What’s true of religion is true of science

A caricature of Charles Darwin as an ape published in The Hornet, a satirical magazine | photo courtesy of wikipedia.org

In the continuous battle between science and religion, there are several hotly contested issues: the debate over abortion, stem cell research, the origin of life and (especially) the existence of God.

These are not likely to be settled in the foreseeable future. After initial assessment, it is easy to think of science as the antithesis of religion and vice versa. They are polar opposites, like yin and yang, like light and dark. However, these seemingly contrary forces are also more interconnected and interdependent than most people think.

Even if they are to be thought of as absolute opposites, several incidences in their respective infancies hold an almost laughable irony. One of the most polarizing figures in this debate, for an example, is the English naturalist Charles Darwin: a soundly religious man who believed in God as the ultimate lawgiver.

In addition, today some of the harshest critics of religion have moved their focus in science (namely evolutionary science) off of the field and onto the man (Darwin), almost worshiping him.

In some related historical incidents, according to most historians, the modern scientific method was first developed by Islamic scientists, and Buddhism actively encourages impartial investigation of nature: also known as science. The irony is amusing to say the least.

Beyond these specific examples, the interdependence and parallels in method of these two disciplines are numerous and far reaching. Religion and science are, at their roots, both ways to explain the world around us.

They both require some amount of imagination in their advancement; scholars of both have historically been thought of as highly creative individuals. Both require analytical reflection on personal human experience while being practiced.

Though many religious individuals may disagree, there is a degree of moral commitment in science not unlike that which religion is built on. This isn’t the incredibly politicized science practiced by scientists whose biased research is the result of their grants and funding coming from corporations with agendas. It is the kind of science that is in its purest form in which the only motivation is the search for the truth.

Some of the numerous debates, which are subcategories of the larger relationship, are old news. One of the earliest clashes — Nicolaus Copernicus’ view against a flat Earth and subsequent fear of religious persecution — is all but laid to rest now. A very small minority of people still believe the earth to be flat, and of course, they are entitled to their opinions and to ignore NASA’s evidence and what not.

The age of the Earth is another one. A larger group, but still a minority, believe it to be around 6,000-years-old, and they are free to ignore the entire field of geology or any ancient fossils discovered to be older via carbon dating. Of course science never really proves anything. It just provides evidence for a theory until counter-evidence disproves it.

It seems the one thing science may have the hardest thing disproving is the one that most of religion is fundamentally built on: the existence of God.

Then there are the more closely and fiercely debated issues. Pro-life of pro-choice? Embryonic stem cells used to save human lives or as the equivalent to human life? Evolution, creationism or intelligent design?

I’ll have to get back to you on those…