Image Source

Religious Science II: A Universal Dichotomy.

In the previous article, we discussed the concept of religion, its relationship with science, the long dispute that has gone on for eons between the scientific and religious communities and how the matter affects us as individuals. In this article, however, we will be protracting the discussion ahead in order to get a clearer picture of the problem of a God or divine entity in Science, and in a simple sentence, to answer the question, " can a scientist really believe in and revere a divine entity? That is, can a scientist believe in God?'
We will discuss the issue, and in turn, examine a paradox rears its enigmatic head when we try to merge the entities " God"and "scientist". And at the end of the discus, we shall ask ourselves a very vital question?

Hmm, this promises to be interesting.... let's move on.

The Irving Rothchild Irony

Emeritus professor of reproductive biology, Irving Rothchild, in a bid to state a position on the issue of Religion Science, describes an irony in a statement stated in my previous article, Religious Science: An Enemy, A Disguise or A Friend. In this statement, he tried to offer a resolution to the religious science paradox and instead of one, came up with three possible resolutions of the paradox. The first one was the reality where the Scientist's God has no form of intelligence or control in the universe. The second resolution he proposed would be to accept religion and the concept of a divine entity on one hand, and the concept of science at the other, i.e having two separate distinct minds separated by an impermeable barrier in between them. The third resolution will be to reject the concept of a divine entity in its entirety.

What do these resolutions imply?

The first resolution which demands the scientist's God must possess no form of intelligence or control places religion as an existent but latent part of the universe, having no influence on the universe or having no knowledge of it. It can be likened to deism, a concept in which a creator is believed to exist but possess no form of influence over the universe. Albert Einstein was one of the proponents of deism. It can also be related to agnosticism (the concept that advocates that nothing is really known) but the discrepancy lays in the foundational precept, whereas the agnostic would say "I don't really know if a divine entity exists", a deist would say, " yes he exists, but is unnecessary."

The second resolution compels the scientist to a form of ambivalence and conflict, putting him in between the authority of "God" and that of "Science". And for this to be possible, there must exist an impermeable barrier in the mind, leaving " God" on one side, and "Science" at the other. A reconciliation cannot be sought in this, and the scientist must choose constantly whether to venerate faith or reason. Hence, one time a scientist, one time a faithful man.

And how about the third?

The third resolution propagates the science-man beyond the scope of religion where he asserts that either God did not exist, or Science would not. Here is what I mean, that if God exists, then everything is religion and there is no science, and if science exists, then religion has no place in this world. The scientist in this scope accepts science and observational reasoning and logic as the driving force of the universe and there can be no form of a creator. Some may refer to this as atheism.

Take a deep breath, it is about to get bumpy...

The first and the second resolutions are permitted and accepted to be at amicable terms with the religious community since at least of all, they satisfy the most basic prerequisite that a divine entity exists. The scientist and another individual who have accepted the third resolution, however, are caught in an almost long philippic debate with the religious community, since they deny the existence of a creator, posing most frequent the question that gives rise to another paradox. "how then were you created?"

The Unanswerable Question

If you have ever been involved or witnessed a debate between a theist and an atheist, the question, " how then were you created?" Must be familiar to us. In fact, it is. Since most of us have wondered where we came from some time in our lives and pondered on our origin. This question however if answered in a specific sense of how a material object was created and its components identified does not cause too much alarm. But when we move to a more general sense, we begin to see a mystery: What then created what?

Source@

The concept of Force is brought forward, a cause, or a first cause. A paradox where the first is either an illusion or is the last. While the religious man would present the thought-provoking question, "if the universe exists, who created the universe?". The scientist would present a retort, " if God exists, who created God?". So you we are left chasing our own tail, the question which turns on itself. Therefore if religion argues the existence of a divine and supreme entity, logic turns and present the possibility of a more supreme being and hence the big question: where can we stand? The ladder all comes down to the individual of course. Perspective will always come to play, and every individual must see life from his own viewpoint. As the philosopher, Epictetus put its :

all beliefs must be tolerated, for every man must get to heaven in his own way.

What do I think?

I think as a scientist, the idea of a divine entity should be discarded although not ignored, for even the idea of a divine entity has helped us made some inroads into the peripherals of our universe. But we must not mistake ideas as material entities, and if there would be a God, " that God the scientist cannot know. " the scientist must disclaim every influence of the religious idea and must use scientific methods, tools, observational and speculative logic at arriving at his scientific conclusions. As stated by Keshar Joshi in his article God is uncreated and unnecessary: The Ultimate God Paradox, God is likened to a philosophical black hole, the point where all reason breaks down.

Closing the curtains

Source@

Now we have seen what paradox arises from the religion-science integration, and how we have tried to answer those questions that give rise to more. However I must answer one more question, and that is how this concept of a divine entity affects us as individuals. This I am afraid each individual must answer for himself and must reason out the basis for his or her decision and how it influences him. Every one must indeed row his own boat. Thanks for following through and don't forget to ask your questions and make your contributions as well, keeping at the back of our mind that nothing and no one is beyond learning. Stay scientific, always.

Related posts:

Religious Science: An Enemy, A disguise or A Friend

Philosophy: A science of Thought