speech on religion and science go hand in hand

How religion and science can go hand in hand: Opinion

Published: Jun. 21, 2014, 9:00 p.m.
Star-Ledger Guest Columnist

evolution.JPG

Scientists have proved evolution -- meet this model of Homo floresiensis, who roamed the planet some 50,000 years ago -- exists in the world, which people of religion should accept. Likewise, people of science should accept that people have religious faiths.

(2010 Washington Post file photo)

By Gerald L. Zelizer

So what do we religious folk say about the 42 percent who believe — according to a recent Gallup poll — that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago?

That creationist position has practical implications. Even our governor in 2011, when asked if he believed in creationism responded, “That is none of your business.” Actually, it is our business — the business of local school districts that have the option, if they choose, to teach creationism along side of evolution. This has already been mandated by some districts throughout the country.

There are lots of religious folk like me, constituting the other 58 percent who accept scientific explanations of the origins of the universe while simultaneously affirming their faith in many cases. That is because science and religion have two different functions.

Science explores the how of life. It utilizes the scientific method of observation to understand the mechanism by which things are as they are. Religion explores the why of life — not how things are, but why things are. Each faith searches for meaning, not mechanics, in life, death and our relationship to others and the world. Science cannot tell us why, only how. Religion cannot tell us how, only why.

So, for example, in the creation vs. evolution debate, if science says that evolution most fits the observable facts, then that is the truth, not creationism. By the same token, the first chapters of Genesis repeat after each day, “And God saw that it was good.” The religious truth of creation is that because the world is divine, it is worth preserving and not squandering.

Many secular folk beat up on religion by aiming at only the 42 percent. For example, Bill Maher, the political satirist and a consummate atheist, recently interviewed the politically active, Biblical literalist Ralph Reed. Maher's challenge was that, if the Bible is literally the word of God, why does it seem to accept issues such as slavery, stoning an adulterous woman, and genocide of the Canaanites — children included? Reed's answer was that those kinds of orders from God were part of the Old Testament, while Jesus in the New Testament upgraded the Old. To which Maher snapped, "So why did Jesus come along to correct his dad?"

As a believer who is a nonliteralist, I would have answered differently. Sure, the Bible, in addition to containing spiritually uplifting passages including “Thou shall not murder,” also includes spiritually degrading arguments, such as advocating slavery. That is because both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles are not the actual, literal words of God, conveyed as through a recording device, but the transmissions of human scribes, giving their impressions of what God expected of humankind.

That is why there are inconsistencies and contradictions in so much of the Bible. So for example, to Maher’s challenge that slavery was condoned in the Bible, I would have pointed to the later Prophets who instead emphasize the shared humanity of all races and classes. The sacredness of the Bible evolves.

There are many people of faith like me. For example, this year’s Laetare Medal of Notre Dame University was given to Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of “Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.” Miller said: “The second great myth about science holds it to be the antithesis of faith. This is a myth that serves both the enemies of faith and science very well … . Such assertions ignore the very history of western science, which has its roots in a faith that views the study of nature and its mysteries as a way to praise and understand the glory of God.”

He cites Isaac Newton as an example and points out that science too has its own faith-based system: “All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way ... a faith that would require one to reject scientific reason is not a faith worth having.”

So let’s put to bed the assumed antagonism between scientific and religious truth. They work distinctly and in tandem. Religious folk should accept scientific truth as “gospel” and secular folk should accept religious truth as “attributing meaning beyond the how.”

Do I expect the 42 percent who are Biblical literalists to forsake their belief in the creation of the world in six days and embrace scientific accounts? No. Do I expect scientists to relinquish their dire warnings of the planet’s demise resulting from we humans releasing too much carbon into the atmosphere, because the Bible says that man’s right is to “rule” the rest of God’s kingdom? Certainly not.

Both the Reeds and the Mahers of the world will never do that. But for the rest of us in the 58 percent, let’s publicly refute the assumed conflict between scientific and religious truth that we hear from many vocal atheists and religious fundamentalists. Once we acknowledge and disseminate these separate and distinctive functions, then an even more substantive conversation can follow on the details, which sometimes separate the two camps — such as birth control, homosexuality and global warming.

In the Gallup poll, 47 percent responded that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but not everything in the Bible should be taken literally. Nearly 1 in 3 responded that humans evolved with God’s guidance.

Hurray for those who blend religion and science. Let us set the tenor and agenda for this discussion of religion and science.

Gerald Zelizer is rabbi of Cong Neve Shalom in Metuchen: [email protected].

FOLLOW STAR-LEDGER OPINION: TWITTER • FACEBOOK

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

A Speech on “Religion and Science Can Go Hand in Hand.”

As scientists has proven that all the living beings existence in this world, which the people, who are the believer of religion should accept as well. Like that, the people, who are the believers of science also, should accept that people have strong religious faiths regarding various things or happenings of this planet.

