Science and religion

Science and religion have many similarities although it does not seem believable. Both of them search for the truth but use different mechanisms. The former utilises a systematic approach of scientific method and the second is through faith. There is nothing wrong with following one discipline or embracing both but it is not good if one of them tries to impose rules over the other. There are a number of misunderstandings regarding this and how both can be joined without conflict.

What are the differences?

Science tries to explain an observed phenomenon and make predictions according to certain parameters. Let’s say that a company is trying to develop an enhanced food that allows farmed Australian salmon to grow faster. Following the scientific method, they have observed that farmed salmon reach a weight of 10 kg in three years so they predict that an enhanced food will return fish with even greater weight within that time.

The second step in the scientific method is to put our belief or hypothesis to the test. In the example, the trial will consist of salmon fed with the enhanced nutrients, and a control group, fed with normal food measuring the weight of the fish for three years.

This experiment has three possible outcomes. The first is indeed that the enhanced food has made the fish grow faster. This will make the developers of the product jump in happiness because they are confident that the product will have a positive impact, earning them lots of money. The second and the third will be a non-response outcome (fish grow at the same rate as the control) or a negative impact where the fish instead of growing will have died.

Religion can be a complementary model rather than antagonistic although each subject has their proper domain that must be respected.

Under a scientific point of view, the interesting outcomes are the second and third and not the first. This is because it opens a number of questions regarding the difference found between the expected outcomes and the real ones. Factors such as fish interaction, temperature of water, intake of the food, among others, may have lead to those differences and need further investigation.

In religion on the other hand, the outcomes expected depends directly on the results. For example, a patient diagnosed with cancer that does not follow any treatment could rely on prayers to be cured. Again, three outcomes can be obtained; a recovery, nothing happens or they die in a shorter time than those patients that received some sort of treatment.

If there is a recovery outcome the person will say that faith saved their life. For those who did not succeed it cannot be said that their prayers were not so frequent, strong enough or because God didn’t want to save their life! Unfortunately, you cannot test any assumption. It will be impossible to measure the prayer but the “miracle” can open a number of questions about faith, brain waves, feedback with tissues etc. The problem is that these phenomena cannot be tested because this happened only once and cannot be repeated as the patient is cured. There cannot be the same previous condition in which the illness was developed.

Can science and religion be complementary?

In the last National Geographic edition was an interview by Dr Francis S. Collins who is a physician and geneticist behind the Human Genome Project, which is an investigation trying to map human DNA. He is also the director of the National Institute of Health and one of the founders of the BioLogos Foundation, an organization that promotes discussion about Christianity and science.

The endeavor of saving the planet is not pure science as it has a divine element in order to re-establish God’s creation.

In the interview he was asked how religion can fit with science. His answer was that religion can provide a better explanation about many subjects, like the existence of the universe. He continued to explain that religion can be a complementary model rather than antagonistic although each subject has their proper domain that must be respected.

The fine line

As Dr F. Collins says both views can be mutually enriching once their boundaries are understood and respected. Science cannot always distinguish what is causing the phenomena as many times it can be confounded by other factors. Religion on the other hand, can link our soul with divine matters making some explanations easier to understand.

According to faith; God created the Earth and all the creatures that inhabit it. Then, he created mankind in his own image, giving them (male and female) dominion over all the living organisms that are present on Earth. Although, these are religious matters they have impact for us as scientific environmentalists. The whole planet relies on our decision. We have named the species, we have made them disappear or thrive, we have deforested in exchange for agricultural ground and now we are trying to put back what we have lost as we have realized that we cannot progress as a species without a balanced biosphere.

The endeavor of saving the planet is not pure science as it has a divine element in order to re-establish God’s creation. What is the advantage of this merger of opinion between science and religion? It is that everyone on this planet can feel some duty either for the benefit that this Earth gives us, or a respect for God’s creation. Either way, our environment will benefit and in turn each of us.