Science and religion—are they two independent planes of thought addressing fundamentally different questions or are there areas of overlap and compatibility? Throughout history, this controversial issue has been hotly debated among scientists, theologians, and even the general public. Some believe that it’s only a matter of time until the scientific method and the advance of technology disproves the existence of divine authority while others point to possible amalgamation between the two fields. Whatever the case may be, there exists models by which their interactions can be characterized.
Although not as philosophically sophisticated as its successors, American theologian and physicist Ian Barbour’s categories remain one of the more influential and lasting typologies of the relationship between science and religion to date. In it, he distinguishes four distinct models: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. Following authors and experts have criticized this perspective, drawing attention to the ambiguity of conflict and the unproductive focus on the cognitive content of religions, but, nonetheless, the ground-breaking aspect of this system calls for deeper reflection.
The most dominant approach in regards to explaining the connection between religion and science in contemporary media, the conflict model proposes that science and religion are constantly at odds with each other. As a result, it assumes that only one of the two approaches can be true while the other is certainly false. The origins of this view trace back to two historical narratives: Galileo’s public support of Copernicus and the varied reaction to Darwinism. In 1616, Galileo published Letters on the Solar Spot, a text that openly argued for the Copernican theory of heliocentrism, which was supported by his recently developed invention, the telescope. However, contrary to his claims, the Holy Scripture clearly placed the Earth at the center of the universe rather than the Sun. In response, the Church quickly denounced Galileo’s theory and eventually punished him for propagating heretical ideas in the infamous Trial of 1633 [1]. Additionally, the more recent introduction of evolutionary thinking in Darwin’s On the Origin of Species also prompted significant pushback as some believed that the brutal and unforgiving struggle associated with the Darwinian perception of life directly contradicted the benevolent image of the Judeo-Christian God as well as the teachings of the Qur’an [2]. This view is still held by several branches of religions and most tend to avoid the topic entirely. Currently, the vast majority of experts across the spectrum of science and religion view these instances of clashes between religion and controversial scientific theories as the narrow-minded influence of scientific materialism and theologically conservative literalism. Furthermore, the shallow and inflexible aspects of this model seem to result in prejudiced opinions that encourage contention rather than understanding. However, some such as Alvina Platinga, a 2017 Templeton Prize Laureate, discuss the possibility of the conflict existing between science and philosophical naturalism, a viewpoint which claims that the world should be entirely explained through only natural explanations [3].
The independence model suggests that science and religion investigate different realms, each with their respective set of questions. With this in mind, Stephen Jay Gould, an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and influential writer, introduced the concept of NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) [4]. According to his perspective, science should focus on answering empirical questions concerning the material aspects of the universe and religion should focus on addressing inquiries related to the spiritual domain. Therefore, those within the sphere of religion should refrain from stating any factual statements about, for example, heliocentrism and those within the sphere of science should avoid questioning the existence of God and other moral questions. Although popular in the context of a modern, accommodationist society, history is replete with intersections between religion and science. Prominent examples include empirical claims made by religious leaders regarding topics such as Jesus’ resurrection and the exploration of evolution by scientists.
Third, the dialogue model recommends viewing science and religion as separate fields but with common ground in the form of assumptions, methods, and concepts. The two fields essentially act as conversation partners that seek to synthesize their opinions into a comprehensive understanding with some compromise from both sides. Using this perspective, the theological belief of intelligent design may encourage science as there is an implied system of order with an established set of laws. In addition, as stated by Barbour in his book, Religion and Science, both science and religion can be considered to be, “theory-dependent (or at least model-dependent, e.g., the doctrine of the Trinity colors how Christian theologians interpret the first chapters of Genesis), rely on metaphors and models, and value coherence, comprehensiveness, and fruitfulness...” [5]. Ideally, the two fields could work together using their similarities as a foundation; however, in practice, mutual respect and sufficient academic background are necessary.
Finally, the integration model is similar to the dialogue model but melds together science and religion in a more unified manner. Its two main characteristics include: natural theology, using the results of natural science as the substructure of the arguments for the existence of God, and the theology of nature, using a religious framework as the basis for scientific inquiry. For instance, the perspective that the planet Earth developed all of the necessary conditions for the formation of life despite the staggering statistical improbability may point to a higher power represents an aspect of natural theology and reviewing scientific findings with religious assumptions represents an aspect of the theology of nature. Although considered to be ideal by the academic community, complete integration is highly unlikely because of the difference in what is regarded as the “truth” in religion and science.
Although the answer to the original question is still out of reach, there exist approaches, such as Barbour’s taxonomy, regarding the interaction between two seemingly unrelated yet deeply intertwined fields which can help further humanity’s eternal struggle for the “truth,” whatever that may be. Such inquiries can seem futile as there is no concrete conclusion, but in reality, all advancements in human society began with one consistent factor: an unknown. Furthermore, in this case, where the stakes are high and discovering an answer will shake the foundations of civilization, the journey is all the more exciting and perhaps just as enlightening as the end.
[1] Doug Linder, “The Trial of Galileo: An Account,” UMKC School of Law, 2002, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html.
[2] “Religious Groups' Views on Evolution,” Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project, February 3, 2014, https://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-groups-views-on-evolution/.
[3] Helen De Cruz, “Religion and Science,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, January 17, 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/.
[4] Stephen J. Gould, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (New York, NY: Random House, 1999).
[5] Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996).
