Science and faith: In terms of the challenges they face in pursuit of truth, how different are they?
The conflict between scientific and religious ideas has been a huge player in shaping the world we live in today, culturally, economically and politically. At first it appears obvious why these two apparently contrasting groups of ideas have managed to alter, so much, our very own human existence. Achieving this not only in their own right, but in doing so, as trains of thought that so often oppose each other. To comment on scientific inconsistencies throughout religious texts is not what this discussion aims to address and not worthwhile employment for any philosophical debate. Indeed, the very essence of a debate between these two schools of thought is that of their inconsistencies and differences on many levels.
Many would argue that science will eventually reveal all of nature’s hidden gems and answer all of its fundamental questions. Of course they would have a challenge to fight off religion which already has answered some of these philosophical questions based on scripture and in many cases a divine belief. If faith and scripture are the basis of religious argument, can science ever hope to combat this rigid and strict reasoning?
The real question I would like to address is this: Do science and faith need to be consistent in their content to be consistent not only in their objectives but also the fruits of the respective human endeavors, these being finding the answers to fundamental questions of life, the universe and everything? My immediate and only answer is no. If science and religion ask the same question but arrive at different answers is either of them wrong? And can we justify such poignant questions with just one answer? Indeed, is there only one answer? If so, one of them must be wrong, right?
Quantum mechanics reveals to us that the one gauge we have on reality, measurement, is not certain, and the answers to questions we pose reality are probabilistic in nature. This is a fundamental premise to quantum mechanics and is known as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. With this in mind, not forgetting its scientific origins, we can not expect simply, on a measurement front, to achieve one answer to any fundamental and important question about reality or existence.
In brief, science by its own limitations can not achieve in any case, one hundred percent accurate, definitive and single, answers to many questions of life, the universe and everything. Religion could claim to already have done so. In some religious frameworks for example, the notion that we are here on this planet in transit to the afterlife, during which we shall experience heaven, is one answer religion has given for our existence.
However, there is an overriding theme which needs reflection in the context of science and faith. One solid conclusion can be drawn from the fact that there is an inherent uncertainty of measurement in science as well as in the notion of an afterlife claimed by some belief systems. The objective in both major aspects of human thought and endeavor, to arrive at the answer to life, the universe and everything, is capped by the uncertainty of reality.
Returning to the title question, it would appear that although methodology of achieving the answers in science and faith may differ in many respects, the difficulties they face are common. As a concluding thought; if it is impossible to reach the answer in its fullest form, is there any need to get closer to it?
Matthew Broome 15th September 2008