BEYOND BELIEFE: SCIENCE & RELIGION
By: Mughzi Abdillah
(Ankara University)
(Ankara University)
.png)
“One of the greatest tragedies of our times is this impression that
has been created that sciences and religion have to be at war”
(Francis Collins)
(Francis Collins)
With the load of protests by a small number of
religious groups over teaching scientific concept like evolution and the Big
Bang in schools, and the load of proclamations by scientists, atheists and
philosophers, it seems there is a war between religion and sciences. Religious
teachings become rare while science develops progressively without ethical
values. The attention given to the clashes glosses over the numerous cases in
which science and religion harmoniously coexist.
Some people try to find a relationship between
science and religion. While others believe that there can never be found a
relationship between science and religion. Both of them are different entities,
whether in terms of formal-material objects (ontology), research methods
(epistemology), or the role that is applied (axiology).
Before discussing the differences or
similarities between science and religion, we should consider the concepts and
paradigms of science according to scientists. What exactly is science? How can
we characterize it? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a
given inquiry or theory or claim to be scientific, a part of science?
Terminologically, science means objective and
systematical knowledge which is proved (M. Ridwan, dkk, 1999:577). The cornerstone of
the scientific method is the postulate that nature is objective. In other
words, the systematic
denial that ‘true’ knowledge can be got by interpreting nature in terms of
final causes …” (Monod 1971, 21, Monod's emphasis).
In this case,
Bruno Guiderdoni (2004:41) expressed the opinion which is concerned the
reasoning of the concept of religion. He
distinguished the terms of science and religion in many definitions.
1. Science asks objectively about “how”, while religion focuses on the
question of “why”.
2. Science is concerned with fact and reality, while religion is
related with values and meanings.
3. Scientific approaches use analysis and data, while religious
approaches are synthetic.
Some people consider science as the only
objective knowledge because its truth can be proved evidently. They assume that
religion arises from the faith, while science certainly based on reason. They
think that the reason has its own foundation without having to refer to a
transcendent reality. This secularism thought causes controversy about a
relation of science and religion. Hence, Ian G.
Barbour (2002:47) made typology a relationship of science and religion. For
him, science and religion have definite relations summarized in four
typologies: conflict, independence, dialog and integration.
1. Conflict
We still remember what happened in the 17th
century, when science and religion gave truth claim in the same domain.
Religion and science both have the same right to explain the origin of
universe, the heliocentric-geocentric, etc. Science and religion were
considered as two opposites, so the people only had two choices: to reject
religion and accept science or to reject science and believe in religion.
The above
perspective usually adopted by the group of scientific materialism and
religious literalist. Some material scientists assume that material and reality
are the basic nature (concerned with empirical reality), and believe that the
scientific method is the only valid way to get the truth. For them, science is
objective, opened, factual and progressive, while religion is subjective,
closed, parish, not critical and very difficult to change. They cannot accept
religion, because it is not public data that can be tested by experiment and
the criteria of coherence, comprehensiveness, and usefulness. On the contrary,
some religious literalists assume that the holly book is the only source of
truth, because it is eternal revelation coming from God. They also argued that
scientific theory such as evolution theory is too favor the philosophy of
materialism and degrades moral commands of God.
The view of clergies that only recognize the
truth of scripture encourages people to assume that another view outside of
religion is wrong and whoever denies the view of religion is called a pagan and
thus deserves punishment. Scientists who did research that are contrary to the
beliefs of religion became victims of oppression and cruelty of the church. For
instance, Catholic Church gave severe punishment to Galileo Galilei because of his thoughts which were in
opposition to that of the church. The same case also takes a place in Muslim
country. The theory of evolution and sciences get a firm refusal there. One of concrete
rejection is condemnation of Saudi Government on the Pokemon movie as one of
the film’s character is believed to be based on the theory of evolution. This
case illustrates that a relation of science and religion still remains big
problem.
2.
Independence
The second
paradigm says that science and religion have different domain, science
discusses about nature while religion teaches people values and ethics coming
from God. Science is built based on observation and reasoning, while religion
is based on the revelation of God. Religious belief depends entirely on the
will of God, in the contrary science is based on discovery of human.
According
to Langdon Gilkey, science and religion have different functions. He describes
them as follows:
a. Science
describes the data that is objective, public and repeatable. While religion
concerns with the existence of the world and the personal experience (guilt,
anxiety, forgiveness, trust, etc.)
b. Sciences ask
objectively about “how”. At the same
time religions focus on the question “why” to answer the wisdom of the
phenomenon.
c. The basis
authority of science is logical coherence and appropriateness of experience,
while the highest authority of religion is God and His revelation.
In this
case, scientists could carry out their activity freely without the involvement
of theology, so do religious believers, because the methods and issues are
different. Science is built upon the observations and reasoning, while theology
is based on divine revelation.
3.
Dialog
This view
offers the relation of science and religion to be more constructive interaction
rather than previous views. It is recognized that science and religion have
common goal that can be discussed. Generally the aim of science is to develop
the quality of human life. Of course, to develop human life, people must adhere
to ethic values.
The
dialog emphasizes the similarities of methods and concepts of science and
religion. In this concept, science also discusses about relation of God and the
world. It answers some questions that cannot be observed by scientists directly.
For example, why the universe moves regularly?, who does maintain the
regularity of the universe?. Albert Einstein asserts that religion without
science is blind, science without religion is lame.
4.
Integration
Science and
religious doctrines are considered as valid and coherent sources of world view.
Integrative relation of science and religion provides greater insight for human
being. Science can improve religious beliefs by providing scientific evidence
of revelation. Maurice Bucaille combined similarity modern scientific description
with description of the Qur’an on nature. This combination is expected to
improve religious understanding comprehensively.
There are many way to integrate a relationship of science and
religion. We should realize that scientific data on regularity of the universe
proves God’s power in regulating it. The consciousness arises when we learn the
regularity. On the other hand, religious belief which is concerned with scientific
theory should be reinterpreted and reconstructed. The general assumption that the texts are
limited, meanwhile, realities are unlimited (al-nusus mutanahiyah wa al-waqai’
ghairu mutanahiyah) encourages theologian to reform and reinterpret the religious
teachings. It insists that scientific
theories, including religious ones that are established by scholars, they have
probably an irrelevancy and human’s error in their concepts. As a result,
understanding of religion in a certain era and certain level advancement of
science might be reformed to be better and to be more contextual. Amin Abdullah
considers it qabilun li al-niqash wa al-taghyir (subject to criticism
and change).
REFERENCE
Abdullah, Amin. “Bangunan Baru
Epistemologi Keilmuan Studi Hukum Islam dalam Merespon Globalisasi”, as-Syir’ah, XXXXIV,
December 2012.
Soroush, Abdul Karim. Menggugat Otoritas dan Tradisi Agama.Bandung:
Mizan,
2002.
Abdillah, Mughzi, The Reinterpretation
of Maqasid al-Shari’ah. UIN Sunan Kalijaga, 2013.
Barbour, Ian G. Issues in Science and
Religion.
.png)
