Religion vs. Modern Science. Could They Marry One Another?

Baca Edisi Bahasa Indo Disini

The Revolution

Had a 10th century peasant fell into a slumber, then wake up 500 years later, in the 15th century, the world would be still familiar for him. true, there would be many political and border change, but the way of life of the era not changing so much. yet, had the same peasant fell into a similliar slumber, and waken up again, in the 21th century's iPhone alarm, he would find himself in a overwhelmingly different world, and it would be unconceivable for him. he had likely to ask, is this hell or heaven?

Yes, along the last five century, we experience an extraordinary change, in almost every life aspect, mostly attributed to the power of science. Some scholars, dubbed it, The Scientific Revolution. 

The revolution is evolving the way one lives, the one thinks, and even the way one sees oneself. But, one aspect, fighting the most with this revolution: Religion. This revolution, because this change our way of thinking, it become contentious, mostly with the religion. We see many discoveries, that contradict with what did the god told us. true, in the beginning of this revolution, the fight between the church and science was so intense, and befell many dispute and arguments. In a religious country like Indonesia, This topic is warm still. Does religion can straight away with modern science?

Secularisation

Secularisation is the greatest mark of modern live. through the rest of millenia before the revolution, religion directly interfere in political, economical, and educational affair. but now, chiefly but not exclusively, the westerns, has already their own answer of the question. They, firmly, assert that religion should not interfere in political and public affairs. Three core tenets of secularism is separation, freedom, and equality. The first, separation, is that religion may intervene in political and public affair, but shouldn't dominate. The second, freedom, that everyone has the freedom to practices one's faith without harm from others. The third, equality, so that our religious beliefs or lack of them doesn't put any of us at an advantage or a disadvantage. but, furthermore on our topic, it's apparent for them that religion is separated from the vast majority of scientific researches.

On the otherhand, some people, mostly from conservative religious fractions, the right-wing, they still insist that science must align with religion, because religion is the highest truth. but in the reality, many teaching of religion is contradict with the latest science discoveries, or at least in it's literal meaning. Some of them, stupidily defy scientific discoveries and theories only based on their creed, and without proper and enough scientific proofs. yet, there's not small amount of religious people who think that science can coexist with religion, without just defying the scientific discoveries.

Brief Comparison of Religion and Modern Science Bases

To answer this question, first let us examine and compare the principle of modern science, and the foundation of religious belief. "Science is empirical and verifiable, whereas religion is, at best, of value as an emotional support; where religion is dogmatic, science is skeptical; and science is objective and disinterested, while religion has a subjective attraction"(Yearley 52). 

Modern science is skeptical. there's no such things as a 100% truth in science. every theory, and teaching and science can be challenged, as the latest discoveries may say something different. But religion is based on a dogmatic faith. it founded on the faith that there is a 100% truth. Second, science is empirical and verifiable. When you say something, by the name of science, you must explain your reasoning empirically and scientifically. And had your reasoning isn't convincing me sufficiently, i can freely question and disbelieve that, of course, with empirical reasoning, too. Third, science is objective,  which means, in the scientific societies, they have settled borders and measure about something is true or not. Whereas, in religion, there's no such thing like that. There's no agreed assessment of a religion is true or not around the Christian, Islam, and Hinduism agreed upon. True, there are some measurement about the truth of a creed. But it is limited to around particular or similliar groups. 

Consequently, it's inevitable that science and religion, can't unite on their method and principles. it's obvious that the two has contradicting foundation.

this is impossible to unite the both. 

or at least, this seems impossible. this depends on whom perspective. 

Left-wing

For Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, that science could explain anything is the proof that god is not exist."For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in.", he wrote in his last book,"Brief Answers to Big Questions, when answering the question "what happened before the big bang." 

He explained that before the big bang is a condition called the Singularity. when everything in the universe is condensed into an object smaller than atom. when every scientific laws, from physic laws, to chemical laws, today, known, not existed at all. even the time hadn't been existed. because of that, time not existed, so there is no possibility that anything existed contemporary with the singularity, even the god.

Stephen hawking argued that the theory of relativity, combined with quantum physics, the big theory, and many other theories, enough to explain that the big bang is happened due to a coincidence.

Right-wing

Conversely, for Reverend Jim Martin, the fact that science works is the proof of the existence of a god.

Intelligible Design

For him, the fact that science is work is the proof of god itself. Science work with the mathematics, but actually mathematics itself is an independent branch from other empirical and natural science, and other physical realities. Mathematics could exist independent or free from the physical reality we live in. the same as the physic and other science could exist without obey the rule of math. yes intelligible design of the nature, that us homosapiens can comprehend the nature, is one proof of intelligent creator.

Had if the nature works without math, this is almost impossible for us to understand the nature, even though that actually math is an independent field from science itself. yet, this means that this is a predictable and splendid design of the nature.

Does Science Work?

Here, Jim explained his compelling view:

"It’s very clear that science “works”. We can explain and predict how nature will behave over an extraordinary range of scales."

"There are various limits to scientific understanding but, within these limits, science makes a complete and compelling picture."

"We know that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. The “Big Bang” model of universal creation makes a number of very specific and numerical predictions which are observed and measured with high accuracy."

"The Standard Model of Particle Physics employs something known as “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking” to explain the strength of the laws of nature."

"Within the Standard Model the strength of these laws are not predicted. At present our current best theory is that they arose 'by chance'."

"But these strengths have to be exquisitely fine-tuned in order for life to exist. How so?"

"The strength of the gravitational attraction must be tuned to ensure that the expansion of the universe is not too fast and not too slow."

"It must be strong enough to enable stars and planets to form but not too strong, otherwise stars would burn through their nuclear fuel too quickly."

"The imbalance between matter and anti-matter in the early Universe must be fine tuned to 12 orders of magnitude to create enough mass to form stars and galaxies."

"The strength of the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions must be finely-tuned to create stable protons and neutrons."

"They must also be fine-tuned to enable complex nuclei to be synthesized in supernovae."

"Finally the mass of the electron and the strength of the electromagnetic interaction must be tuned to provide the chemical reaction rates that enables life to evolve over the timescale of the Universe."

"For me, the fine tuning of gravitational attraction and electromagnetic interactions which allow the laws of nature to enable life to form are too clever to be simply a coincidence."

Intelligent Life

Furthermore, he believe that the existence of intelligent life, or us, homo sapiens, is only available in the earth. we have been here only for 0,005% of the age of earth. if we have never seen other intelligent life here, on earth, this means, we are the first intelligent life in the galaxy. So that what the bible says is right.

read his mind-boggling article here, where he explain more about science and god.

Conclusion: The Tied Game

Interesting to see, that one proof can lead to contradicting answers. both wings use the beauty and scientific proof to underlay their answer, even, they use the same scientific reasoning in order to support their view. i think this is the most exhilarating and overwhelming part of this story. the story of religion and science.

So, then, what's the answer of the question, "can religion and modern science coexist?" per se this depends on the viewer. There has not yet been enough reason and proof that could inaugurate one's victory. Yet, for this reason, what makes me think this question is compelling to study and discuss. Ii prefer to not to answer this on my own, because it's more fun to discuss it together, so that i am glad to hear your answers. do you think religion and modern science can marry one another?

"Interesting to see, that one proof can lead to contradicting answers."