Forum of Unitarian Universalists Hong Kong

After the famous Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown's another brilliant novel Angels & Demons has recently incarnated into a captivating movie. This story captures the conflict between science and religion. In the story, the legend of the cult of scientists Illuminati is used by a young temporary overseer of the Catholic Church to fight what he thinks the enemy of religion---science. The story sincerely concludes that there is in fact no conflict between science and religion.

In my opinion, on the contrary, the conflict between science and religion is deeper than we think. The conflict is fundamental. Both science and religion aim to construct a worldview which corresponds to reality. Science and religion use two opposite methods to find out truth, truth essential to constructing a worldview which corresponds to reality. Science uses the method of verification by repeatable observable evidence. Science is the right method to find out truth because the scientific method lets us know that we are wrong when we are wrong. Some criticize that the answers provided by science are often found to be wrong and need refinement or replacement. I answer that this is precisely the strength of science: it tells us when we are wrong, and enables us go on finding. Religion in the narrow sense* uses the method of faith, which is just another word for guesswork by purely thinking. Faith (e.g., belief in God) is the wrong method to find out truth because, with the method of faith, we can never know when we are wrong. Even if faith arrives at the right answer (e.g., God really exists), it does it by luck. The right thing to say about God is "I don't know". Science knows its limit and lets us know when to say "I don't know". Faith never admits "I don't know".

*meaning traditional Western religions, Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions in particular, which are based on faith. This excludes liberal religions such as the non-creedal Unitarian Universalism, and the science-based Religious Naturalism and Religious Humanism, etc.

There are a few points about the opposing approach of science and religion (faith)

(1) Faith seeks to reinforce itself, and resist any forces of factors that make the believer changes his/her belief - by contrast, science is based on reason and evidence, and will hold nothing as "belief" that is unchangable, and whatever the evidence leads, a person of science and reason follows the evidence even at the anguish of having to change his/her long held belief

(2) Faith seeks to make the worldview conform to their beief -- by contrast science and reason seeks to understand the world and accept the world as they discover it and be ready to modify their world view

(3) Faith, especially Judeo-Christian and feudalistic belief (e.g. Chinese belief) attached certain health issues as something offending gods (offending gods = sin) e.g. uncleanliness used to be about ritual unclean -- if you are "unclean" you offend the gods so you get sick, or if one had inbreeding (e.g. with siblings, first cousins or cross generation) and have sick offsprings its because one offended the gods..... homosexuality produces no offspring and produces no offspring offends gods etc etc.
-- science ignore this and give natural explanations to all that... sort of removing the "sin" tags from many of it

(4) Human value/virtues/morals -- faith attached them to as being originated from deity -- but sciences shown that these are natural behavior, so that species will survive without infighting

In short, science marginalize many claims of faith/religion, robbing it of its many exclusive claims in moral, virtue, worldview etc. -- this threatens religon, especially organized religion. To individual believer, the very thought of find oneself investing in faith wrongly, being "fooled" is embarassing. Moreover, to have to face the harsh reality of the world and to loose the "cocoon" of faith is too painful for many to bear.
People of science and reason are not attached to "belief sets" but rather accept the world as it is.

Thank you and well-done



Science vs. Religion

Some religionists criticize that science has its own presuppositions and limitations, and hence is not better than religion in finding out truth. Here is my response. Science has its own presuppositions but it is the most reliable method known to human to form knowledge of truth. Science has limit, which forms the limit of human knowledge, therefore we cannot say anything outside the limit of science. Religion has much more presuppositions than science has. Religion is much less reliable than science in forming knowledge of truth. Religion denies human limits and pretends to know what is actually unknown.

Science vs. Philosophy

Some critics of science use philosophy of science and history of science to undermine the authenticity of science. They say that science has its own assumptions, indoctination of language and skills, and is subject to political influences. Hence science is not impartial. Also, scientific discoveries are often irrational due to luck. They say, therefore, science is not flawless and hence unreliable in giving us a true picture of reality. Some of them even advocate philosophy and religion as alternative authentic methods to find reality.

Galileo Galilei is widely regarded as the father of modern science. It is well-known that Galileo conflicted with the church of his time because of his unorthodox discovery of the Earth revolving around the Sun instead of vice versa. In fact, the conflict between Galileo and the church is due to something deeper, something even deeper than the conflict between science and religion. It is the conflict between science and philosophy. Before Galileo, the tradition of Greek philosophy had been using the method of contemplation to find reality. The basic premise of Galileo, instead, is that truth should be found by the method of verification by observation, but not just contemplation. Pre-Galileo philosophers formed theories by contemplation but never tested their constructed theories by further observations and experiments. They had no way to tell whether their theories work or not. The real breakthrough of Galileo was that he used physical observation to test his hypothesis, instead of merely sitting there and thinking. Merely sitting there and thinking is the basic problem of philosophy.

Science critics say that science lacks a perfectly firm foundation. I say non-scientific methods, without the guard of the method of verification by observation, are more susceptible to assumptions, indoctinations, and political influences. The foundation of science is not perfectly firm, but the foundations of other methods are softer. No method is less unreliable than science. Science critics say that some scientific discoveries are by luck instead of a rational process. I say the process of discovery being irrational is unimportant, the method of verification by observation can verify or refute those irrational discoveries.

With the advent of the scientific method, today's philosophical reflections must be grounded on concrete scientific observations. Doing philosophy merely by sitting there thinking will result in a philosophy which is out of touch with reality. Only a philosophy that is grounded on science can approach reality. An example is the philosophy of mind. Based on the scientific observation that mental activities depend on the physical neural activities of the brain, physicalism (all mental phenomena are produced by th physical brain) provides the most coherent picture to explain all physical and mental phenomena. In contrast, dualism (mental phenomena are produced by a mystical source in addition to the physical brain) is still lacking the proof of the existence of that claimed mystical source. Science has deep methodological conflict with philosophy. Science opens its eye to see and philosophy just sits there and thinks. The only way out for philosophy to make itself meaningful and relevant again is to ground itself on science.

Some religionists say:
1. Science has its own assumptions and limitations, and can never reach truth or reality itself. Religion can.
2. Religion is like love and art, it should be felt by the heart, not investigated by the head. Religion is like ethics, it teaches us how to live a happy life.


Answers:

1. Surely, science has its own assumptions and limitations. But if a religionist raise the point of assumptions and limitations of science in an attempt to defend religion, (s)he must realize that religion has way much more assumptions and limitations (eg, doctrines and creeds) than science. So his/her defense bound to fail. Put it simply, science is not perfectly reliable, but religion is even less reliable than science. Science cannot reach truth or reality itself, but religion is even farther away from truth or reality.

2. Ture. Love and art are to be felt and enjoyed. But these are not methods to find out truth or reality, and hence cannot be used to construct a worldview. Ethics are social contracts by which we all can live a more comfortable life (with less conflicts and harm). But, again, it is not a method to find out truth or reality, and hence cannot be used to construct a worldview. If you think religion is like love and art and ethics, good, just don't compare it with science and don't use it to find out truth or reality, or use it to construct a worldview. When you look for the origin of life, just don't look for it in religion, you won't look for the origin of life in love or art or ethics, right? If you can "feel" God with your heart and believe in God, good, but don't use your God to explain the origin of life. Your God is there for you to feel, not for explaining the origin of life. Explanation for the origin of life is the job of science.

科學與宗教最大的分別，不是科學沒有丁點無法被經驗檢證的前設，而是科學思維對權威的拒絕
--- 張國棟