In this blog post, I’d like to examine the long-standing debate surrounding the relationship between science and religion and consider whether these two fields must necessarily be in conflict with one another.
Are science and religion truly incompatible?
Humans have constantly strived to find the causes of the phenomena they experience. In the early days of history, people sought to explain the world through an omnipotent being beyond human capacity, hoping to overcome their fear of unpredictable phenomena by believing in such a being. It was through this process that religion was born.
However, as knowledge accumulated over time, areas that were once thought to be explainable only through religion began to be explained by science. As a result, religion has faced constant challenges from science, and the debate over the compatibility of the two fields continues to this day.
Some scientists argue that religion is nothing more than a human illusion. In particular, Paul Dirac, in his commentary on Heisenberg’s book ‘The Part and the Whole’, states that religion merely repeats unfounded false claims, and since different religions hold conflicting myths, religious myths themselves lack legitimacy and serve no purpose.
However, the purposes and functions of religion and science have evolved over time, and in modern society, it is difficult to view them as necessarily being in opposition to one another. Therefore, rather than continuing meaningless debates over what constitutes absolute truth, each should remain faithful to its own role. For these reasons, I cannot agree with Dirac’s argument for the following two reasons.
Science Does Not Prove Absolute Truth Either
First, if the “legitimacy” Dirac refers to means the proof or verification of propositions as understood in science, we cannot conclude that religion is incompatible with science simply because it cannot prove certain things. The concepts of God or the soul in religion are not objects that can be verified with the naked eye or proven through experimentation. However, this does not mean that religion is inferior to or wrong compared to science. This is because science, too, is not a discipline that proves everything in an absolute sense.
The first reason is that modern scientific theories develop based on existing theories. Gregory Bateson explained, “Science sometimes advances or rejects hypotheses, but that is a different matter from proof; proof cannot be achieved unless it is in the realm of completely abstract tautology.” He understood scientific theories as models that explain observed phenomena according to certain patterns.
According to his explanation, when a new phenomenon is observed, if the results predicted by the existing model actually occur, that model can be considered superior. Conversely, if the prediction is off the mark, the model is revised or replaced with a new theory. In other words, just because a model successfully predicts natural phenomena does not mean that the model itself proves the absolute truth of those phenomena. Science merely offers the most plausible predictions about the future; it cannot be definitively asserted that these are absolute facts. What we can call “fact” is, after all, merely an explanation that holds true within a specific model.
The second reason is that there are limits not only to the temporal scope of scientific theories but also to the information that humans can perceive. Humans perceive information through differences, but this perception is possible only within the limits of human sensory capabilities and technological levels. Changes that occur very slowly or extremely subtle differences are not easily perceived by humans. Therefore, current scientific theories are merely models that explain the phenomena observed by humans to date with the least error; they do not in themselves signify absolute truth.
The opening of Stephen Hawking’s ‘A Brief History of Time’ features the following anecdote.
“While a scientist was giving a lecture on astronomy and explaining that the Earth orbits the Sun, and the Sun in turn orbits the Milky Way, an elderly woman said,
‘You’re wrong. The world is a flat land resting on the back of a giant turtle.’
The scientist smiled and asked,
‘What is that turtle standing on?’
To which the old woman replied:
‘That’s very clever. But beneath that, there are just endless turtles.’“
Science, too, begins with a point of faith
If a turtle capable of floating in midair does not actually exist, then ultimately there must be an even more fundamental foundation upon which that turtle can stand. However, this line of thinking is also close to an unverifiable belief that things must necessarily be that way.
The same applies to scientific theories. While modern science has been continuously refined through deductive methods, if we trace the starting point of that deduction back far enough, we inevitably find that certain premises must exist for the theory to hold. Furthermore, even in the process of inductively deriving such premises, we need the belief that the existing premises are true.
Thus, the most fundamental process of belief involves conjecture and assumption. This is because science, too, is influenced by the principle known as Occam’s Razor. Occam’s Razor refers to the principle of prioritizing the explanation that best fits the facts while remaining the simplest among multiple explanations. In other words, it involves adopting the simplest hypothesis first, in accordance with the Rule of Parsimony.
Therefore, since science—just like religion—does not fully prove any absolute truth and requires a certain degree of faith where the starting point cannot be clearly proven, it is difficult to fully agree with Dirac’s argument.
The diversity of religions does not imply a lack of legitimacy
The second reason is that the very fact that religion does not have a single, unified origin demonstrates that religion is a perspective and a way of interpreting the world. This aspect exists to some extent in science as well.
In terms of its lack of unity, one could say that religion has a subjective rather than an objective nature. However, there is no absolute standard for distinguishing between objectivity and subjectivity. Therefore, we cannot conclude that only the natural sciences are objective and that religion, being inherently subjective, lacks legitimacy.
The conflict between science and religion arises when we attempt to find the objective truth that science speaks of within the language used by religion. However, science does not always use entirely objective language either. Niels Bohr described this as the “liberation of thought” and pointed out that it is difficult to simply distinguish between the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity in physics.
