Is There a Conflict Between Science and Religion?

Dear Readers,

The following is a paper I did for an astronomy course a while back. It reminds me a lot of my “Art Cannot Scientifically Be Known” Essay, and it kind of reminds me of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the way that book rejects discovering the world through strictly logical thinking. Enjoy.

Is There a Conflict Between Science and Religion?

I recently read an article titled, "Coyne of the realm" by Francis Reddy. The article appealed to me because I am a very religious person and I like to think about the contradictions that sometimes come up between religious teachings and scientific teachings. For instance, some Catholics believe in, and I'm pretty sure that the Catholic Church taught, transubstantiation. This doctrine teachings that the communion wine and wafers actually change from ordinary wine and wafers to the literal blood and body of Jesus Christ. While faithful mass-goers believe in this miracle, strict scientists, while operating in the position of a scientist, in other words, when they put their beliefs aside and are called upon for their official scientific knowledge and opinion, cannot support this claim. Wine turning into the blood of a Deity every Sunday during worship services is not scientific. Like I said, the line between religion and scientists interests me, and so this article appealed to me.

The article is an interview of Father George Coyne, the Vatican's chief astronomer. Before the transcript of the interview begins, there is a short biography of Father George Coyne. He was born in Baltimore in 1933. He earned a doctorate from Georgetown University in 1962, and then continued astronomy research at Harvard University and the University of Arizona. I presume he grew up Catholic- this article doesn’t make that clear, but Catholicism was always a big part of his life. It's as if his whole life he has been walking the line between science and religion.

The first 2 pages of the interview were questions about the discrepancies between his scientific and his religious beliefs. The rest of the article was about how he came to be the head of the Vatican observatory and other questions about his career. But to me, the first two pages were the most interesting and so that's where I will focus the rest of my essay/summary.

Coyne said, "they [science and spirituality] are two compartments of my life. I try to do publishable research in international journals, but then I'm a religious priest. There is some crossover in my personal life." Here I want to interrupt Coyne and say that I think I can identify with Coyne here. In the few science classes I've taken in school, sometimes I've felt that I must put my religious beliefs aside when I learned about the age of the earth, evolution, birth control, and other topics. But I'm not opposed to putting my religious bias aside for the science classroom. In fact I think I've learned that science is a discipline that requires us to put aside all our pre-dispositions to explain the universe. Science intends to strip the mind down to the core 5 senses and requires us to be careful about interpreting our sense data too quickly. As it stands today, science is not to be asked what the meaning of life is. Although science has helped societies advance technologically, science, in my estimation, should not be consulted to answer questions about all facets of our lives. Coyne continues: "I believe that God is Creator, and I've never come to that belief through any rational process. It's not irrational- I don't think it contradicts reason- but it transcends reason. I mean, why did you marry the woman you married? Because she was so tall and had white teeth and you put all that together? You can never explain to anyone certain decisions from the mental positions you make. You use the reasoning process, but it's not sufficient." I think this is brilliant. Just as we can't explain romantic relationships in scientific terms, we can't explain God in scientific terms. I think there are many sides to a person just as there are many classes to take in college. If we rely too heavily on any one area, we run the risk of becoming mentally lopsided, not seeing life the way it was meant to be seen.

The article discusses a little more about the gap between science and religion. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article and thinking about the ideas that were presented in it. Now, in an attempt to voice my view on the subject, I would like to quote page 681 of Bruce R. McConkie's book, Mormon Doctrine to see what he has to say about the subject.

Is there a conflict between science and religion? The answer to this basic query depends entirely upon what is meant by and accepted as science and as religion. It is common to say there is no such conflict, meaning between true science and true religion- for one truth never conflicts with another, no matter what fields or categories the truths are put in for purposes of study. But there most certainly is a conflict between science and religion, if by science is meant (for instance) the theoretical guesses and postulates of some organic evolutionists, or if by religion is meant the false creeds and dogmas of the sectarian and pagan worlds. 'Oppositions of science falsely so called' were causing people to err 'concerning the faith' even in the days of Paul. (1 Tim. 6:20-21) There is, of course, no conflict between revealed religion as it has been restored in our day and those scientific realities which have been established as ultimate truth. The mental quagmires in which many students struggle result from the acceptance of unproven scientific theories as ultimate facts, which brings the student to the necessity of rejecting conflicting truths of revealed religion. If, for example, a student accepts the untrue theory that death has been present on the earth for scores of thousands or millions of years, he must reject the revealed truth that there was no death either for man or animals or plants or any form of life until 6000 years ago when Adam fell. As a matter of fact, from the eternal perspective, true science is a part of the gospel itself; in its broadest signification the gospel embraces all truth. When the full blessings of the millennium are poured out upon the earth and its inhabitants, pseudo-science and pseudo-religion will be swept aside, and all supposed conflicts between science and religion will vanish away.