There are a lot numbers of religious people, who accept and also firmly believe that the scientific explanations regarding the origins of our planet and universe while at the same time affirming their faith in god in many cases as well. That is because the two different powers called the science and religion in many cases have two different functions.

Science reveals and explains the hows of our life. It, by the help of some scientific methods, utilizes the various scientific methods of observation and experiments to understand the different process by which things are now behaving as they should. On the other hand, the path of religion explores and defines the whys of our life — not how the things are now, but why things are as in their true self.

Each of our firm faith searches and struggles for the meanings, not their mechanics or mechanisms, in life, death and our various happy and sad relationships to others and also the world. Whereas the Science cannot tell us the answers of the question of why, it can clarifies only the how’s of the planet or the process itself, not the real meaning behind it. Likewise, the religion cannot tell or explains us the how or the procedure itself, it can only explains the why, or the real meaning behind this.

So, as an example we can say that, in the debate between the creation and the evolution, if science says or clarifies that evolution most fits or proves by the observable facts which are before our eyes, then that can be the truth, but not creationism. By the same process, the first chapters of the book of Genesis tell each day after day, “And God saw that it was good.” The religious truth and faith about the creation is that as our world is divine, it is really worthy of preserving and not for squandering.

Some Biblical literalists’ opposition was that, if the Bible is actually the word of the God, then why does it may seem to support the problematic issues such as slavery, hitting an adulterous woman, and also genocide?

But the answer can be that the Bible, in addition to showing some spiritually inspiring passages like “Thou shall not murder,” also includes various spiritually reducing arguments as well, such as the statement regarding advocating slavery. The cause of this is both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bibles are not the actual, words of the God, showed to us as through a recorder or some similar device, but translations or transmissions of various human scribes or testimonies, giving their personal impressions of what God can expect or expected from the entire humankind.

1 thought on “A Speech on “Religion and Science Can Go Hand in Hand.””

It helped me a lot .from the elocution

A complex God: why science and religion can co-exist

speech on religion and science go hand in hand

Associate Professor of Physics, The University of Melbourne

Disclosure statement

Associate Professor Martin Sevior receives ARC funding to conduct experiments in fundamental particle physics at the KEK National accelerator Laboratory in Japan and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Switzerland. He is also an Elder and the congregation chair of St. Columbas Uniting Church in Balwyn, Victoria. This essay grew out of a series of lectures on the topic of "Intelligent and Intelligible Design" delivered at St. Columbas in 2008 with Professor Emeritus Reverend Harry Wardlaw, also of St. Columbas. Martin gratefully acknowledges many fruitful conversations with Harry.

University of Melbourne provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Science and religion are often cast as opponents in a battle for human hearts and minds.

But far from the silo of strict creationism and the fundamentalist view that evolution simply didn’t happen lies the truth: science and religion are complementary.

God cast us in his own image. We have free will and intelligence. Without science we could only ever operate at the whim of God.

Discussion of the idea that our universe is fundamentally intelligible is even more profound. Through science and the use of mathematical rules, we can and do understand how nature works.

The fact our universe is intelligible has profound implications for humankind and perhaps for the existence of God.

Does science work?

It’s very clear that science “works”. We can explain and predict how nature will behave over an extraordinary range of scales.

There are various limits to scientific understanding but, within these limits, science makes a complete and compelling picture.

We know that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. The “Big Bang” model of universal creation makes a number of very specific and numerical predictions which are observed and measured with high accuracy.

The Standard Model of Particle Physics employs something known as “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking” to explain the strength of the laws of nature.

Within the Standard Model the strength of these laws are not predicted. At present our current best theory is that they arose “by chance”.

But these strengths have to be exquisitely fine-tuned in order for life to exist. How so?

The strength of the gravitational attraction must be tuned to ensure that the expansion of the universe is not too fast and not too slow.

It must be strong enough to enable stars and planets to form but not too strong, otherwise stars would burn through their nuclear fuel too quickly.

The imbalance between matter and anti-matter in the early Universe must be fine tuned to 12 orders of magnitude to create enough mass to form stars and galaxies.

The strength of the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions must be finely-tuned to create stable protons and neutrons.

They must also be fine-tuned to enable complex nuclei to be synthesized in supernovae.

Finally the mass of the electron and the strength of the electromagnetic interaction must be tuned to provide the chemical reaction rates that enables life to evolve over the timescale of the Universe.

The fine tuning of gravitational attraction and electromagnetic interactions which allow the laws of nature to enable life to form are too clever to be simply a coincidence.

Is intelligent life special?

It has taken 4.5 billion years for humans to evolve on earth. This is more than 25% of the age of the universe itself.

We are the only intelligent life that has existed on the planet and we have only been here for 0.005% of the time the planet has been here.

This is a mere blink in the age of the galaxy. If some other intelligent life had emerged elsewhere in the galaxy before us, why haven’t we seen it here?

To me this is a strong argument that we are the first intelligent life in the galaxy.

