Many have argued and will continue to argue on whether faith and science can coexist. This is an argument that has dated back to the beginning of scientific studies. For centuries, majority of the world believed that they could not exist. The early church would want for people to repent against their theories and studies or else be excommunicated, and executed. It was unheard of for an individual to believe in God and science. Over the course of time, however, things have changed. People of a strong religious background have made ground break discoveries in science and have changed the way of life. It has been recorded that 76 percent of doctors believe in God. Also, it has been said that 55 percent of doctors’ religious beliefs affect their practice. Science and religion do go hand and hand with each other, and many times, the opinions of a couple big names can influence how other feel about the subject.
There is evidence to support both sides, and both sides have some key voices. Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Arizona State University, once said “We have a plausible explanation of how the universe could come from nothing; science has taught us we don’t need God to exist”. When people first started to study science, it brought better explanations of the laws of nature than any of the gods of human history. Science and human claims fascinate people and escape their mental capacity, leaving people without explanations and thus believing man is some kind of miracle worker. Man seemed to become a miracle worker, but man is not the first or the largest miracle worker there is. God spoke breath into existence; he is the beginning and the end. Krauss also quoted “Tonight, I want to emphasize that 500 years of science have demonstrated that God…is not likely”. Krauss says these statements but there seems to be a lack of evidence of how he came to draw this conclusion.
The last argument against God was released in 1850s by Charles Darwin. It was his piece the “Theory of Evolution”. One thing that is not as commonly known about Darwin is that he was, in fact a man of faith. It was not until the death of his daughter that he lost his faith, not because of his theory. Two out of every five scientist have been recorded to be people of faith. Of these scientist, many work in the medical field. Doctors are recorded to attend religious services more than any other profession, but they are less likely to apply these practices to everyday life. Sixty-one percent of the doctors say that they try to make sense of a difficult situation, outside of work, and decide on how to handle the situation without relying of God. It was once quoted that “Science can show us how we got a universe, but not why”. People like to have a reason for things, and the biggest of these is life. Why do we all exist? Krauss answers this with “’Why’ presupposes purpose, what if there is no purpose? Does there need to be a purpose?”. Many people would find themselves in a position where the answer would be ‘yes’. They do need a purpose. Arguments like these are often fundamentally separate for faith and science. These questions are not considered to be scientific.
Many people of science argue for the big bang theory, and many times the church rebukes this idea. Before the big bang theory, scientists believed that the earth was eternal. The theory suggests that, like time and space, the earth had a beginning. The big bang theory would also make sense from a biblical standpoint, to an extent. Since God created the world in seven days, it would make sense that the world began with a “big bang”. Therefore, the big bang theory would be an occurrence from God. Another one of the many theories of science is the molecular theory. Science claims that matter is composed of small particles that you cannot see with your eyes. The molecules are composed of atoms that are composed of charges and none of this can be seen with the physical eye, so it still remains a theory. This same argument can be said for God. God cannot be seen by the physical eye, but the experience of people’s lives is evidence, which is as sufficient as theories.
A theory is to science, as faith is to religion. “Theory means that they cannot prove it to the rational mind or physical eye, except upon reference of observing certain behaviors of matter or believing that since these results come when we use these theories, these results hold up”. In science there might be physical evidence to draw from, but the theories are an overall assumption of the trend. Faith acts in a similar way. There is evidence in a personal life and experience and that leads to the belief in a higher power. Some would say that faith and reason are like oil and water, and that there is no way they could ever coexist. However, science requires faith. This is the idea that scientists have to rely on assumptions that they cannot prove. They assume induction (the theory that you can generalize about the future laws of the universe by looking at the past laws). If the laws of physics were different than ever before, science would be in pretty deep water. Both religion and science require faith. Science is arguments, evidence, and critical assessments, while faith is a guiding assumption, presupposition, or faith can be a way to designate beliefs that are not based on evidence or arguments. Numerous scientists throughout the ages have claimed that their understanding of the world was informed by both science and religion (Antoun).
