Source @

Religious Science: An Enemy, A Disguise, Or Friend.

In the previous articles, I have discussed the concept of science, its methods and its relation to logic and philosophy. Now I wish for us to steer our ship a little towards a different problem that has disturbed even the most intelligent of our species. There is no doubt that even science has played a vital part in each and every one of our lives, machines help us commute, technology helps us communicate easier and faster and medicine is seen as an essential necessity for a healthy life, and without all these things, it would be difficult to picture life and how much we could bear of we were to evolve back into the stone age. But as much as people regard science to be miraculous, some still hold its arch opposition, religion, in the highest regard. Even among the scientific community, many still hold still to their religious beliefs and even referring to their beliefs even in cases of science. This, in turn, has given rise to a debate that seems unending. In this article, we will look into the concept of religion, its relation to science and discuss the debate that has plagued mankind since we began to reason.

Religion: A theological science?

Religion, as defined by the Merriam-webster dictionary, is " a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices", for some it is simply the existence of a divine or group of divine entities, while for some it's mere tradition. Even within the religious sphere, there is a huge discrepancy and disagreement between various sets as to the nature, values, demands and even "numbers" of these divine entities. But this is not we want to discuss. We want to see its relation to science, the long debate and the paradox that every possible answer leaves us.

Are you following? Good.

Nonetheless, even the religious community cannot arrive at a consensus about the definition of religion, a coherence of which science boasts of possessing in all regards, that it is the same everywhere and anytime.
In the article Religious Experience Reconsidered: A Building-Block Approach to the Study of Religion and other Special Things, Emile Durkheim defined religion as "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things..." and Max Lynn Stackhouse in his book new holy wars defines religion as "a comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted"

Me, I defined religion simply as a faith-based system, whereby a view is held to be true simply by personal conviction even when there is no evidence. In other words, all things held to be true in a particular faith do not need observational methods to hold as true. It is not testability in this sphere. Just belief.

So where does this take us?

Let us consider a long opposition that almost has untraceable roots, a dispute between the two communities, and hope to understand and perhaps predict a mutual integration albeit the already existing dissociation.

Stay with me...

A Long Controversy

There has been a long dissension about the validity of each sphere of knowledge which has given birth to a paradox (this we will discuss later on.) While the scientific community holds that religion has no means of which it can test its premises and conclusion, even accusing it of lacking consistent results and even being unable of producing an experimental result.
Even the scientific luminaries such as Albert Einstien, Erwin Schrodinger, Stephen Hawking and the rest of them have commented on the issue.

All in agreement?

Not at all. Even in the scientific community, there is a difference in opinions concerning what religion is and what the concept of a supreme being entails.
Erwin Schrodinger, German physicist, and Nobel prize winner describe religion in the article "Moore" as a God-like reality. He states and I quote him ipssisma verba:

The uncertainty is how many of the rules God himself has permanently ordained, and how many apparently are caused by your own mental inertia, while the solution generally becomes possible only through freedom from its limitations. This is perhaps the most exciting thing in the game.

He even went further to challenge the efficiency of scientific and mathematical methods, claiming that it can answer no question to aesthetic values and of course "God" :

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity.

James Watson- the discoverer of the DNA, a work which stood as the touchstone of advanced genetics disagrees completely with Erwin Schrodinger, saying that the concept of the soul or any divine does not tally with the concept of science and does not "seem" right in the eyes of a proper "scientist".

Source@

Some scientists hold an indifferent view such as Albert Einstien who said that he believed in Spinoza's God who reveals itself in the harmony of what exists, not in an entity that concerns itself with human affairs.
Emeritus professor of reproductive biology, Irving Rothchild in his paper An Eclectic overview of the practice of science describes religion as an incompatible and incoherent concept, and he states there:

In all respects, science is logically incompatible with the belief in a nonmaterial intelligent entity that controls the universe and is called God, yet many scientists, especially among the chemists and physicists even among some biologists have such a religious belief. I can think of only three resolutions of this paradox. The scientist’s God either is not an intelligent entity or has no control over the universe. The second is to accept the concept of science as defined here with a part of one’s mind and that of God with another, with an impermeable barrier between the two parts.
third is either not to be a scientist or not to believe in God. i.e to be an atheist, or euphemistically, a non-believer since among many people ‘atheist’ is a dirty more word. The funny thing about these solutions is that they all work! The troublemakers are the zealots, the proponents of Intelligent Design on the one hand, and the Russian communists’ idiotic attempt to prohibit religion on the other.

And even the religious men have not held back their rage, and have in a similar fashion condemned science to a basic knowledge, one that pales in comparison to the knowledge of a divine entity, a creator that is. It is also this vehement disagreement about the modes of science and its supremacy that gave rise to a very complex paradox.

Now we are getting to the juicy part.

The unnecessary necessity paradox

The unnecessary necessity paradox was discovered by Michalson in Kant's book Three vision affirming that as long as Kant maintains a view in which rational religion is self-sufficient, universal and alone a necessity to humanity's religion, while historical faiths are contingent and unnecessary implying that rational religion needed only empirical rationale and not historical faith-based beliefs to thrive. Therefore, Kant defines reasoning as a necessity for religion and disinclines historical faith for its development and propagation.
This paradox renders the need for faith unnecessary, describing reason as sufficient enough for understanding the moral concept of God, but describes faith as a necessary when undertaking pragmatic approach to dissemination, a catalyst if you may, and argues that it must have nothing do with moral obligations to the entity in question.

Should we concern ourselves with such paradox and brain-teasing arguments? Perhaps not. But if we can summon enough interest, the contradictions themselves begin to intrigue us on the question of a divine entity and its existence. Was science right after all? Is religion totally unwarranted in the face of observational and testable evidences? Is there a form of integration, a God-scientist if you like, or is science merely a facade of faith? Ponder on this question and see where you stand on the matter.

So, Where does that leave us?

As we have seen, the debate is a complex one, and whether religion plays a role in science,
Or whether the concept of a religious scientist is totally unwarranted? In my next article, I shall answer these questions alongside discuss the paradox presented by Irving Rothchild about the sciencist's religion.

Looking forward to the next article right? Yeah me too.

For the meantime, any questions or contributions are welcomed. And please don't forget to stay scientific, always.

Related articles:

Science: An intelligent Desire

Scientific Method: An Unnoticed Debate

Philosophy: A Science Of Thought