03 March 2014

Religion Versus Science

Religion versus Science
The debate between religion and science has been raging for several decades yet neither side shows any sign of relenting. This particular discussion can be difficult for many christians and other theists to participate in because they do not wish to disagree with science; which has several laws explaining nature. All too often I see or hear a Naturalist cite science in a debate against religion. The opposing party typically shrinks away muttering something about faith. This is not the way these discussions should end, however. The word “science” has been stolen by naturalists to mean something completely different from the actual definition. When used with the proper definition religion is a perfectly viable scientific theory on the origin of the universe.
A quick clarification should be inserted before I begin: when i say that religion does not contradict science I do not refer to all religions. There are religions that directly and purposefully deny known and proven scientific laws. Those are not included in my blanket definition of religion for this discussion. I am mainly referring to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and other reasonable religions when I mention religion or theism here.
I will start by giving the proper definition of science.
Science (noun): A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. (Science. n.d. In Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science?s=t)
Another dictionary gives a similar definition:
Science (noun) Knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation. (Science. n.d. In Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science)
Read those definitions carefully. Personally, I cannot find anything denouncing the existence of a supernatural being. Nor do I see anything claiming that the world was created without a god. This is because science is a process of gathering knowledge and not a worldview of its own. To summarize: science does not give facts or truth; science tells us how to find truth for ourselves. Naturalists have stolen the word “science” and twisted it to represent their worldviews which allow for no spiritual aspect to the universe.
 
Naturalism has been mentioned a few times now; it deserves a proper definition as well.
Naturalism (noun) Philosophy: the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual. (Naturalism. n.d. In Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naturalism?s=t)
This is a blanket term for several worldviews that disallow the existence of a deity of any sort. Atheism, Secularism, Hedonism, Existentialism, Nazism, and Nihilism and some of the bigger systems under naturalism. Going into detail on these would divert from the purpose of this post; I will instead focus on their important common feature. All of these worldviews deny the existence any supernatural or spiritual being.
The equivalent blanket term for worldviews that believe part of reality is spiritual is theism. Since theistic worldviews require the existence of God, (or gods, in some cases,) and naturalist worldviews require the absence of God the two are entirely incompatible. You cannot believe God exists and believe that God does not exist at the same time. That would violate the law of noncontradiction. This is an important law of classical logic; especially when looking at religions and worldviews. The law of noncontradiction is as follows:
Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
This basically means that two opposing statements cannot both be true simultaneously.
You cannot be a married bachelor. I cannot be a living cadaver. My roommate cannot be a decent person, (that last one is a joke,). Theism and naturalism cannot both be true without violating the law of noncontradiction.  

Now we reach the heart of the matter. We know that science is a process by which one discovers truth. We also know that science does not represent a worldview of its own. finally, we know that naturalism denies the existence of spiritual aspects of reality while theism affirms that same existence. Religion actually upholds science as an explanation of God’s creation. We (theists) embrace all scientific laws. I challenge any naysayer to find a scientific law that contradicts the existence of God. I can issue this challenge with confidence because comparing science and religion is like comparing a violin to a piano. The two are completely different. Both are amazing and beautiful on their own, together they complement and complete each other, becoming greater than the sum of their parts.
Naturalism denies the existence of any deity. It believes in a reality that is entirely physical. However, naturalism and science are also two completely different things; precisely like theism and science. Any scientific argument that invalidates theism can invalidate naturalism at the same time.
Since our definition have been cleared up a bit we can safely state that the religion versus science debate will never end because it is entirely invalid. The two relate to, but do not compete with each other. Theism’s theory on the origin of the universe is perfectly viable scientifically.. It has a well explained, fleshed out theory on the creation of reality. That is as much, if not more, than any naturalist worldview can claim.

References
Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997
Gottlieb, P. Aristotle on Non-Contradiction (2011) Retrieved from
Plantinga, A. Science or naturalism? The contradictions of richard Dawkins (2012) Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/12/3475939.htm

Shook, J. Naturalism and Science (2007) Retrieved from