Linkages between science and religion: Part 2
A sequel to the first part, the article discusses the feud between science and religion supported by theories and reasoning of some eminent scientists.
IN SCIENCE all truths are truths by consensus that is reached among people who are knowledgeable in the area concerned and have formed their opinion by using the method of science and verifying the results personally or satisfying themselves adequately about the validity of the experiments and of the logic, which led to the particular truth. On the other hand, religious truths represent an opinion usually of one religions leader, at most of a few.
Moreover, these opinions are rigid. Changing them implies establishing another religion, or at least a sect. Therefore, a given religion, by definition, is static, unlike science, which is dynamic and changes with time as more and more evidence comes forth. It is often said that science progresses by disproving. At least two Nobel Prizes were awarded for discoveries which were subsequently proven to be incorrect.
However, in both these cases the persons concerned deserved to receive the Nobel Prize because, had they not made their discovery, the truth as we know it today, would not have been discovered at the time it was.
Science is, therefore, evolutionary, which religion is not. The growth of scientific knowledge is a continuous process. A religion once founded continues substantially unchanged. Science has a built-in corrective, which takes care of human fallibility on a continuing basis that religion does not have. In science, a new theory must explain all that was explained by the old theory plus something that could not be explained by the earlier theory.
The new theory, in addition, should be capable of making predictions, which could not be made on the basis of the old theory, and some of these predictions should, indeed, have been tested and turned out to be right. For example, Einsteinian physics made predictions which Newtonian physics could not, and explained events and phenomena which the earlier physics could not.
Thus, the inter-conversion of mass and energy, the bending of light in the presence of a large gravitational field, the existence of black holes, and the dependence of the mass of an object on its speed, were all predicted by Einstein and later on substantiated. None of these predictions was possible on the basis of Newtonian physics.
That is why we consider Einsteinian physics an improvement over Newtonian physics from which it actually evolved. Contrast this situation with that obtained in religion, where no religion can be said to be an improvement over any earlier religion. If you say something to the contrary - that one religion is an improvement over another - you might have a riot!
All new knowledge in science must be consistent with known and established observations. On the other hand, religious dogma (including the so-called miracles, for example, the materialization of objects by the wave of one’s hands) is often inconsistent with known and established observations. Science progresses through modification of a part of the existing knowledge and not by the replacement of the entire body of the existing knowledge. A new religion, on the contrary, often attempts to replace fully the existing religions.
Another important linkage between science and religion is that while science is forward-looking, religion is backward- looking.
For example, for the followers of science, the more modem the text, the better it is. On the other hand, religious texts on which the followers of religion depend are generally ancient. In the case of science, the scientists of the present time matter the most; in the case of religion, the founders of the religion who lived in the remote past matter the most.
For the followers of science, the events of today and the likely events of tomorrow are the events of the greatest concern; for the followers of the religious events of the past are the events of the greatest concern. The techniques used in science keep on improving with time, and the impetus for this improvement comes from within the framework of the method of science.
On the other hand, religious customs and practices do not basically change with time. Whatever changes are brought about are due to forces external to the religion - such as science itself.
Login  Login through Social ID |
Not finding what you are looking for? Search here.
