Features of Scientific Models and Religious Myths - Essay Example

The Comparison Between Scientific Models and Religious Myths The incompatibility of science and religion had been a focus of debates for several millenniums now, and people have argued about which is held supreme between the two. Most people held on to the idea that religion is the end of scientific investigation, and science is the realm of all material proofs which religion has no place to partake. It is the comparison between scientific models and religious myths, which is the concern of this discussion. Specifically, for purposes of this paper, the scientific models presented here are naturalism, evolutionary theory, and traditionalism. The ideas in defense of religion, on the other hand, are argument from causation and argument from values. A myriad of scientific models have been invented and adopted in the realm of pure science and applied sciences, which gave a strong attachment of science to scientific observation and scientific methods. Objectivity, accuracy, and verifiability are of prime importance of scientific inquiry, and are the characteristics of science. These dimensions are said not to be possessed by religion, whose central configuration is faith. The locus of science being based on material objectivity through scientific methods is said to be a far cry from that of religion, which to some people, is perceived to be a locus of mythology, false and science-unaided beliefs, and fanaticism. Thus, the debate about science and religion has a history that dates back to the beginning of modern science. Naturalism, a scientific model that defends science with its stance of reality being material, and is therefore subject to scientific scrutiny, poses that any considerations that ideas not relying in scientific investigations are foolish (Baker, 2006). The search for truth is found in the material reality - in the natural world - which can be measured and analyzed according to scientific investigations. Religion, having no scientific tools to aid such investigation, is taken as a myth. Science was able to maintain such confinement to the natural world on the basis of its ability to use testable and reproducible material data that passed through scientific methods, in which explanations lie in the domains of the natural world. It goes on to say that non-natural explanations, like the realm of religion, are non-testable and non-reproducible and are therefore non-scientific. Anything non-scientific is considered a myth or an erroneous belief by some science geeks. However, the exclusion of non-scientific explanations from understanding the natural world does not logically exclude such from the human thought, who encounters more than what science offers to him in real life. We may posit that the confinement of science in the theory of naturalism is both its tremendous strength and a dangerous trap that can limit human thought and can serve inimical to other dimensions of human-hood, such as the psychological, emotional, and spiritual realms. The positive aspects of science are seen in its naturalistic explanations that are testable an reproducible, which give a basis for laboratory and experiment results necessary for explaining the natural existence of the world. However, confining the human thought solely in the reliance of science by setting aside the trails of religion is limiting human potential. Traditionalism is another scientific model, which is a ‘close-knit’ of naturalism. The basics of the traditional view of what is now called the ‘scientific method’ has begun developing in the seventeenth century, in which the scientists observe data, develop a theory that encompasses these data, and finally use a new theory that predicts the outcome of the study. The gravitational theory of Newton was able to mathematically demonstrate planetary motion as an outcome of the law of motion and the law of gravity (Baker, 2006). It was a shift from the non-quantitative study of mechanical systems of physical science. This scientific trend spurred a more stronghold basis for clinging on to science as a reliable mechanism that answers all inquiries than the “mythology” religion offered. The evolutionary theory that explains the origin of the species debunks the ‘creation mythology,’ positing that man came from ape held by Charles Darwin, setting science in the picture once again. The evolutionary theory attempts to provide material condition for the scientific evolution of man and the world, being unsatisfied with the traditional exposition of the creation of first human beings in the persons of Adam and Eve. However, religion defends this by saying that it is not an evolutionary adaptation, but a recurring by-product of the complex evolutionary landscape that sets emotional, cognitive, and material conditions for ordinary human interactions” (Dow, 2004). It is probably for this reason that people significantly held on to the myths, in which religion is founded – that science cannot offer man the fullness of his being, not the cognitive and material domains alone, but the spiritual realms as well. There are several things that science is able to explain, not only things that can be scientifically expounded by pure science, but even societal phenomena which now possess scientific bases of explanations, being in the realm of social sciences. Society’s problems can now be understood scientifically through scientific investigations employed by the science of Sociology and Anthropology. Thus, how far science has gone must not be discounted; its relevance not to be debunked but to be reinforced. Rather, the battle posed between science and religion is one that must be debunked, I would say. Just as the material body is the realm of science, the spiritual body is the realm of religion. Science, having the nature to be understood for evidences and objectivity, is limited in understanding the spiritual dimensions which man inherently possesses. The same is true with religion, which is not belonging to the domains of explaining matter and methods, and is thus, viewed as limited and irrelevant in material perspectives. By this very character of both science and religion, it may be inferred that the two cannot be fully integrated, but