Many people have heard second-hand that religion and science are enemies. Popular media, a few ‘scientific experts’, and a culture of deep faith in science and deep skepticism in religion feed these kinds of baseless ideas.
Our first response to these ideas is to point out that ‘science’ is not some kind of monolithic system of proved and perfect knowledge. Science is a method of observing the world and drawing conclusions about natural phenomena. Scientists observe (usually by performing experiments involving advanced instruments and technology) and then come up with theories to explain what they’ve observed. They will then test and re-test their theory until it appears to be confirmed.
Science, understood this way, is good at explaining natural phenomena by a method of careful observation. Of course, science cannot test and observe things such as the origin of the universe, the origin of morality in human beings, or the meaning of beauty. It can use some of its theories to make claims about where we came from, why we are here, why we pray and worship, or what happens after we die. But those claims are a lot more like philosophy or religion than like observable science. At this point, a scientist has left the laboratory and is philosophising about life.
It’s a highly conceited position to suggest that scientific, empirical knowledge about the natural world is the only kind that matters, or that it is omni-competent to explain everything that exists. To make the claim that “the cosmos is all that there is, was, or ever will be” is not a scientific claim, nor one that science can prove. It is simply philosophy, or religion, preaching from a laboratory pulpit.
Another popular idea is that science represents updated, new knowledge, while religion represents old, primitive, superstitious knowledge. This idea feels very plausible to some, when you consider the massive advances we have made in improving our physical and material lives through technology. Our way of life seems so much more advanced than that of our ancestors, and the assumption is that our knowledge and thinking is also far in advance of theirs. Supposedly, primitive man attributed whatever he didn’t understand to magic or the gods. As science closes more of these gaps in our knowledge, the need for God diminishes.
But first of all, discovering the mechanisms and secrets of the universe does not eliminate God, anymore than taking a car apart and seeing all its parts would eliminate a designer of the car. As C. S. Lewis said, “If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe—no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase”. Second, advances in knowledge about the world hardly mean we have advanced in every form of knowledge and in every realm of life. We can make good arguments that other ages were better than we are in the arts, or in political arrangements, or in social custom and order. Many eras were, in some respects, more humane than ours, for their priority was not merely the taming and controlling of nature through science, but in improving the whole human condition. It wouldn’t be surprising to find that the best religious knowledge is old, because “there is nothing new under the sun”, and many of our ancestors gave their time to studying the soul and the Creator more than the study of natural phenomena.
Finally, some think that scientific knowledge is the most reliable kind of knowledge, and therefore the only real source of truth. They believe that science is “objective” and verifiable by observation and reason, while religion is “subjective”, and is probably just wish-fulfilment.
But there are plenty of other kinds of knowledge besides empirical, observational knowledge. Knowledge comes from many other sources: reason, experience, intuition, authority, and tradition. Observation is a useful form of knowledge, but it is not the only kind. And in fact, scientists use plenty of ‘subjective’ knowledge when doing their work: they proceed on intuitions or hunches, they imagine solutions to the problem they’re tackling and then test their solutions, they accept certain scientific traditions and build upon them. Indeed, the scientist has an unstated faith in the predictability and orderliness of the universe, for why should the laws of physics operate the way they do?
So-called subjective knowledge is simply knowledge obtained by a subject. And since we are all subjects, all of our knowledge must go through the filter and grid of our own subjective brains. That is not to say there is no objective reality outside of us; but it does mean that no one has independent, neutral access to reality. We must all observe and interpret the world through a filter, even scientists.
Science and religion are neither the same thing, nor are they enemies. For both ask questions about reality – a reality made and sustained by God.