In this blog post, I will examine various perspectives on the relationship between science and religion and logically explore my own view on whether science and religion are distinct from one another.
Different Perspectives on Science and Religion
In the past, religion was an indispensable and vital element of human life. The existence of God was taken for granted, and people learned religious doctrines and lived their lives accordingly. However, since the modern era, the absolute authority that religion once held has gradually weakened. People began to understand religion from their own perspectives, and scientists were no exception to this change. Scientists sought to explain or critique religion based on their own theories and philosophies, and in the process, various views on the relationship between science and religion emerged. Are science and religion separate, or are they inherently inseparable? In this article, I will examine representative viewpoints and discuss my own argument and the reasons behind it.
Planck argued that science and religion belong to two distinct domains. He viewed science as dealing with the objective world—that is, the world of matter—while religion deals with the subjective world—that is, the world of values. Therefore, he explained that the conflict between science and religion arose because each sought to understand entirely different domains from its own perspective. According to his view, religion and science are independent domains that do not overlap and are therefore separate from one another.
Heisenberg, however, presented a different perspective from Planck’s. He believed that a central order permeating the world could be discovered within the simplicity of the laws of nature. He also argued that God—the central order referred to in religion—is connected in some way to these laws of nature. To him, this central order possesses both objective and subjective characteristics; consequently, he viewed religion and science as inseparable.
Science and Religion from the Perspective of Equivalence Relations
The arguments of the two scientists examined above each have their own validity. However, it is difficult to view either perspective as a conclusion based on objective evidence that clearly proves the relationship between science and religion. So, what perspective is needed to understand the relationship between science and religion more clearly?
I believe that the idea that these two entities are inseparably connected can be understood as a concept similar to an equivalence relation. Equivalence does not simply refer to a relationship where an equality holds, such as x = y. It is a broader concept that includes not only relationships where an equality holds but also isomorphic relationships in which the structures correspond to one another. It is necessary to examine the structures of science and religion from this perspective.
Until the advent of quantum mechanics, science was often understood as a purely objective domain. However, with the development of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, it became difficult to explain science solely as a completely objective realm. Bohr illustrated this point using the concept of simultaneity as an example. He argued that two events occurring simultaneously for a stationary observer may not occur simultaneously for a moving observer. This demonstrates that events do not necessarily exist solely in an objective sense but can be understood differently depending on the observer’s conditions.
Therefore, science can also be viewed as possessing both objective and subjective aspects. However, this objectivity and subjectivity are not so much characteristics of the natural laws themselves—the central order of science—as they are features that emerge in the process by which humans understand those laws. To understand natural laws, humans distinguish between objective and subjective aspects. Bohr explained that this distinction corresponds to a “cut” in quantum mechanics, and that its location varies depending on the observer and the method of observation. In other words, the natural laws—the central order—can be described in complementary ways depending on the observer and the method of observation.
The Diversity of Religion and the Structure of Science
Religion is about the Great Connection. However, just because religion pursues the Great Connection does not mean it exists in only one identical form. In fact, religion exists in a wide variety of forms. Bohr believed that this phenomenon, too, could be understood from the quantum mechanical perspective explained earlier.
Just as a dividing line is established to distinguish between the objective and subjective aspects of the laws of nature, religion, too, involves the formation of different perspectives as humans interpret the “Great Connection.”
Since the “Great Connection” is a concept that encompasses everything known to humanity, it can be viewed as possessing both objective and subjective characteristics. However, the subject interpreting it is human, and humans understand it differently based on their individual personalities and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, it can be explained that the position of the dividing line separating the objective and subjective aspects varies depending on the religious believers and their cultures, and that these differences manifest as diverse forms of religion.
Examining the structures of science and religion based on Bohr’s view reveals that the two domains share a remarkably similar form. This is because both domains possess a structure in which humans seek to observe, understand, and explain a central order. From this perspective, science and religion are structurally similar and appear to be in an isomorphic relationship, as if they were not separate from one another.
However, there is one more important issue to consider here: the relationship between the natural laws of science and the “great connections” of religion. Since natural laws and the “great connections” are core concepts of science and religion, respectively, for the two domains to be in a true isomorphic relationship, these core elements must also form an isomorphic relationship with one another.
Are the laws of nature and the “Great Connection” the same concept?
Unlike laws in the normative sense, the laws of nature refer to the objective and necessary relationships that exist between objects and phenomena in nature. Based on this definition, the laws of nature can be understood as the central order that unifies the diverse phenomena of nature.