Designed for life

One interpretation of the collection of unlikely coincidences that lead to our existence is that a designer made the universe this way in order for it to create us; in other words, this designer created a dynamic evolving whole whose output is our creation.

Many take exception to this idea and argue instead that our universe is but one of an uncountable multitude that has happened to create us.

Other ideas are that there are as-yet unobserved principles of nature that will explain why the strengths of the forces are as they are.

To me, neither argument is in principle against an intelligent design.

The designer is simply clever enough to have devised either an evolving multitude of universes or to have devised a way to make our present universe create us.

Intelligible Design

We do know a lot about the design of the universe, so clearly the design is in good measure intelligible.

But why is it that we can understand nature so well?

One answer is that evolution favours organisms that can exploit their environment. Most organisms have a set of “wired” instructions passed from earlier generations.

Over the evolutionary history of Earth, organisms that can learn how to manipulate their surroundings have prospered.

Humans are not unique in this trait but we’re definitely the best at learning. So in other words nature has built us to understand the rules of nature.

Mathematics and science

All of this rests on the predictability which results from nature obeying rules. As we’ve learned about these rules we’ve discovered that they can be expressed in purely mathematical form.

Mathematics has a validity that is independent of its ability to describe nature and the universe.

One could imagine mathematics with its complex relationships being true outside of our universe and having the ability to exist outside it.

The outcome of humankind’s investigations into nature is science. And the fundamental tenet of science is that there is an objective reality which can be understood by anybody who is willing to learn.

A universe without laws?

The only way I can imagine a universe without rules is for every action to be the result of an off-screen director who controls all.

Such a thing is almost beyond comprehension as everything would need to be the result of premeditation.

Events would appear to occur by pure random chance. Furthermore the level of detail required for godly oversight is absolutely beyond human comprehension.

Each of the hundreds of billions of cells in our bodies operates within a complex set of biochemical reactions, all of which have to work individually and as well as collectively for just one human body to function.

So for a start our offscreen director would have to ensure that all these processes happen correctly for every one of the trillions of living organisms on earth.

We are all the stuff of the universe, absolutely embedded within, and subject to, the rules which govern nature. Because we’re self-aware, one can argue that the universe is self-aware.

Without an intelligible design it would be impossible for humans to have free will as all actions would be as a consequence of the will of the director. Free will is a fundamental element of Christian doctrine.

The Christian statement “God made man in His own image” implies both free will and intelligence for humans. Intelligible design is thus a necessary condition for the existence of a Christian God.

Given we are intelligent, we can imagine sharing this aspect with a God who made us in “His own image”.

Free will is only possible in a universe with rules and hence predictability.

Intelligence has application beyond our physical universe – which is indicative, but not proof of, God to me.

On the other hand, the existence of a God providing free will to humans requires the existence of science.

Otherwise we could only ever operate at the whim of God.

Science and religion go hand in hand.

We all know the subjective reality of experience. I personally feel the power of the redemption which is at the core of Christianity.

Each of us has access to that through our own free will to exercise choice.

This article is dedicated to the memory of Reverend Jim Martin.

Are science and religion compatible? Leave your views below.

Science and religion
Intelligent design

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

Operations Manager

Senior Education Technologist

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

On the Intersection of Science and Religion

Over the centuries, the relationship between science and religion has ranged from conflict and hostility to harmony and collaboration, while various thinkers have argued that the two concepts are inherently at odds and entirely separate .

But much recent research and discussion on these issues has taken place in a Western context, primarily through a Christian lens. To better understand the ways in which science relates to religion around the world, Pew Research Center engaged a small group of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists to talk about their perspectives. These one-on-one, in-depth interviews took place in Malaysia and Singapore – two Southeast Asian nations that have made sizable investments in scientific research and development in recent years and that are home to religiously diverse populations.

The discussions reinforced the conclusion that there is no single, universally held view of the relationship between science and religion, but they also identified some common patterns and themes within each of the three religious groups. For example, many Muslims expressed the view that Islam and science are basically compatible, while, at the same time, acknowledging some areas of friction – such as the theory of evolution conflicting with religious beliefs about the origins and development of human life on Earth. Evolution also has been a point of discord between religion and science in the West .

Hindu interviewees generally took a different tack, describing science and religion as overlapping spheres. As was the case with Muslim interviewees, many Hindus maintained that their religion contains elements of science, and that Hinduism long ago identified concepts that were later illuminated by science – mentioning, for example, the antimicrobial properties of copper or the health benefits of turmeric. In contrast with Muslims, many Hindus said the theory of evolution is encompassed in their religious teachings.

Buddhist interviewees generally described religion and science as two separate and unrelated spheres. Several of the Buddhists talked about their religion as offering guidance on how to live a moral life, while describing science as observable phenomena. Often, they could not name any areas of scientific research that concerned them for religious reasons. Nor did Buddhist interviewees see the theory of evolution as a point of conflict with their religion. Some said they didn’t think their religion addressed the origins of life on Earth.

