Conflict: Science, Religion and Culture

One of the special characteristics of science is that it is an agent of social or cultural changes because of its tremendous impact on human society. From the industrial revolution after the renaissance of Europe, to the present, the world has developed a technological culture as a matter of necessity. 

Consequently, any country or nation which does not aspire to scientific and technological development will undoubtedly be doomed to absolete. Developments, advances & progress are associated with the products of science and technology and so are all aspects of human existence. They have often led to reinforcing the dynamism of culture, the way of life of a people, their norms, customs, beliefs and conducts. 

As for religion, the relationship with science is one of conflicts and disputes, in history especially with the church since Christianity was the main religion among the first industrialised nations. The dispute between Galileo Galilei (1564-1942) and the Roman Catholic Church as well as the Spanish inquisition (of the middle ages) where so called "heretics" were burned to death are clear examples. Lavosier (1743-1794) and others were put to death at the guillotine in France while Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was openly scoffed at by the clergy in England when he published his theory of evolution in 1859, "on the origin of species by means of natural selection". He was cartooned with a human face and the body of an ape. 

As more and more people accepted the theory, the church reacted more emotionally. Heated arguments ensured between those who accepted the theory (the evolutionists)  and the "faithfuls" or believers in creation. The case of Thomas H. Huxley (or Darwin's bull dog as he was disrespectfully called by the clergymen) and church of England is a good example. In one instance, he was asked by a vicar to explain whether he descended from apes through his paternal and maternal root. Thomas H. Huxley replied that he would rather descend from an ape than to cancel the truth. 

In ensuring debates and arguments, both sides (science & religion)  took up extreme views. In spite of the uproar about creation by the faithfuls, the Darwinian scientists refused to recognised the creative element in organic evolution. 

The stumbling block is the nature of science and it's spectacular method of inquiry. Whereas science thrives on objective knowledge, literal truth, exactness and facts, religion is founded upon trust, intuition, poetic truth, and faith. Scientists do not often look for evidences and "divine action" in the scientific worldview nor do they expect factual certainties in the Holy scriptures. Thus, the distinction between FACT and ALLEGORY represents that line between science and religion. Some people see science as being amoral i.e totally divorced from the morals and the teachings of religion since it is based on objective literature. Others, the religions fundamentalists for example, contrast God's absolutely trustworthy word with the incomplete and insubstantial nature of scientific knowledge. The scientific method of rational inquiry has however successfully brought down a number of beliefs with shaky foundations such as the various superstitions beliefs among people. Consequently, religions believers of whatever persuasion including scientists, realise that it is unwise to look for evidences of "Divine Action" in areas of scientific ignorance. 

Nevertheless, one area of near consensus between science and religion is the realisation of the gap between them and the need to bridge it. Therefore, in considering the scope of scientific inquiry vis-a-vis religious claims, it is necessary to separate questions which are factually unanswerable from those that are only difficult to answer. The once popular theory of VITALISM for example, held that living cells depended upon a mysterious, unidentified force, peculiar to life which cannot be analysed in physical and chemical terms. Biologists believe that the DNA in the nucleus of a fertilised cell contains, in coded form, all the information required to direct the step by step development of a particular creature. Yet vocalists claimed that the key ingredient in creation is an "entelechy" or "vital spark" to make it happen. Orthodox scientists however reject this and regard it as additional questions or concepts full of mediocrity and difficulty. Some of these questions are exceedingly difficult for science to answer while others are intrinsically unanswerable because they are bordering on the limits of scientific knowledge and method. This view of "Religious Apologists" (as orthodox scientists call them)  also explained that science is and will always be silent as to whether a house painted blue is more attractive than one painted green. 

Nevertheless, the situation is not completely hopeless. There is now a growing understanding and tolerance between science and religion whereby their rival claims are reconciled. The growing interests in "creationism" is a positive step in that direction. Unfortunately, there is certainly no consensus yet, among scientists, as to the truth or otherwise of religious claims. The scientific community is still made up of militant atheists, cautions agnostics and devout believers.