only a deep respect and acknowledgement of each must be established. Religion is able to see this irreconcilability by attempting to trace down some scientific bases of the salvation history and is able to do so. The evolution of the homo sapien is also integrated in the biblical passage of the creation of the world taken figuratively (seven days as understood to be million years). To rest our claims of human existence only on science may be a dangerous pit. Acknowledging religion is acknowledging philosophy and understanding life beyond materialism and scientific concepts. There is the argument from causation (Baker, 2006), which religion holds on to. It infers that nature is full of cause and effect relations, and all cause must then go back to God, the Prime Mover, the Last Resort, and the Uncaused cause. This argument corresponds with the philosophical inquiry of contingent beings, such as people, whose existence is traced back to God’s good pleasure. There is also the argument from values in which religion is founded, which science holds no realm of. The original cause of morality, truth, and goodness is apparently not science; it can study only the level of morality of a particular group of people and trace why such level is high or low. However, to find out the actual source of this construct and to ascertain it to be the Divine Being is where science seems to fail. Thus, only his own personal faith in his Creator (if he so believes in one) will lead man towards the pathway of knowing the causes of all things. There is also the origin of design, which is perceived to be purportedly made it that way by the creator – such as the design of man, of animals, and plants in one entire ecosystem in a symbiotic relationship. Galileo teaches us a criterion for situations in which science and religion seemed to contradict with each other. He stated that if science has a malleable statement of facts supported by ironclad data and good logic that conflict with Scripture, then, the passage in the Scripture must be taken metaphorically. This is a good position with what I claimed earlier about Adam and Eve and the creation of the world, which is not to be literally taken. Religion, unlike science, is focused on the question, “What can we see in nature that points to God?” (Baker, 2006). The answer is apparently not by conducting a laboratory experiment or a participant observation. Rather, one who enables himself to see the divine plan in nature can he be able to see design. According to Robert Boyle, “science is a religious task, a disclosure of admirable workmanship that God displayed in the universe.” This statement suggests the integration of science and religion, of the reconcilability of the two different realms, towards the direction that points out to the Supreme Being as the primary organizer (McGrath, 1998). Understanding the world through science and understanding it through religion are two different ways of viewing at things. Science has made tremendous successes in disproving myths and relying on just mere common sense and “looking at things” towards empirical data and scientific observations. It has gone as far as rediscovering and reinventing the fields of motion, inertia, gravity, etc. in order to reason out in a systematic fashion how and why things and events happen the way they do. More importantly, it made life’s tasks easier and more convenient. The achievements of science are now seen everywhere and every moment– from the coffeemaker that one grabs in his morning rounds, up to the computer that he uses for sending correspondences to friends and relatives in a far country. However, all these happenings are not there to prove that science is supreme than religion (the so-called, “See, I told you science wins!”). Man is more than matter, and nature is more than rocks and trees. As man has cognitive, emotional, social, psychological, and spiritual dimensions, there is thus, a need to balance all these. The fact that man possesses the inherent spiritual needs only indicates his spirituality, and the corresponding necessity to fill its glass. Even contemporary healthcare services suggest that patients undergo medications, but this is not enough. Nurses often advise them to take aromatherapy and meditation, which are proved effective in the healing process and are now acknowledged in hospitals and healthcare clinics. This instance only recognizes how the realm of spirituality (religion) can aid the human being to function perfectly and well attuned to his being – which science sometimes lacks the domain of. Thus, others may perceive religion as a myth – if it were to be compared with science. Indeed, it will turn pale in the comparison if the objectivity, systematic inquiry, and testability of data and facts are to be used as benchmarks. But a human being needs not only proofs of the existence of the natural world, or methods to aid him in inventing new technologies, but also satisfaction of his spiritual needs, which science cannot normally satiate. The cognitive, emotional, social, and spiritual domains of man must be kept balanced in order for him to be a functional and attuned being. Focusing on science alone and refuting the functions of spirituality (religion) will destroy this balance. Hence, man should recognize that there are questions that science cannot answer, and that there are questions that may be answered not by science, but by the spiritual dimension in which science is not its realm. Man must only acknowledge the assistance provided by science in understanding the world and things around him in a logical and systematic fashion, but should also work on the things that fulfill the needs of his spirits. Science may call this a myth, but it is only because science does not belong to this myth called religion. References Baker, G. (2006) Boundary issues in science: a historical approach. Retrieved on July 3, 2008 from http://www.thenewphilosophyonline.org/journal/data/109b/Baker_Article--New_Philosophy_July-December_2006.pdf Dow, J. (2004) Religions and evolutionary theory. Retrieved on July 3, 2008 from http://personalwebs.oakland.edu/~dow/personal/papers/religion/evolrel1.pdf McGrath, A. E. (1998) Science and religion. Blackwell Publishing. Read More