Some members of all three religious groups, however, did express religious concerns when asked to consider specific kinds of biotechnology research, such as gene editing to change a baby’s genetic characteristics and efforts to clone animals. For example, Muslim interviewees said cloning would tamper with the power of God, and God should be the only one to create living things. When Hindus and Buddhists discussed gene editing and cloning, some, though not all, voiced concern that these scientific developments might interfere with karma or reincarnation.

But religion was not always the foremost topic that came to mind when people thought about science. In response to questions about government investment in scientific research, interviewees generally spoke of the role of scientific achievements in national prestige and economic development; religious differences faded into the background.

These are some of the key findings from a qualitative analysis of 72 individual interviews with Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists conducted in Malaysia and Singapore between June 17 and Aug. 8, 2019.

The study included 24 people in each of three religious groups (Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists), with an equal number in each country. All interviewees said their religion was “very” or “somewhat” important to their lives, but they otherwise varied in terms of age, gender, profession and education level.

A majority of Malaysians are Muslim, and the country has experienced natural migration patterns over the years. As a result, Buddhist interviewees in Malaysia were typically of Chinese descent, Hindus were of Indian descent and Muslim interviewees were Malay. Singapore is known for its religious diversity; a 2014 Pew Research Center analysis found the city-state to have the highest level of religious diversity in the world.

Insights from these qualitative interviews are inherently limited in that they are based on small convenience samples of individuals and are not representative of religious groups either in their country or globally. Instead, in-depth interviews provide insight into how individuals describe their beliefs, in their own words, and the connections they see (or don’t see) with science. To help guard against putting too much weight on any single individual’s comments, all interviews were coded into themes, following a systematic procedure. Where possible throughout the rest of this report, these findings are shown in comparison with quantitative surveys conducted with representative samples of adults in global publics to help address questions about the extent to which certain viewpoints are widely held among members of each religious group. This also shows how Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists as well as Christians around the world compare with each other.

The goal of this project was to better understand how people think about science in connection with their religious beliefs. Past research on this topic has often focused on the views of Christians living in the U.S. or other economically advanced nations. This study sought to fill that gap by talking, one-on-one, with Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists living in two growing economies in Southeast Asia: Malaysia and Singapore. Pew Research Center conducted qualitative interviews with 72 people, including 24 in each of the three religious groups (12 in each country).

To be eligible for the study, interviewees had to identify their religious affiliation as Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, and describe religion as either “very” or “somewhat” important in their lives. They varied in other demographic characteristics, including age, gender, ethnicity, profession, employment status and educational attainment.

Interviews were conducted by Ipsos Qualitative with a local, professional interviewer, using a guide developed by Pew Research Center. Interviews lasted about one hour and were conducted in English in Singapore, and in English or Malay in Malaysia. The Singaporean interviews were conducted June 17 to July 26, 2019, and the Malaysian interviews were done July 31 to Aug. 8, 2019.

Center researchers listened to audio recordings of the interviews and systematically coded transcripts for thematic responses, using qualitative data analysis software. Themes were revised and integrated throughout the coding process, until researchers agreed upon a consistent set of categories. The qualitative interviews are based on small, convenience samples of individuals and are not representative of religious groups in either country. Whenever possible, these findings are shown in comparison with quantitative data from global surveys using representative samples of adults who identify as Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christian. You can find the interview guide here .

Interviewees paint three distinct portraits of the science-religion relationship

One of the most striking takeaways from interviews conducted with Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists stems from the different ways that people in each group described their perspectives on the relationship between science and religion. The Muslims interviewed tended to speak of an overlap between their religion and science, and some raised areas of tension between the two. Hindu interviewees, by and large, described science and religion as overlapping but compatible spheres. By contrast, Buddhist interviewees described science and religion as parallel concepts, with no particular touchpoints between the two.

A similar pattern emerged when interviewees were asked about possible topics that should be off limits to scientific research for religious reasons. Many Muslim interviewees readily named research areas that concerned them, such as studies using non-halal substances or some applications of assisted reproductive technology (for example, in vitro fertilization using genetic material from someone other than a married couple). By contrast, the Hindus and Buddhists in the study did not regularly name any research topics that they felt should be off limits to scientists.

Muslim interviewees say science and religion are related, but they vary in how they see the nature of that relationship

On the relationship between science and islam.

“I don’t see any conflicts [between science and religion]. From what I know in the Quran, they say that there is science in Islam. They talk about the sun, the moon, the stars. They talk about how the water can go up to the sky and become the clouds. When it’s heavy, it goes down to the Earth where it’s taken by the plants when it evaporates up again. It’s part of science.” – Muslim man, age 35, Singapore

“I know that sometimes science and religion don’t tally. … As a person of religion, we tend to believe what our book says. Yeah, I believe what the Quran says, [rather] than scientific proof.” – Muslim woman, age 40, Singapore

Muslims frequently described science and their religion as related, rather than separate, concepts. They often said that their holy text, the Quran, contains many elements of science. The Muslims interviewed also said that Islam and science are often trying to describe similar things. “The research in science are related to the Quran. There are similarities between religion and what is explained by science,” said one Muslim woman (age 25, Malaysia).

