Although history and some evidence might suggest otherwise, it is often said that there is no conflict between science and religion. This argument is often based on the idea that science and religion cover different areas of our experiences. In fact, the scientific method can be used to address any issue related to the material, measurable world.
The Scientific Method
Few people appreciate the scientific method and its subtleties. Science and the scientific method can be thought of as a belief system that has been successful based upon all our technological advances. The scientific method is quite simple and it has some profound consequences for the practitioners (scientists).
Scientists Start with a Hypothesis
One hypothesis is: "the speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum speed attainable". The hypothesis is then tested by observation over a period of time, and if no contradictions to the hypothesis are found, the hypothesis becomes a "theory".
For example, climate change by increases in greenhouse gases is now a "theory". It can be meaningless to use the criticism this or that is "only a theory". Gravity is also "only a theory", but no one has ever known anyone to fall upwards!
Scientists Try to Contradict Theory
Scientists are always on the look out for ways to refine theories. Having said that, a single observation does not immediately validate a theory, nor does a single exception invalidate a theory. For example, the recent discovery of faster than light particles, which contradicts one of the major theories of physics, is exciting and requires further scrutiny.
This finding is exciting to scientists because they see the prospect of new theories emerging. The result is under considerable scrutiny because in the words of the famous astronomer Carl Sagan: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
The Dynamism of Scientific Theories
Science is dynamic because new hypotheses, data and ideas are being discovered all the time. Science is also dynamic because old ideas are being tested with more and more scrutiny and found to be wanting. Ideas that are not valid are simply rejected and replaced by new ones.
Scientific Honor code
There is an honor code amongst scientists, along the same lines as the Hippocratic oath of medical doctors. Specifically, scientists are obligated in their research papers to debate the arguments for and against any hypothesis suggested or being tested. This contrasts with lawyers, for example, who put forward only those arguments that favor their clients. Of course, if you were pleading not guilty to a heinous crime and your lawyer pointed out the weaknesses in your defence, then you would fire your lawyer!
Scientific papers which don't take into account alternative explanations of data are usually rejected for publication by reputable, refereed journals. Those papers that don't take account of all the data and evidence and accidentally get published, are often argued against in other papers and ultimately rejected by the scientific community.
Periodically, the scientific community carries out scientific assessments in which the state of knowledge is agreed upon by most, if not all, scientific experts. Such assessments have been done for climate change and ozone depletion , for example.
Scientific Truth
Nothing in science can be absolutely and finally proven. It is not like mathematics. It would certainly be a mistake to portray scientists as arrogant. Scientists know what they know, but only within some level of statistical certainty or uncertainty. For example, as a scientist, I could be quite wrong about gravity, and it might be possible for something to fall upwards against gravity. The probability of this is extremely small, e.g. a probablity of error equal to 1 second divided by the total age of the universe). There comes a point, though, when the probablility of an event is so small that it is ignored to all intents and purposes.
The Scientific Method Applied to "Nonscientific Issues"
The scientific method can be used to consider and evaluate anything material. You set up a hypothesis and test it by experiments. Then, you modify the hypothesis according to the data obtained. Note that you really can't trust your own senses, so collecting data must be carefully considered and as objective as possible.
For example, if we relied entirely on our senses, we would still believe the Earth was flat and the sun revolves around the Earth. I have chosen examples where science has been made painfully aware of the inadequacies of common sense.
Religious Doctrine
Religious doctrine contrasts with science in that it may or may not change when new data comes in from archaeology or science as two examples. Religion usually has firm and fixed principles and doctrines. In other words it is more static, science tends to be dynamic and changing. Religion and science can be at odds. Many philosophers and theologians argue that science and religion address different issues.
Join the Conversation