In this blog post, we will examine the historical relationship between science and religion and explore whether the two fields can go beyond coexistence and merge in the future.
When did the history of science and religion begin? That question goes back to prehistoric times. Primitive people living in tribes began to use fire and make various tools through scientific thinking. They also shared a belief in gods, elected priests, and conducted religious activities such as honoring the spirits of the dead and fortune-telling. In other words, the history of science and religion is as long as the history of humankind. However, that long history is full of conflicts between the two. Theologians who believed that God created everything were bound to be at odds with scientists who dared to question the nature created by God. In the Middle Ages, when the authority of religion was at its peak, scientists who conducted research contrary to doctrine were treated as heretics and even persecuted. As time passed and the scientific revolution made science more powerful than religion, existing religious doctrines were criticized as unscientific, and spiritual experiences were dismissed as lies. In this way, science and religion have continued to deny each other and fight for dominance. However, in recent years, science and religion have shown a tendency to recognize each other without conflict and to seek harmony and coexistence. So, how is the relationship between modern science and religion different from the past, and how is their coexistence possible? In this article, we will explain theories about the relationship between modern religion and science and consider the possibility of this relationship continuing in the future. In the process, we will explain intelligent design and creation science, which are often misunderstood as examples of the coexistence of science and religion, and criticize the contradictions they contain.
When discussing theories on the relationship between science and religion, Ian Barbour cannot be left out. Barbour’s 1988 book presents the most widely used classification system for the relationship between science and religion to date. He broadly categorizes their relationship into four types: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. First, let’s look at the conflict theory, which is the view that science and religion are inherently incompatible. The conflict theory can be divided into two positions: the active position, which argues that one of the two must disappear, and the passive position, which argues that one of the two will gradually disappear. Those who advocate conflict theory mainly base their arguments on history, interpreting the history of humankind as a conflict between science and religion. In particular, in the early modern period, conflict theory was often used as a basis for the argument that religion had hindered the development of humankind and that religion must be eliminated in order to build a bright future based on science. However, many traces of manipulation were found in the historical materials used as the basis for conflict theory, and the relationship between science and religion was viewed too simplistically. With the dangers of science highlighted by the world wars, the number of people advocating conflict theory has decreased significantly. Today, it is largely ignored by academia, and only anti-intellectual fanatics, some atheists, and anti-religious people still advocate conflict theory.
One of the theories that emerged to replace the collapsed conflict theory is the independence theory. The independence theory literally claims that the realms of science and religion do not overlap and are therefore unrelated. A representative figure is Gould, who advocated NOMA, or non-overlapping magisteria. This means that if religion cannot deny conclusions based on scientific experience and facts, and if science cannot be said to have higher moral insight than religion, then science and religion must have a mutual attitude of humility and not encroach on each other’s domains. American theologian R. L. Rowe argues for the same independence theory, but interprets the domains of science and religion slightly differently. He says that while science asks “how,” religion asks “why.” In other words, while science seeks secondary causes based on interaction, religion seeks ultimate primary causes. The theory of independence is welcomed by many scientists and theologians because it allows people to believe and think as they wish without necessarily linking science and religion. However, the theory of independence has the disadvantage of being unable to respond to strange claims made by religion, such as creation science. Currently, the leading proponents of the theory of independence are scholars such as Stephen Jay Gould and Massimo Pigliucci. Although they are not favorable toward religion, they take the position that science should not interfere with religion, and vice versa. Most people who do not have a religion or are indifferent to religion also take the position of independence.
Along with independence, the other alternatives to conflict theory are dialogue theory and integration theory. These two theories are similar in that they argue that science and religion are closely connected and should develop together. However, they differ slightly in that one view is that science and religion help each other, while the other view is that science and religion need each other. These two theories were evaluated by Barber as “the most satisfactory” in his book, and with the recent rise in voices warning against scientism, they are rapidly gaining support.
The first prominent proponents of dialogue theory were scientists such as Albert Einstein and Michael Faraday. They argued that no matter how advanced science becomes, it will never be able to uncover the first event that gave rise to all other events, and that they believe in God based on their own objective judgment. Einstein even said, “Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind.”
In the case of integrationism, support has begun to grow relatively recently, with a group of American scientists and Catholic bishops being representative examples. This group argues that science and religion can complement each other to provide a more insightful approach to complex topics that have recently come to the fore, such as biotechnology. Some scholars who advocate integration even argue that the integration of science and religion can explain the entire universe as a single theory that cannot be divided. However, the complete integration of science and religion is still a distant dream, and its feasibility remains low.