The Muslims interviewed offered a wide variety of opinions about the nature of the relationship between science and religion, and whether the two are harmonious or conflicting. Some described science and Islam as compatible overall. For example, one Muslim man said that both science and his religion explain the same things, just from different perspectives: “I think there is not any conflict between them. … In my opinion, I still believe that it happens because of God, just that the science will help to explain the details about why it is happening” (age 24, Malaysia). Others qualified their statement by saying that science is compatible with religion, but the actions of individual scientists can be problematic. “Actually, science and religion don’t conflict with each other – it’s humans’ opinions that conflict,” said one interviewee (Muslim man, age 36, Malaysia).

Still others described the relationship as conflictual. “I feel like, sometimes, or most of the time, they are against each other. … Science is about experimenting, researching, finding new things, or exploring different possibilities. But then, religion is very fixed, to me,” said one Muslim woman (age 20, Singapore). Another interviewee said scientists typically do not consider the views of religious people when conducting their research. “Scientists, whatever they do, they don’t ask for opinions from people well-versed in religious matters,” said another Muslim woman (age 39, Malaysia).

Is there a conflict between religion and science?

When asked, many of the Muslims interviewed identified specific areas of scientific research that bothered them on religious grounds. Some of the areas mentioned by multiple interviewees included research that uses non-halal substances (such as marijuana, alcohol or pigs), some pregnancy technologies that they considered unnatural (for example, “test tube babies” or procedures that use genetic material not taken from a husband and wife) or cloning.

Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2011 and 2012 that examined the views of Muslims found that, in most regions, half or more said there was no conflict between religion and science, including 54% in Malaysia (Muslims in Singapore were not surveyed). Three-in-ten Malaysian Muslims said there is a conflict between science and religion; the share of Muslims around the world who took this position ranged from a high of 57% in Albania to a low of 14% in the Palestinian territories.

Hindu interviewees generally see science and religion as compatibly overlapping spheres

The predominant view among Hindus interviewed in Malaysia and Singapore is that science and Hinduism are related and compatible. Many of the Hindu interviewees offered – without prompting– the assertion that their religion contains many ancient insights that have been upheld by modern science. For instance, multiple interviewees described the use of turmeric in cleansing solutions, or the use of copper in drinking mugs. They said Hindus have known for thousands of years that these materials provide health benefits, but that scientists have only confirmed relatively recently that it’s because turmeric and copper have antimicrobial properties. “When you question certain rituals or rites in Hinduism, there’s also a relatively scientific explanation to it,” said a Hindu woman (age 29, Singapore).

On the relationship between science and Hinduism

“I believe that whatever science says, the purpose has already been told in my religion. For example, it is said that drinking water from a copper container is very good. This has been proven by the ancestors many years ago. But now only these scientific people come out and say that it is good to use it.” – Hindu woman, age 29, Malaysia

“No, feel free to go ahead and [research] everything. Why would you need to restrict yourself from information or knowledge? Because Hinduism is based on knowledge. It’s called ‘Nyaya.’ That’s ‘knowledge,’ literally translated.” – Hindu man, age 38, Singapore

While many of the Hindu interviewees said science and religion overlap, others described the two as separate realms. “Religion doesn’t really govern science, and it shouldn’t. Science should just be science. … Today, the researchers, even if they are religious, the research is your duty. The duty and religion are different,” said one Hindu man (age 42, Singapore).

Asked to think about areas of scientific research that might raise concerns or that should not be pursued for religious reasons, Hindu interviewees generally came up blank, saying they couldn’t think of any such areas. A few mentioned areas of research that concerned them, but no topic area came up consistently.

Few Hindus say science has conflicted with the teachings of their religion

Buddhist interviewees see science and religion as operating in parallel domains

Buddhist interviewees described science and religion in distinctly different ways than either Muslims or Hindus. For the most part, Buddhists said that science and religion are two unrelated domains. Some have long held that Buddhism and its practice are aligned with the empirically driven observations in the scientific method ; connections between Buddhism and science have been bolstered by neuroscience research into the effects of Buddhist meditation at the core of the mindfulness movement.

On the relationship between science and Buddhism

“Science is something more modern, but Buddhism is something like a mindset. And science is more practical, but Buddhism is theoretical. It is not conflicting.” – Buddhist man, age 40, Malaysia

“I would say that the two [science and religion] are running parallel. It’s difficult to merge the two.” – Buddhist man, age 64, Singapore

One Buddhist woman (age 39, Malaysia) said science is something that relates to “facts and figures,” while religion helps her live a good and moral life. Another Singaporean Buddhist woman (age 26) explained that, “Science to me is statistics, numbers, texts – something you can see, you can touch, you can hear. Religion is more of something you cannot see, you cannot touch, you cannot hear. I feel like they are different faculties.”