Here, the “objective” and “subjective” aspects refer, respectively, to cases where a phenomenon can be described in the same way regardless of the observer and cases where it cannot.
The following two examples demonstrate that science can be understood as both objective and subjective, depending on the observer and the method of observation.
The first is the theory of relativity. Before the theory of relativity emerged, it was believed that all physical quantities measured by an observer regarding a single event constituted the same objective fact. However, the theory of relativity demonstrated that a moving observer and a stationary observer can measure different physical quantities. In this respect, the theory of relativity may appear to have a subjective nature. Yet, in that it is theoretically possible to predict what values each observer will measure, it can also be viewed as possessing objectivity.
The second example is the relationship between Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Schrödinger’s wave mechanics. Schrödinger explained the atomic world in a new way by demonstrating that wave mechanics is mathematically equivalent to quantum mechanics. The wave function allowed for much more efficient calculations than those required by traditional quantum mechanics, and the actual results also agreed well with the predictions of quantum mechanics. In this respect, wave mechanics can be seen as explaining the quantum world through the objective language of mathematics.
However, Schrödinger’s concept of matter waves presented a perspective different from the discontinuity of quantum jumps emphasized by Heisenberg. Through the uncertainty principle, Heisenberg argued that nature is not inherently predetermined and that an intrinsic discontinuity exists in the atomic world. While the energy levels of an electron change instantaneously, the intermediate processes cannot be described. Therefore, there is a fundamental limitation to objectively describing the exact position of an electron within an atom.
Generally, the uncertainty principle is known as the principle that the position and momentum of an atom cannot be measured precisely at the same time. However, the position that Heisenberg maintained thereafter was not merely a limitation of measurement, but rather that the act of observation influences the observed object and that nature itself is not, in essence, completely determined.
In other words, whether the position of an electron within an atom is described using a wave equation or through the uncertainty principle, physical quantities can be described either objectively or subjectively depending on the approach taken to view the same phenomenon. To put it another way, the boundary between objectivity and subjectivity within a single phenomenon can vary depending on the observer and the method of observation.
In this regard, Niels Bohr explained, “It can be said that every physical fact possesses both objective and subjective characteristics.” His view was that while the natural sciences, as an ideal concept, strive for objectivity, the real world cannot be explained by complete objectivity alone.
Therefore, the criteria for distinguishing between objectivity and subjectivity in the real world can vary depending on the observer and the method of observation, and the boundary between them can also be set to some extent arbitrarily. Similarly, just because various religions have different origins and interpretations does not mean that religion must be expressed in a single objective language. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to judge the legitimacy of religion by directly applying the standards of objectivity used in science to religion. It is also invalid to assume that the truth spoken of in religion must necessarily coincide with the objective truth spoken of in science.
“The conflicts that have arisen between religion and science stemmed from misunderstandings that occurred when the symbols and metaphors used in religion were interpreted as claims of natural science.”
Whether in science or religion, the mere fact that a claim is verifiable does not in itself imply its validity. Furthermore, the reason various religions have different myths and origins is that religion is merely one of many perspectives through which the world is understood. Therefore, Dirac’s assertion that religion makes only false claims and that religious myths have no value whatsoever is difficult to regard as valid.
Science and religion fulfill different roles
However, the value of science is not diminished simply because all of its achievements to date have fundamentally stemmed from premises that cannot be fully proven, or because it is not always absolutely objective.
Science and religion use different languages and serve different purposes. We encounter countless practical problems in our daily lives, and science plays a vital role in solving them. Based on observations and verifications accumulated by humanity over a long period, science enables predictions with relatively high accuracy and has made significant contributions to understanding natural phenomena and forecasting the future. Furthermore, it plays a pivotal role in improving quality of life and solving problems faced by society in various fields such as medicine, engineering, information and communications technology, and energy.
The “real-world problems” referred to here do not refer to philosophical questions about the existence of the real world, but rather to problems that fall within the scope of what humans can actually address and resolve.
In contrast, the role of religion is no longer, as it once was, to provide objective explanations of natural phenomena. In modern society, religion plays an increasingly important role in presenting the norms, values, and ethical standards that society must uphold. It also serves to educate people on striking a balance between individual desires and the needs of the community, while providing guidance on the direction of life.
The fear that people once felt toward an omnipotent being has taken on a different form today, manifesting as psychological anxiety, a sense of loss, emptiness, and self-loathing. Religion serves to provide comfort and a sense of stability to those experiencing such psychological difficulties. In this sense, religion continues to play a vital role in addressing the inner struggles of human beings—issues that science alone cannot fully explain or resolve.
Therefore, religion does not need to oppose science simply to defend its own domain on the grounds that science has not reached absolute truth. Similarly, rather than getting bogged down in arguments aimed at refuting religion, science would do well to focus on the role it is best suited to fulfill.
Ultimately, science and religion are not in a relationship where they must compete with or negate one another; rather, they can be viewed as fields that contribute to human life in different ways and within different spheres. Therefore, rather than continuing to engage in fruitless debates against one another, it would be preferable for science and religion to move in a direction that ultimately provides greater value to humanity and society by remaining faithful to their respective roles and purposes.