What, then, is the “Great Connection”? Major religions include Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. When examined based on the “Great Connection” as described by these religions, they can be broadly divided into two categories: Buddhism and Taoism form one category, while Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism form another.
In Buddhism, the Great Connection can be described as the enlightenment necessary to attain Nirvana. In Taoism, it is called the “Dao (道)”; while difficult to define precisely, it is described as an ineffable, primordial mystery. The Great Connection as described in these two religions corresponds to the enlightenment or order that permeates the world, and can be seen as having a nature similar to the natural laws of science—the central order that governs natural phenomena.
However, the “Great Connection” referred to in Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism is somewhat different. While these religions share the commonality with the previous two in that they also seek an ultimate connection, they explain that connection through the existence of “God.” Christianity and Islam are based on monotheism, while Hinduism, though polytheistic in nature, explains all deities as avatars—manifestations of Brahman—in accordance with monism. Therefore, it can be said that all three religions ultimately understand God as a single personal being.
It is precisely at this point that a significant difference arises between these religions and the ones examined earlier—and, by extension, science. These religions are distinguished by the fact that they understand the ultimate order as a personal being.
Do the laws of nature possess personhood?
If so, we might ask whether the laws of nature in science possess personhood. I believe that the laws of nature clearly possess a certain directionality. This point can also be confirmed in Heisenberg’s explanation: After winter passes, flowers bloom again; after a war ends, cities are rebuilt. In other words, disorder exhibits a tendency to repeatedly move toward a state of order.
However, can we immediately define this directionality as a personality? To determine this, we must first consider what a personality is. Generally, personality refers to the mental characteristics that encompass an individual’s intellectual, emotional, and volitional traits. In other words, for a personality to exist, both emotion and will must be present. To put it simply, I believe the presence or absence of a personality can be distinguished by whether behavior involving emotion exists.
So, do the laws of nature exhibit behavior driven by emotion? Upon examining the directionality of the laws of nature, I believe the answer is no. Behavior driven by emotion can vary depending on the situation, and sometimes exceptional behavior may occur. However, the laws of nature always operate in the same direction. For example, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy—that is, the degree of disorder—in an isolated system does not decrease but either increases or remains constant. This law applies identically without exception. Therefore, it is difficult to view the laws of nature as possessing a personality.
The enlightenment spoken of in Buddhism and Taoism also always points in the same direction, with no exceptional changes. In this respect, it can be seen as sharing characteristics similar to the laws of nature.
On the other hand, the concept of God in Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism is different. For example, the various deities in Hinduism are depicted as beings with emotions, and they act in diverse ways depending on those emotions. It is difficult to view these actions as always moving in the same direction. In Christianity and Islam as well, God is understood as a personal being. Even in the biblical story of Noah’s Flood, God is portrayed as judging humanity and then promising never to act in the same way again regarding that decision. This narrative demonstrates that God is understood as a being with personal judgment and will, unlike simple natural laws.
Of course, one could argue that God, like natural laws or the Great Connection, acts with a grand sense of direction. However, unlike natural laws, God is a personal being; therefore, there is a difference in that God can act in exceptional ways depending on the situation.
So, is the essential connection of religion the Great Connection itself, or is it the personal God? I believe the answer to this question can be found in the reason religion exists in various forms. Religion is interpreted differently depending on the people and their cultures. While the Great Connection and God possess different characteristics, both can serve as important elements constituting religion. Therefore, religions centered on a personal God and those centered on the Great Connection—which does not presuppose personhood—are both included within the category of religion.
However, while the laws of nature—the core of science—lack personhood, the “Great Connection” in religion encompasses both cases where personhood exists and cases where it does not. Therefore, it is difficult to view the laws of nature and the “Great Connection” as being in a complete isomorphic relationship. If the laws of nature and the “Great Connection” do not form an isomorphic relationship, then science and religion, which are based on them, are also difficult to view as being in an isomorphic relationship. Ultimately, the author believes that science and religion are distinct from one another.
Conclusion
Based on Bohr’s perspective, the author argued that while the overall structures of science and religion are quite similar, it is difficult to view them as isomorphic because their core concepts—the laws of nature and the Great Connection—differ significantly in terms of the presence or absence of personhood. Therefore, the author developed the argument that science and religion are not equivalent and represent distinct domains.
Of course, interpretations of the concept of personhood, as well as the criteria for equivalence and separation, may vary from person to person. Therefore, this perspective is merely one interpretation among many, and I believe the relationship between science and religion is a topic that will continue to be examined and developed through various philosophical and scientific discussions in the future.
