Albert Einstein once said that 'the most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.' Out of the mysterious stem questions like 'Where did we come from'? or 'What is the meaning of life'? In order to answer these questions, people turn to philosophy, religion and science. Each method of gaining knowledge about our existence is not only very different in technique, but also very different in outcome. These differences, for some, cause a great division between science and religion.
While it is difficult to talk about religion as a whole because there are so many different religions, most religions are based on faith and the existence of a higher being.
According to Frank Salomon, professor of anthropology at UW-Madison, 'Religion is the posture, thought and action of people in response to experience of what they feel to be real, yet beyond human power and understanding.'
The most basic difference between religion and science is that religion calls for faith and science calls for empirical fact.
However, religion also tends to provide a moral code and a way to cope with certain emotions. When there is an earthquake, people turn to science. When there is an earthquake and deaths are involved, people will also turn to religion. There is no real conflict there, but when the moral code provided by religion butts up against research being done in the name of science, the distinction between religion and science is the most evident. Debates over cloning and the use of embryonic stem cells focus on both the scientific advantages and morality of such research.
The question becomes whether or not religion and science can actually work hand in hand in explaining the phenomena of the universe. Einstein also said that 'science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' They may approach gathering human knowledge differently, but at times scientists are forced to go on faith. For example, research done in the field of astronomy does not provide the same physical evidence that a field like biology does, due to the great distance astronomers are from their research. On the other hand, religious persons may incorporate science into their faith, like the Church of Scientology.
'Science provides some of the information brought to bear by people of faith as they work within their religious community to find meaning,' said Ronald Troxel, professor of Hebrew and Semitic studies at UW-Madison. 'The physical sciences are one resource that helps shape the framework of the community's articulation of its faith.'
Most religions are, in large part, cultural entities and thus are based on the cultural aspects, which includes scientific research.
Troxel goes on to say that 'recent work on the effectiveness of prayer creates a sort of scientific approach to religion. Such work feeds our positivist roots: It makes more certain of religion because it has been confirmed by science. But that very confirmation eviscerates the distinctiveness of religion as a synthetic approach to life by subsuming it under science. Religion subsumed under science is no longer religion.'
While religion is not scientific, it seems as though the awe felt by a scientist after making a new discovery could be described as religious experiences. However, most would agree that calling science a form of religion is incorrect.
'I would class the idea of religion of science as one of the lousy ideas of Western man,' Solomon said. 'Ideologies which attach prophetic, reverential and transcendent attitudes to supposedly scientific analysis of race, class, history and so forth have proven intensely destructive many times over.'
The beauty scientists find in science may be attributed, therefore, to a certain type of spirituality, rather than religion.
Both religion and science aim to explain our existence, whether spiritually or physically. This is a very basic human desire--to explain and accumulate knowledge about the world. This desire, rather than segregate mankind, ought to serve to unite. By exploring the different religions and taking an interest in the scientific community, perhaps an even clearer view of humanity can be reached.
Different opinions will always be developed, and people will find different ways to explain the world. Believing in something is important, but what is even more imperative is being immersed in other ways of thinking, whether one agrees with that way of thinking or not.
Knowledge for the sake of knowledge may not be as important as knowledge for the sake of tolerance. And this tolerance can only be reached through understanding, which, in turn, can be reached through gaining knowledge.
'Tolerance is the best word,' said Michael Strand, professor of entomology at UW-Madison. 'It is in the interest of humankind to not necessarily agree with others, but when disagreeing, not to crucify them.'
After all, who is to say that with a little bit of knowledge, Einstein, Darwin, the Buddha and Jesus Christ could not have been friends?
