We’ve all heard that one before. We are in an argument that we thought was settled if not at the time of Hippocrates then at least with Newton, that science delivers better answers for objective phenomena than intuition, faith, and religion. We are told, however, that science has no better claim to valid answers than does religion because science is also just a set of passionately held beliefs no different from the beliefs in a religion. However, if we compare how the two fields are practiced, we see that they have very different values and methods. Consider how each of these human endeavors responds to such questions as…
Is Anything at All Beyond Question ?
In science, there are no premises or assumptions that are not fair game for scrutiny, reassessment, and infinite reconsideration. No ideas, no persons, no authorities, no institutions, no policies, no myths are exempt. When scientists are told their method does not apply, or that they should not try but should leave it and move right along, they smell humbug and are attracted all the more. Scientific thought is allowed to start and proceed with anything. Scientific practice can almost always follow with important limitations due to ethical considerations—and even those ethical or moral codes are open to rational scrutiny. Science is incomplete when it has failed to scrutinize anything; it is unhealthy when it has chosen not to scrutinize something for inappropriate reasons, such as the preservation of cherished error and misleading myth. In many religious gatherings, to openly and perspicaciously question a fundamental assumption would be an embarrassment met with scorn; the questioner patted on the head and told that the questions are endearing but a sign of naïveté.
Is There a Preset Range of Acceptable Answers and Unacceptable Answers?
Scholastics allowed students and teachers to consider any question and exercise any thoughts, so long as the final conclusion accorded acceptably with the given orthodoxy of the times. This is stillborn science: conclusions must be only those that are reasonably and objectively supported by the evidence, no more, no less. Reason is allowed to conclude with anything that the evidence supports. Religion was the cradle of Scholasticism.
Are There Frequent Admissions of Error? Is Change Encouraged and Celebrated? Individually and collectively, the very goal of science is to identify the errors of our understanding and correct them, without end, creating an ever-changing and ever-improving body of knowledge; this is a celebrated and admired accomplishment in the scientific community. Is that the case in ourselves? Our families? Our jobs? Our public policy? Persons expecting certainty, absolutism, infallibility, or permanence will need to look somewhere other than science. Religion often satisfies that demand while science never will.
What is the Regard for Blind Faith?
Blind faith is appalling to scientists. Determining the degree of validity and applicability of a scientific study is very hard cognitive work and requires specific skills of a particular methodology. Uncritical trust in scientific sources is dangerous and not in keeping with science. Rather, it reflects naïveté or fatigue, or, regrettably, laziness on the part of the reader. Scientists, being normal, fallible persons, can be guilty of those things too, and, despite good intention, they may produce poor, misleading, even fraudulent research. Such practice is not worthy of the name science. Exposing charlatans is an important responsibility of scientists, whether the charlatan is operating inside or outside the scientific community.
Religion, however fully expects people to “Believe now, understand later.” Adherents are encouraged to let go of nagging questions and doubts, to achieve an admittedly “childlike” blind faith. To the extent that questions are investigated and studied, it is done only with an eye to the established doctrine and with no intention of changing that doctrine.
Is Emotionalism Discouraged?
Scientists are human and they get attached to their pet ideas. But, similar to farmers with their cute, little pigs, they know they shouldn’t get attached because they know that most of their ideas are going to come to their natural end in the market of scientific scrutiny. Scientists know that their task is to produce and develop a robust idea, to deliver it up to the public, and to allow the public to take it apart, study it, ingest it, and benefit from it, all to the betterment of society. Scientists know that objective evidence trumps emotional appeal.
In religion, emotionalism is consciously and expertly leveraged for maximum influence. Thundering oratorio, dramatic music, solemn ritual, tearful testimony, and elevating song are wonderful, inspiring, thrilling and sometimes cathartic experiences. But they do not contribute to the likelihood that the stories and assertions made are true.
Public Debate of the Evidence Is Encouraged
Scientific meetings are characterized by frequent interruptions with questions from the audience, typically questions that challenge or express skepticism of what is being presented. Scientists usually find that the benefit of the public exchange outweighs any loss of decorum. To interrupt most religious services with a raised hand and a pointed question is likely to draw gasps. “That’s just not appropriate” we hear. Or “There is a time and place for such questions but not when we are all gathered here now – that is not why we are here.” True, it is not.
To say that science is just another religion demonstrates a superficial understanding of the two fields of thought. Yes, they both seek to make the world a better place; yes, they both seek answers; yes, they both offer profound ideas on how one can live their daily life. But they are fundamentally different in how they go about all these things. For finding accurate answers concerning objective claims, science offers a methodology that, while far from perfect, serves us far more effectively.