The Relationship between Religion and

Science

Both religion and science are belief systems which attempt to explain how
the world works. However, until about 200 years ago, science and religion did
not exist as separate and distinct types of knowledge. Science was dominated
by religious thinkers because the prime purpose of science was to document
the glory of God. This science bore little relationship to the systematic, rational
and positivist approach to research that we associate with science today.

For example, the astronomer, Galileo, was prosecuted by the Catholic Church
in 1632 for hypothesising, after rigorous observation and mathematical
calculation with a telescope that the Earth and other planets revolved around
the Sun. However, this contradicted Catholic theology which favoured the view
that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Galileo was found guilty of
heresy, forced to recant (i.e. to deny that the Sun was the centre of our
universe) and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

Many people see the trial of Galileo as the first conflict between science and
religion although Dixon points out that many Catholic scientists were actually
sympathetic to Galileo’s ideas. Moreover, as Dixon points out, Galileo was
punished for challenging the Pope’s authority (after being told not to) rather
than for his scientific beliefs.

The rise of science

However, scientific belief systems became separate and distinct from

religious belief systems in the 18th century. This period saw the
development of modern scientific methods based on rational and logical
thought.

This period in the 18th century became known as the Enlightenment as

people were seen to progress from:

 A pre-enlightenment era based on religious faith and ignorance

about how the natural world worked to

 A post-enlightenment period characterised by rational and logical

thinking symbolised by scientific ideas and progress.
1
However, it would be wrong to assume that this meant there was a major
separation between religion and science in this period. Ironically both Weber
and Merton in separate analyses note that the rapid scientific progress
made in the 18th and 19th centuries which transformed everyday life –
transport, communications, work and leisure – would never have occurred
without religion.

Weber in particular noted that the emergence of Protestant religions such as

Calvinism in the 18th century and especially the Protestant belief that
industriousness and economic success were a sign that Protestants
were especially blessed by God led to Protestant capitalists investing
heavily in early scientific and technological inventions to improve both
economic productivity and people’s social welfare.

The success of science over the past 200 years in raising society’s standard of
living has led to a widespread public faith in science – a belief that it can
‘deliver the goods’ because scientific knowledge is seen by society to have
gotten to the stage where it can largely explain, predict and control the
natural or physical world. For example, medical science has eradicated
many diseases and increased life expectancy.

In contrast, religious beliefs and practices have dramatically declined in

Western Europe over the past 150 years. This contrast has led some
commentators to suggest that science is somehow partly responsible for
the decline in religion.