To many of the Buddhist interviewees, science and religion cannot be in conflict, because they are different or parallel realms. Therefore, the Malaysian and Singaporean Buddhists largely described the relationship between science and religion as one of compatibility.

Indeed, even when prompted to think about potential areas of scientific research that raised concerns for religious reasons, relatively few of the Buddhists mentioned any. Among those who did cite a concern, a common response involved animal testing. Buddhist interviewees talked about the importance of not killing living things in the practice of their religion, so some felt that research that causes harm or death to animals is worrisome.

Most Buddhists see no disagreement between science and the teachings of their religion

The tenor of these comments is consistent with survey findings from the 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor. Majorities of Buddhists in all 10 countries with large enough samples for analysis said that science has “never disagreed” with the teachings of their religion. 3 This includes 59% of Buddhists in Singapore. (In Malaysia, 55% of Buddhists said the same. However, these results should be interpreted with extra caution because there were just 129 Malaysian Buddhists in the survey sample.) Far smaller shares of Buddhists in these countries see a conflict between science and their religion’s teachings.

Surveys among Christians find wide variation in perceptions of conflict between religion and science though more see at least some conflict than do not

For comparison, representative surveys of Christians around the world also find widely ranging views about whether religion and science have ever disagreed or are generally in conflict. The 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor survey finds wide variation in Christians’ views on this issue. 4 The U.S. stands out, along with several southern European nations, for its relatively high share of Christians reporting that science has disagreed with the teachings of their religion (61%). By contrast, 22% in Singapore, 18% in Sweden and 12% in the Czech Republic say the same.

Pew Research Center surveys asked a similar question in Central and Eastern Europe as well as in Latin America . Christians in these regions tilt toward saying that “there is generally a conflict between science and religion.” A median of 49% of Christians in Central and Eastern Europe say there is generally a conflict, and a median of 39% say there is not. The median view on this question in Latin American was similar (50% to 40%).

In a U.S.-based Pew Research Center survey , a majority of Christians (55%) said that science and religion are “often in conflict” when thinking in general terms about religion. When thinking about their own religious beliefs, however, fewer Christians (35%) said their personal religious beliefs sometimes conflict with science; a majority of U.S. Christians (63%) said the two do not conflict.

Such findings broadly align with Elaine Howard Ecklund and Christopher P. Scheitle’s analysis in “Religion vs. Science: What Religious People Really Think,” which finds that many U.S. Christians see little conflict between science and their faith.

This survey also provides a window into the kinds of things that Christians see as a conflict between science and religion. In an open-ended question included on the Center’s survey, respondents who said science conflicted with their personal religious beliefs were asked to identify up to three areas of conflict. Christians most commonly mentioned the creation of the universe, including evolution and the “Big Bang” (cited by 38% of U.S. Christians who saw a conflict between science and their religious beliefs). Respondents also mentioned broad tensions including the idea that man (rather than God) is “in charge,” beliefs in miracles, or a belief in the events of the Bible (26%). Others cited conflict over the beginning of life, abortion, and scientific technologies involving human embryos (12%) or other medical practices (7%).

Evolution is a more frequent point of conflict for those in Abrahamic faiths such as Islam and Christianity

Evolution raised areas of disagreement for many Muslim interviewees, who often said the theory of evolution is incompatible with the Islamic tenet that humans were created by Allah. Evolution is also a common, though by no means universal, friction point for Christians. By contrast, neither Buddhist interviewees, followers of a religion with no creator figure, nor Hindu interviewees, followers of a polytheistic faith, described discord with evolution either in their personal beliefs or in their views of how evolution comports with their religion.

Some Muslims interviewees see origination of humans from the prophet Nabi Adam as at odds with evolution

When asked about the theory of evolution, Muslim interviewees generally talked about conflict between the theory of evolution and their religious beliefs about the origins of human life – specifically, the belief that God created humans in their present form, and that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve. “This is one of the conflicts between religion and Western theory. Based on Western theory, they said we came from monkeys. For me, if we evolved from monkeys, where could we get the stories of [the prophet] Nabi? Was Nabi Muhammad like a monkey in the past? For me, he was human. Allah had created perfect humans, not from monkey to human,” said one Muslim man (age 21, Malaysia).

Islamic views on evolution

“Nonsense. I believe that Nabi Adam is the first human in the world. Before Nabi Adam was created, other living things such as dinosaurs and so on were also created. The theory of human evolution from apes to human is very different from the teaching in Islam.” – Muslim man, age 24, Malaysia

“That theory to me is absurd. People might be saying that during time of Mesopotamia, the people there hunch and bow, with appearance looking like an ape. Maybe that is why one says we come from apes. But, for me, I believe that we come from Adam and Adam came from heaven.” – Muslim woman, age 36, Malaysia

“Our ancestors are not monkeys. Maybe there’s similarity in the DNA, but in Islam the first human is Adam. He’s not a monkey.” – Muslim man, age 35, Singapore

Others emphasized that evolution is only a theory and has not been proven true. “It’s just a theory, because there is no specific evidence or justification. … Just because the DNA [of humans and primates] has a difference of a few percent, that doesn’t mean we are similar,” said a 29-year-old Singaporean Muslim man. Still others said that Charles Darwin developed this theory in order to get famous and did not put adequate thought or research into his theory.

