Is Religion Compatible With Science?

"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Science can only determine what is, but not what shall be, and beyond its realm, value judgments remain indispensable. Religion, on the other hand, is concerned only with evaluating human thought and actions; it is not qualified to speak of real facts and the relationships between them."
-- Albert Einstein

As the two quotes point out, science and religion have two different non-overlapping functions. This is a normative view, explaining what the case is ought to be rather than what it is. Religion is compatible with science only as long as it does not make claims regarding the value judgments of the physical nature of the Universe.

Does religion even have the ability to answer questions regarding the nature of the Universe? The Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years, between around 1400 BCE and 100 AD. The scientific revolution occurred in the period between 1543 and late 1600. There is a gap of over 1500 years between when the Bible was completed and the beginning of the scientific revolution. There is no way that the people who wrote the Bible could base their writing on valid scientific evidence, and any valid explanations must be coincidences. So the answer to the question of whether religion has the ability to answer scientific questions is... "No".

Religion is a constantly evolving institution, and, as we have seen throughout history with cases such as Galileo and Creationism, it is possible for religion to be incompatible with science. So the answer to the question of whether religion is compatible with science is... "It depends." The compatibility issue only arises when religion is used to explain natural phenomena, like the origin of life, which is exclusively the concern of science.

The Question of the Existence of God - Irrelevant

Note: Herein, god refers to the Judeo-Christian god.

Some time ago I wrote in my journal that "I believe the question of the existence of God is irrelevant, just like the question of the existence of any supernatural being is irrelevant." But then I asked myself "Irrelevant to what?" Now I finally elucidated to myself what I meant by that statement.

ARGUMENT:

The question of the empirical existence of God is irrelevant to the validity of religion. In other words, the proof of god's existence (if it is possible to obtain) would not serve as a reasonable support for theological dogma, because even if god exists it does not logically follow that the Bible is the word of god, i.e., that god authored the Bible.

• Objection: The validity of theological dogma does depend on the existence of god because god has to exist in order for the Bible to be the word of god, i.e., if god does not exist, then the Bible can not be the word of god.
• Counterargument: Yes, and this also means that if god does exist, it still does not follow that the Bible is the word of god. In other words, god is a prerequisite for the Bible to be the word of god, but the existence of god does not make the Bible the word of god.
• If the Bible is the word of god, then god exists. It does not follow that if god exists, then the Bible is the word of god.
• So if god exists, it does not mean that religion is true. But if god does not exist, it means that religion is false.

IMPLICATIONS:

Christian apologetics should seize trying to prove the existence of god through rational means, as the Lee Strobel's book, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God--it is inconsequential to Christianity's validity, or any other creed for that matter.

P.S. It is amusing that Christians dismiss arguments against their religion as irreverent rant. But I will save this topic for a separate occasion.