Comparing scientific belief systems and religious

belief systems

SCIENCE RELIGION

Science is an OPEN belief system Religion is generally considered to be a

which is able to explain, predict
and control the world in a way
that religion cannot do.
Scientists observe the natural
world and formulate hypotheses
or conjectures – ideas or informed
guesses – usually based on existing
scientific knowledge – which can be
tested against evidence which is
2
‘CLOSED belief system’ because:
Religion is concerned with the
metaphysical or non-material spiritual
world which is presumed to exist by
the religious but which cannot be
observed in a scientific sense, i.e.
there is no physical or scientific
evidence for it.
The existence of God and other
obtained by the use of systematic
observation and/or
experimentation.
The knowledge or evidence
collected by scientists and
scientific theories are open to
rational scrutiny, criticism and
testing by others. According to
Karl Popper, the more a
hypothesis or theory stands up to
such attempts to falsify it, the more
likely it is to be a scientific truth. In
science, knowledge-claims
therefore live or die by the
evidence.
Scientists are objective pursuers
of knowledge - they ignore their
personal feelings and remain
objective (free from the
influence of social or religious
values) at all time, and especially
when conducting scientific
research. The truth or falsity of
scientific knowledge is judged
by universal, objective criteria
(such as testing), and not by the
particular race, sex, religion etc. of
the scientist.
Publication of data also means that
scientific knowledge is
cumulative – it builds on the
achievements of previous
scientists to develop a greater
understanding of the world.
3
religious phenomena cannot be
proved wrong because it cannot be
subjected to normal scientific
procedures. Religions make
knowledge-claims that cannot be
successfully overturned. Whenever,
its fundamental beliefs are
threatened, a religion has a number
of devices or ‘get-out’ clauses ,
usually related to faith, that reinforce
the system and so prevent it being
disproved.
Religious knowledge depends on faith
which is not dependent on the rational
observation or measurement of evidence.
Faith is deeply subjective and often
irrational in character. Religious
experiences are personal experiences
which are exclusive and unique to the
individual. They cannot be repeated by
others or be generalised to others.
Religious leaders claim to have special,
perfect knowledge of the absolute
truth because it ultimately comes
from God. Religious knowledge is not
the result of systematic observation
or experimentation. It comes via
revelation, i.e. direct communication
with God (visions, voices in head etc),
personal experience of healing, and
conversion.
Religious knowledge is fixed and does not
grow or change because it is regarded
as the absolute truth.
However, despite the accumulation
of scientific knowledge and the
achievements of great scientists,
no scientific knowledge is
‘sacred’ – every idea is open to
questioning, criticism and
objective investigation.
Religious knowledge is literally sacred
and this means that it cannot be
challenged – and those who do so such
as Galileo may be punished for their
heresy. Believers in alternative religions
may be persecuted.

Assessing the claims of science

However, the notion that science is an open-science has been questioned by

the three observations below:

(1) Polanyi argues that science is not as open as it claims. This can
be illustrated by examining Kuhn’s paradigm theory.

Kuhn observes that scientists often refuse to consider any challenges

to their existing knowledge because they work within ‘paradigms’ –
a set of shared assumptions that all scientists are socialised
into. The paradigm tells scientists what to think – what reality is
really like, what problems to study, what methods to use, what
counts as evidence and even what answers they should find or
accept when doing research. Those who follow the paradigmatic
rules successfully are awarded with bigger research grants,
professorships, Nobel Prizes and so on.

Any scientist who challenges the basic beliefs and principles of

the paradigm is likely to be ridiculed and persecuted, and
perhaps not even regarded as a proper scientist. The only time
this is less likely to happen is during a period of ‘scientific
revolution’ – when dominant ideas are already on shaky ground
because ‘anomalies’ or large amounts of contradictory evidence have
already been accumulated. In this scenario, scientists are more open
to radical new ideas and the possibility of a fresh paradigm.

Steve Woolgar (1988) illustrates Kuhn’s theory with the discovery

of pulsars or radio signals originating in deep space by astronomers in
the 1960s. He notes that two interpretations of this evidence were
available to scientists –
4
  Pulsars were evidence of intelligent life or aliens.

 Pulsars were a product of a type of neutron star previously

unknown to science.

The second interpretation fitted the dominant paradigm and therefore

became the acceptable interpretation for the source of pulsars.
Woolgar therefore argues that knowledge is not necessarily a real
thing – it may simply be a collection of beliefs – part of an
existing dominant paradigm - that scientists are able to
persuade their colleagues to share.

(2) Interpretivist sociologists argue that scientific knowledge (like all

knowledge) is socially constructed – this means that knowledge is
not objective truth or fact – it is the product of powerful groups
who shape the paradigm to suit their interests. For example,
from a Marxist interpretivist perspective, scientific knowledge has
mainly been constructed to benefit capitalist interests whilst from
a feminist interpretivist perspective, scientific knowledge has
mainly been constructed to suit male interests.

(3) Browne identifies a number of other factors which suggest that

scientific research is not as objective as it claims to be. For example:

 The career aspirations of scientists lead to an

understandable desire to prove their hypotheses right or to
research fashionable and therefore financially lucrative
areas.

 The source of funding may determine research priorities –

for example, research for military or defence purposes may
attract more funding than research into social welfare.

 Objectivity may also be limited by the institution within

which the scientist is working. For example, medical
research funded by tobacco companies may have different aims
and objectives compared with research funded by the NHS.