However, a handful of Muslims said they personally believed that humans were descended from primates via the evolutionary process, even though they believed that this deviated from Islamic teaching. “Monkeys can crawl. After that, stand, stand, stand, then become human, right? Yes, I think so. I think, yeah, that one I believe. … [But] religion says all humans in the world come from God. A bit of conflict,” said a 44-year-old Muslim woman from Singapore. Another Muslim woman (age 39, Singapore) said she was open to the concept of evolution, even though her religion tells a different story. “According to religion, we don’t originate from monkeys. But being that we may be related, the possibility is there,” she said.

A Pew Research Center survey of Muslims worldwide conducted in 2011 and 2012 found a 22-public median of 53% said they believed humans and other living things evolved over time. However, levels of acceptance of evolution varied by region and country, with Muslims in South and Southeast Asian countries reporting lower levels of belief in evolution by this measure than Muslims in other regions. In Malaysia, for instance, 37% of Muslim adults said they believed humans and other living things evolved over time.

In the U.S. context, a 2011 Pew Research Center survey found that views of evolution among American Muslims were roughly split: 45% said they believed humans and other living things have evolved over time, while 44% said they have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

Hindu and Buddhist interviewees emphasize the absence of conflict with the theory of evolution

Evolution posed no conflict to the Hindus interviewed. In keeping with thematic comments that Hinduism contains elements of science, many interviewees said the concept of evolution was encompassed in their religious teachings. “In Hinduism we have something like this as well, that tells us we originated from different species, which is why we also believe in reincarnation, and how certain deities take different forms. This is why certain animals are seen as sacred animals, because it’s one of the forms that this particular deity had taken,” said a 29-year-old Hindu woman in Singapore. When asked about the origins of human life, many Hindu interviewees just quickly replied that humans came from primates.

The Buddhists interviewed also tended to say there was no conflict between their religion and evolution, and that they personally believed in the theory. Some added that they didn’t think their religion addressed humans’ origins at all. “I don’t think Buddhism has any theory on the first human being or anything. For Buddhism, we don’t really have a strong sense of how the first human came along,” said a Buddhist man in Singapore (age 22).

Hindu views on evolution

“I don’t think evolution has anything to do with religion, nothing to do with Hinduism. That was just adaptation. For example, apes to men. It was just adaptation that people eventually changed over time.” – Hindu man, age 26, Singapore

“The concept (of evolution) is the same. The Hindus say it in a different way, and modern science says it in a scientific way.” – Hindu woman, age 27, Malaysia

Buddhist views on evolution

“[Buddhism says] we are all made out of the atoms and molecules, not that we are created by God. Like Christians believe that we are created by God, but no, I as a practicing Buddhist do not believe in that.” – Buddhist woman, age 60, Malaysia

There is limited global survey data on this issue. However, Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study found that 86% of Buddhists and 80% of Hindus in the U.S. said that humans and other living things have evolved over time, with majorities also saying this was due to natural processes.

Surveys of Christians globally find that majorities in most publics surveyed accept the idea that humans and other living things have evolved over time

Pew Research Center surveys conducted in Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America find that a majority of Christians in most countries in these regions say humans and other living things have evolved over time. An 18-country median of 61% of Christians say this in Central and Eastern Europe, while a median of 30% say instead that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. The median views on this issue are similar in Latin America (59% and 35%, respectively).

Views of American Christians are about the same as those global medians: 58% in a 2018 Pew Research Center survey said that humans and other living things have evolved over time, while 42% said they have always existed in their current form.

People’s responses to questions about evolution can vary depending on how the question is asked , however. Specifically, a 2018 Pew Research Center survey focusing on beliefs about the origins of humans found more white evangelical Protestants, Black Protestants and Catholics expressed a belief in evolution when given the option to say that humans evolved with guidance from God or a higher power .

Such differences in how Christians see the issue of evolution are broadly consistent with an analysis by Fern Elsdon-Baker and her research completed with colleagues in the UK and Canada, which suggest that people’s views on evolution can be nuanced, depending on the exact questions asked.

Interviewees across Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist groups cite tension with research that “goes against nature” or involves harm to animals

Two areas of potential conflict with science cut across religious groups. Interviewees from all three groups raised concerns about scientific research that interferes with nature in some way or that causes harm to animals.

