Questionable Science?

First I have to tell you that I am a scientist of sorts. I have always been interested in physics, electronics, genetics, and many other scientific subjects. I enjoy reading about new discoveries and various theories. I have even come up with a few of my own theories. So do not take this article as an anti-science pro-religion article. The intent of this article is to show that science and religion are two distinctly separate disciplines.

First, let's define a few words. We will start with the word 'fact'. I define a fact as something which has been shown to be true in at least one instance and has never been shown to be false. This definition makes sense, especially in its use within the realm of science. Usually in science, for something to be recognized as a fact, it must be show to be true by multiple independent researchers, but in many cases facts are accepted after one researcher shows it to be true, then other independent research is conducted to verify the original research. Note, however, that on occasion a 'fact' is discovered to be false in at least one instance and thus ceases to be a fact (look into what areas of the tongue taste what flavors for an example).

The second word is 'truth'. This is a religious word. Truth is something that is absolutely and irrevocably true. Truth transcends science and facts. The problem with truth is that it cannot be empirically proven. A person may know that something is absolutely true, but cannot convince others because they have no proof, or even no evidence, of what they claim to be true. Truth is absolute, but cannot be proven by any means available to man or science.

These words are exclusive to their specific disciplines. Truth has no place in science and facts have no place in religion. The reason is that religion and science have no overlapping ground. This does not mean that only one of the two can be valid. Rather it means that neither can infringe upon the realm of the other. In other words, science is not sufficiently equipped to argue with religion and religion is not equipped to argue with science. This is why arguments between the two most often end in stalemates. The two cover entirely different realms. Neither realm is suitable for the other to exist within.

Let's define science. Science consists of observations and predictions. Experiments can be devised and executed to observe reactions under controlled conditions, but it is still only observation. Science collects data, compiles and organizes it, and then looks for patterns. That is where science ends. Science may use the discovered patterns to make predictions, but may not interpret the data. This means that it is acceptable for a scientist to say that it is likely that a certain effect is going to happen given certain circumstances, but it is not acceptable for the scientist to claim that he absolutely knows that a certain effect will happen. Absolute knowledge does not belong to the realm of science. If a scientist makes such a claim, he is preaching his faith and belief that the effect will happen, not making a prediction based on observation. It has been shown that an observation may be taken any number of times with the same results, but then the next observation may yield results entirely at odds with all of the previous observations. Quantum physics actually predicts this. Science itself predicts that even an infinite number of observations may not yield every possible result.

Religion is nearly opposite to science in definition. Religion often is not based on any known observations. Empirical studies cannot prove religious truths. Even the appearance of deity can easily be attributed to hallucination or other forms of illusion. It is known that the senses can be fooled into seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching things that are not real and do not actually exist. On the other hand a person may claim that they have had a feeling that has given them absolute knowledge of truth, and science can do nothing to prove or disprove that claim or that truth. Many who have claimed to be scientists have tried to prove or disprove various religious claims and all have failed, except in the few cases where the claims have infringed upon the realm of science. Still, while no effort of science has ever been able to disprove religion, neither have any effort of science been able to verify religion.

This war between religion and science is not even real. Neither can cross the boundaries of the other. For a scientist to fight against religious principles he must create his own religious ideals that oppose those principles he is fighting against. Likewise, for a religious person to fight against a theory of science, he must create his own scientific theories that oppose those theories he wishes to fight against. This does not mean that religions cannot have scientific theories within them, but those religions must understand that the theories are subject to the rules of science, if they are to be considered scientific theories. Otherwise they are not theories, but rather religious beliefs.

Unlike science, religion is subject to interpretation. To interpret scientific data is to create a religious belief or principle based upon that data (this is where pagan nature worship originated). Science may not go beyond prediction and still be considered science. Religion on the other hand cannot make predictions. For religion to make predictions is to invite ruin. When religion crosses the boundaries into the realm of science, it must play by the rules of science. This means that if a religion makes a prediction, science may make a direct attack on that religion by disproving the prediction. Of course, if a scientist crosses the boundaries into religion, that scientist puts every theory and claim he has ever made in question. This does not mean that a single person may not make religious claims and scientific theories, but that person must be sure not to make a scientific theory based on belief, nor a religious claim that infringes on science; he must make sure his claims fall distinctly into the correct category. The two are not enemies, but they do not tolerate territorial disputes.

That said, there is one case where science and religion can get along. This is the case where the interpretations of religion and the predictions of science run parallel. For this to happen two things must be true. First, all of the claims made by the religion must be true, ie. they must be the correct interpretation. Second, science must recognize that everything may not be as it seems. No amount of evidence will reveal the absolute truth. Sometimes the evidence may actually be entirely at odds with the truth. If science refuses to admit this, it has failed. Equally, if religion refuses to admit that their interpretation may not be entirely accurate, it too has failed. Religion and science can only play together on the narrow strip of ground where they meet. Somewhere that ground does exist, but as it has not yet been found and indeed may never be found, science and religion should be treated as two distinctly separate, but valid realms of understanding. A scientist who claims that science makes religion invalid is a false prophet and a preacher who claims that religion supercedes science is a purgored scientist. Science cannot offer truth and religion cannot offer facts. Those on both sides need to realize this and get on with their lives. There are much more useful things they could be doing with their lives than participating in a war that cannot be won.

Lord Rybec