The relationship between science and religion today

5
The relationship between science and religion has been an uneasy one
because since the mid-19th century there has been a significant amount of
conflict and friction between science and religion. This can be illustrated
in a number of ways:

(i) Firstly, in the USA, Christian fundamentalists and scientists

have been engaged in a long-standing battle over the legal status
of creationism (the idea that God created the world in seven
days) and evolution in the teaching of biology in schools. In the
early part of the 20th century, there was strong opposition to
evolution theory led by evangelical Protestants that resulted in
the widely publicised trial and conviction of the science teacher
John Scopes (i.e. the Monkey Trial) in Tennessee in 1925.

Moreover several US States such as Arkansas and Louisiana

introduced legislation that banned the teaching of evolution in
biology lessons. These bans were only lifted in the 1960s when the
US Supreme court ruled them unlawful because the US constitution
prohibits the teaching of religion in state schools. However,
creationism continues to exert its influence on education,
e.g. in Alabama, biology textbooks have to carry a sticker warning
children that evolution theory is only one theory that explains the
origin of the human species whilst in Kansas, between 1999 and
2006 all references to evolution were removed from the science
curriculum.

(ii) Secondly, a new battle-front opened up in the 1990s with the

emergence of ‘intelligent design’ (ID) theory which asserts that
there is scientific evidence that life was created by an ‘intelligent
designer’. This theory claims that the physical properties of
an object are so complex that they could only have been
‘designed’ by a greater power and could not have possibly
evolved over thousands or millions of years. This theory
which claims to be a science does not challenge the idea of
evolution but it disputes Darwin's idea that the cause of biological
change is wholly blind and undirected. It argues that life on Earth
and more generally the universe - shows so much order,
purpose and design that there must have been a designer.
Most intelligent design arguments avoid any reference to scripture
and try to eliminate anything that might look as if it was derived
from religious belief.
However, opponents of ID claim that it is religion dressed up as
pseudo-science because (a) its claims cannot be tested and
6
 verified by observation and experiment (as most scientific fact
can) and (b) the notion of an ‘intelligent designer or
engineer’ is essentially the same thing as God. Critics such as
Richard Dawkins have consequently compared teaching ID
theory to teaching ‘flat earth’ theory and akin to mentally abusing
children. In June 2007, the Council of Europe concluded that
"creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design',
is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning
and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science
classes”.

(iii) However, despite these criticisms of creationism and ID theory, a

significant proportion of people in the USA support these
ideas. While virtually all scientists agree that life on earth evolved
over billions of years, many Americans (42%) consistently
reject the idea of natural evolution because it conflicts with
the biblical account of ‘creation’. Of those Americans who do
support the idea of evolution, a further 21% believe such
evolution is ‘guided by a supreme being’. 16% believe that
state schools should teach creation only.

(iv) Science has continued to challenge religious ideas. For

example, the ‘Big Bang’ theory and the search by the science of
cosmology for the ‘God particle’ using the Giant Hadron Collider
in Geneva is questioning the biblical interpretation of God having
created the universe whilst geologists have questioned biblical
assertions about the age of the Earth. Scientists involved in
cloning and stem cell research are questioning the notion that
only God can create life. However, it is important to understand
that scientists have not set out to deliberately undermine
religion – these findings are simply the outcome of rational
scientific enquiry.

(v) Eminent scientists such as Richard Dawkins have been very

critical of the problems caused by religion (e.g. war,
persecution, suffering etc) and in his book ‘The God Delusion’
Dawkins actually set out to show the irrational nature of
religious belief.

Sociologists such as Max Weber, Bryan Wilson and Steve

Bruce, have argued that the dominance of scientific belief
systems will bring about the terminal decline of religion, i.e.
secularisation. The theory of secularisation suggests that the
7
 success of science has brought about ‘disenchantment’ with
religion. Berger argues that a ‘secularisation of
consciousness’ has come about - people no longer think about
how they can serve God’s will - they are now more concerned with
serving their own material interests.

