Tuesday, June 9, 2015


BEYOND BELIEFE: SCIENCE & RELIGION
By: Mughzi Abdillah
(MA Student of Religious Studies, Ankara University)


“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)

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 lameSo scientist and theologian should explain the phenomenon clearly.


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.






Total Pageviews

Student Community in Ankara

Powered by Blogger.

 

© 2013 diskusi ankara. All rights resevered. Designed by Templateism

Back To Top