowledge will probably always coexist. There will always be people who seek guidance through a higher power, and the acceptance of science as an explanation for the natural world will most likely grow as time progresses. While the two fields of knowledge may contradict one another often, both systems of knowledge need to forgo their biases and come together in order to advance the understanding of the universe.