The implication of these ideas is that people today are more likely to be
non-believers (atheists) or agnostics, (i.e. people who are unsure
that God exists). Moreover, society has seen the emergence of non-
religious belief systems such as:
 Secularism – this belief system sees religious beliefs and
practices as based upon ignorance and as an enemy of free
speech and progress.

 Humanism – this belief system believes that people should take

responsibility for their own actions rather than using
religious justifications. Humanism became well-known in 2011
for an advertising campaign which stated 'There's probably no
God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life'.

However, despite scientific progress, evidence regarding atheism in the UK

is mixed. A BBC survey in 2004 put the number of people who do not believe
in a God at 39%, while a YouGov poll in the same year put the percentage of
non-believers at 35% with 21% answering "Don't Know’.

In the YouGov poll men were less likely to believe in God than women and
younger people were less likely to believe in God than older people. A 2009
study conducted by Penguin Books involving 1000 teenagers aged 13-
to 18 reported that two thirds of them did not believe in God.

In the 2011 Census 14.1 million people, about a quarter of the entire
population (25%) of England and Wales, said they had no religion, a
rise of 6.4 million since 2001. In Scotland, more than one third of the
population (37%) stated that they had no religion.

However, the majority of people in the UK continue to believe in God

but do not feel the need to belong to or to practice a religion. Most of
the time, they may even be indifferent to religion. However, this also means
they are happy to tolerate institutionalised religion and to use it every
now and then for marriage and funerals. They also may turn to it
temporarily in times of crisis such as after a national disaster or the death
of a significant national figure.

8
Religious belief, therefore, continues to be important. This is probably
because scientists cannot tell us how to live our lives and most importantly,
science tells us very little about the things that matter the most to us;
values, moral codes, hopes, fears, anxieties and so on. In particular,
science is not able to make us feel comfortable especially with regard to the
reasons why our loved ones fall ill and die, why we exist, the nature of ‘good’
and ‘evil’ and especially what happens to us after physical death. Religion may
therefore still have a major role to play in allaying such fears and
anxieties.

The overlap between science and religion

Finally, despite the fact that the relationship between science and religion has
often been characterised by conflict, it is important to understand that there is
also considerable overlap between the two belief systems. Two
observations are important.

(1) Not all scientists take an anti-religious stance. Many

scientists actually hold religious beliefs. Isaac Newton saw his work as
part of a religious enterprise devoted to understanding God’s creation
whereas Islamic scholars have argued that ‘whoever does not know
astronomy and anatomy is deficient in the knowledge of God’.
There are large numbers of religious scientists who see their
research as a complement rather than a challenge to their faith.

(2) Not all religions are anti-science. Many religious

denominations and sects welcome science and modernity. As
Dixon argues, science and religion have a good deal in common because:

 Both attempt to show their followers that there is an unseen

world behind the observed one.

 Many anti-religious arguments are not against the idea of

religion or God. They are usually against religious institutions and
the power they wield or the relationship between religion and the
state. Some scientists have even advocated a rational religion
based on the study of nature which recognises the existence of
God and the importance of morality.

 Both science and religion have failed to answer key

questions. Religious thinkers point out that there is a still a
great deal that is unexplained by scientists about how the
9
 universe and natural laws came to be. Physical science cannot
explain why the things we call ‘matter’, ‘energy’ and
‘consciousness’ developed. There is still a great deal that scientists
do not understand about the working of the human mind or brain.
However, religious thinkers too have problems in explaining
who created the creator or designer, why there are so many
religions claiming absolute truth or why there is divine
inaction with regard to suffering and evil.

 There has been bigotry on both sides of the religion-science

divide. Dixon notes that ‘the story is not always one of a heroic
and open-minded scientist clashing with a reactionary and bigoted
church. The bigotry, like the open-mindedness, is shared around
on all sides’.

 Both religion and science are ideologies. This theme will be

explored in study guide 2b.

10