There was a time when the world believed that the earth was flat, and if one went too far, they would fall off. After observation and experiences, mankind came to the common knowledge that the Earth is round. An example of proof is that when a ship is in the horizon, an individual would see the top of the ship first. The rest of the ship would come into view with time. Similar proof is given to those of religion to support that there is a God. It’s not just a God of creation, but an active, living God that listens to the personal life of many people. This example shows how a science discovery can relate to faith.
It was also believed in the sixteenth century that the sun revolved around the Earth. It was not until Nicolaus Copernicus hypothesized that the Earth, actually, revolves around the sun. This idea went against the belief of the church and Copernicus was, therefore, condemned for being heretical. Later, in 1633, Galileo Galilei followed in Copernicus’s footsteps. He was, however, forced to renounce his belief in Copernicus’s theories. Galilei may have been spared the capital punishment, but he still had to spend the rest of his life under house arrest. Galilei believed there was nothing wrong with the theories, and had said “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use”. God gave us the resources and a brain capable of comprehension, so how could it be sinful to accept that gift? Many scientists today agree with these same concepts. There seems to be a trend that nonscientists are uncomfortable with these statements and the acceptance of scientific finding. Einstein tried to explain this reason by saying “It is mythical, or rather symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Thus, it is vital importance for the perseverance of true religion that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of religious aims”. People of religious background can sometimes be set on their core beliefs and what they have been preached about. Many times, science is not something that they would be taught, so it can be hard to accept the scientific discoveries since they seem secular, when, in fact, they are just explaining God’s great creation.
When humans are born, they are born sinless and there in no inherent of sin. There was a time in the history of criminal studies in the United States, where it was believed that if a criminal could be stopped from having children, then crime would reduce. It was believed that a criminal would produce a criminal because the behavior would be inherited. After a long period of time, the US came to the conclusion that no child was born a criminal. In this example, it can be seen that science and faith were agreeable, and this event took place years ago.
“Does science require faith?” can sometimes be the wrong question, however. This requires people to search for a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ answer and thus causing a divide between the two. It’s better to look at the differences, and more importantly the similarities between the two. Sometimes, people do not necessarily know the argument for each side, but since there have been some strong, vocal leaders to state their opinions, people tend to follow the leader. Martin Luther King jr. demonstrated this argument clearly in his work “A Tough Mind and a Tender Heart.” He stated “…widespread belief that there is a conflict between science and religion. But that is not true. There may be conflict between soft minded religionists and tough minded scientists, but not between science and religion”. The argument does not lie between the subjects, but rather the people. Science and faith do go together and rely on one another, but sometimes that can be hard for people to see.
He also stated that “Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.”. This quote demonstrates how people will be on one side of the argument and are incapable of seeing how each side could coexist with each other. When people think that they are right, they become ignorant and unwilling to listen to an argument against.
Finally, Martin Luther King, jr. states that “Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism”. Science and religion have both set social norms that don’t want to be broken. Science is the study of God’s great creation, and there is nothing wrong with knowing the facts or the truths. Some churches are convinced that science will undermine their faiths and may be contaminated by it. According to MLK jr. we need both science and faith to have a full grasp. Science can bring about certain appreciations of God and all of the little and big things that he has created.
There has been an ongoing conflict between the two worlds of Religion and of science. People have disagreed on many different levels, but in the end, both require faith. Whether it be a faith in a God or faith in their studies and theories. God gave us the ability to study science and science is the study of his great creation. Sometimes people speak loudly of their opinions and influence others to agree with them because it sounds convincing, however they may not always be right. Religion and science are complimentary, and both are needed to have a full grasp on the world.
Works Cited
Antoun, Richard. “Are Religion and Science in Conflict?” World Religions. n.p., 2001. Web.
Deen Mohammed, Imam W. “Religion and Science Towards Agreement.” Proquest. Black
Newspaper, 06 Aug. 2006. Web.
King, Martin Luther. Strength to Love. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Print.
Lombrozo, Tania. “Does Science Require Faith?” 23 Sept. 2013. Web.
Muray, Virgie W. “Physicians Are More Religious; ‘Faith Influences Medical
Decisions'” Proquest. Black Newspaper, 05 Jan. 2006. Web.
Parry, By Wynne. “Science vs. God: Does Progress Trump Faith?” LiveScience. TechMedia
Network, 06 Dec. 2012. Web.
thedubmanexperience 