Now, I will explain intelligent design and creation science, which are often mistaken as combinations of science and religion, but are actually completely different. The reason for explaining these two concepts is that many people mistake them as examples of the coexistence of science and religion. However, they are concepts that disguise religion as science and are far from coexistence. First, intelligent design theory is a theory that the world was designed by a transcendent, intelligent being whose existence or absence cannot be proven. This theory originated from the limitations of the theory of evolution, which can explain the evolution of the first cell to the current higher life forms, but cannot explain how the first cell came into existence. Furthermore, cells are machines made up of numerous parts, and if even one of those parts is missing, the cell loses its function. Intelligent design theory describes cells with such complexity as having “irreducible complexity” and argues that it is too difficult to create objects with such complexity by chance. However, this argument has been refuted by Richard Dawkins’ “blind watchmaker” argument and is no longer considered valid. The “blind watchmaker” argument can be summarized as follows: even the most complex structure can arise by chance if there is feedback. The probability of this happening is so high that it can be stated with certainty that it is possible given enough time. Through this argument, Richard Dawkins proved that even the most complex cells can occur naturally with enough time and feedback. As a result, intelligent design theory has been almost forgotten and discarded by academia. Currently, it is mainly used by some theologians to deceive people into believing that Christian creationism is scientifically provable. They replace the intelligent beings that appear in intelligent design theory with God and attempt to justify creationism with arguments that appear scientific. Ultimately, the intelligent design theory that people currently advocate is nothing more than a fake scientific theory that excludes the term “God” from Christian creationism.
Creation science is a similar concept. Creation science is a discipline that attempts to prove the history recorded in the Christian Bible to be true using scientific methods. Representative claims of this discipline include the claim that the Earth was completely submerged in water for over a year in the past, proving the existence of Noah’s flood, and the claim that humans and dinosaurs coexisted based on reliefs carved into the Angkor Wat temple. However, most of these claims are based on fabricated or contrived evidence, and they ignore all evidence that is unfavorable to their position, accepting and then rejecting the theory of evolution as it suits them. These findings cannot be considered scientific analysis. In other words, creation science is nothing more than religious beliefs cloaked in science, and it is criticized by both the scientific and religious communities.
So far, we have analyzed four representative theories on the relationship between science and religion—conflict theory, independence theory, dialogue theory, and integration theory—and refuted two incorrect examples of the coexistence of science and religion. So, what kind of relationship will science and religion have in the future? I believe that science and religion will walk the path of integration. In the modern era, we have come to understand the limitations of both religion and science. In the Middle Ages, religion was highly developed, and people achieved spiritual satisfaction and built strong local communities. However, due to the lack of scientific and technological development, most people lived in poverty. In the modern era, science has developed to the point where it has completely changed the environment surrounding humanity, leading to improvements in living standards and life expectancy. However, even though modern people can satisfy more material desires, it cannot be said that they are happier than in the past. Rather, new social problems have arisen, such as an increase in criminals who lack ethical awareness and an increase in people who feel lonely. In order to actively solve these problems, the fusion of science and religion is inevitable.
The theory of independence, which asserts that science and religion are separate entities, cannot effectively solve modern problems. For example, the loneliness felt by modern people and the increasing number of elderly people who feel abandoned are ultimately the result of the collapse of the local communities of the past. The easiest way to solve these problems is to rebuild communities. However, the environment of today is very different from that of the past. Unlike in the past, people move more often and prefer to have many shallow relationships rather than a few deep ones. In order to efficiently create and maintain a community in modern times, it is important to make people feel a sense of connection by sharing religious beliefs, while at the same time using science and technology to make it easy to meet anywhere, anytime. In other words, it is difficult to create a community without cooperation between science and religion, and furthermore, without complete integration. Furthermore, Professor Lawrence of Johns Hopkins University argues that people in the past were more free to move between scientific and religious thinking than people today, and some Vatican clergy have also hinted at the possibility of integrating science and religion, saying that “science and religion both originate from the common roots of nature.” As such, science and religion are not entirely separate concepts, but rather share the commonality of being explanatory frameworks created by humans to explain the phenomena around them. The only difference is that religion developed with a focus on uniting people and maintaining communities, while science developed with a focus on improving people’s living standards. In the future, we will not be able to give up either the sense of security that can be obtained through community or the improved standard of living that can be obtained through science. Therefore, in the future, science and religion will open a new paradigm through “fusion” rather than “coexistence,” and through this, humanity will be able to enjoy an unprecedented golden age with both material abundance and spiritual stability.