Views on animal welfare and scientific research

“When we do scientific research, we just have to ensure we did not endanger other living things, including animals and humans. We don’t bring harm to any of the people, that is the basic moral value.” – Hindu man, age 22, Malaysia

“In Islam, for example, you shouldn’t subject any human or animals to cruelty. So, I believe if you want to do any testing on rats, you need to ask yourself: “Will the rats suffer?’” – Muslim man, age 59, Singapore

In discussing scientific research using gene editing, cloning and reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist interviewees raised the idea that such practices may go against the natural order or interfere with nature. As one Buddhist man simply put it: “If you have anything that interferes with the law of nature, you will have conflict. If you leave nature alone, you will have no conflict” (age 64, Singapore). Similarly, a Muslim woman said “anything that disrupts or changes the natural state” goes against religious beliefs (age 20, Singapore).

When probed about potential areas of scientific research that should be “off limits” from a religious perspective, individuals from all three religious groups talked about the need to consider animal welfare (and sometimes human welfare) in scientific research. This idea occasionally came up when interviewees were asked for their thoughts about cloning and gene editing; others mentioned animal welfare concerns at other points of the interview, along with the need for ethical treatment of living things in general. Buddhists and Hindus in particular emphasized the need to “do no harm” when probed about characteristics that make someone a good follower of their religions.

A few interviewees thought one other topic should be off limits to scientific exploration: research aimed at core beliefs such as the existence of God, the heavens or holy scripture.

Touchpoints between religion and biotechnology research areas

Interviewees were asked to talk about their awareness of and views about each of three specific research areas in biotechnology – new technologies to help women get pregnant, gene editing for babies, and animal cloning. People had generally positive views of pregnancy technology such as in vitro fertilization, although Muslim interviewees pointed out potential objections depending on how these techniques are used. Views of gene editing and cloning were more wide-ranging, with no particular patterns associated with the religious affiliation of the interviewees.

Individuals from all three religions generally approved of pregnancy technology and in vitro fertilization

The first scientific development raised for discussion involved technologies to help women get pregnant. Interviewees often volunteered that they were familiar with in vitro fertilization, commonly referred to as IVF, which is an assisted reproductive technology. Individuals who expressed positive views about IVF mentioned things pertaining to the help it brings to people trying to conceive in modern times. Some even surmised that IVF itself or the knowledge to develop it was a gift from God.

Buddhists and Hindus on IVF

“I don’t think my religion would have any comments on [IVF and surrogacy]. I think Christians would have more comments on it. Like the very staunch Christians, they think that they can’t do this and that. They are very specific.” – Buddhist woman, age 26, Singapore

“It’s a good thing. Some couples don’t have the chance to get babies. With these technologies, people are finding happiness.” – Hindu man, age 24, Malaysia

Muslims accept pregnancy technologies, with conditions

“You cannot use another person to carry your baby, but people want their own flesh-and-blood baby. So, [IVF] is a really good opportunity. Because otherwise people usually just adopt, and it’s not their flesh and blood. They don’t want that.” – Muslim woman, age 24, Singapore

“In my opinion, IVF does not have any conflict with the religion because it helps to continue the descendants and it involves the correct and qualified person. … The man should be the person who is qualified and marry the woman, and the wife should be the person who is qualified to receive the fetus from the man.” – Muslim man, age 24, Malaysia

“For that particular woman to perform this scientific procedure, the company that executes this procedure must make sure that the woman has a certificate of marriage, meaning legitimately married. I think it is that simple. If she is not married, but she wants (to perform this procedure), I don’t think the company should do it. It is immoral.” – Muslim man, age 36, Malaysia

Even among supporters of these technologies, one common sentiment was that people were either unsure of where their religion stood on this issue or thought that other people – those who were older, more conservative or more religious – might be against it. “I think the old-timers are having a bit of a difficult time with being OK with [IVF]. The young generation, my generation, and the ones younger are OK with this,” said one Hindu man (age 26, Singapore).

Some Hindus and Buddhists noted that they were comfortable with pregnancy technologies themselves, but said that there is pushback from other religions, particularly Islam and Christianity. For instance, when asked about IVF, one Buddhist man said, “Oh, wow, that’s a very good question. Controversy, right? I heard about such before, I think, especially coming from Christianity. But, my personal take, I feel it is fine. It’s still trying to get the balance of being a believer of a religion vs. overly superstitious or believing too much in that religion that you forgo the reality of life going on” (Singapore, age 37). Another noted that Buddhism and Hinduism don’t have the same staunch views on IVF as Muslims. “In Buddhism, we don’t have this type of restriction. It’s totally different from other [religions], if I’m not wrong. If you talk about Muslims, there is. If you talk about Hindus, I think also they don’t,” he said (age 43, Singapore).

Muslim interviewees tended to accept technologies to facilitate pregnancy. However, some Muslims emphasized that they would only be OK with these technologies if certain criteria were met – specifically, if the technologies were used by married couples, and with the couples’ own genetic material. “IVF is fine with me because it uses the couple’s egg and sperm and the mother’s body. You need help inseminating the egg, that’s all,” said one Muslim man (age 59, Singapore). Some Muslims also expressed concern about surrogacy in particular; they said Islam prohibits bringing outside parties into a marriage, and that surrogacy is effectively having a third person enter the marriage. A few other Muslims in the study mentioned the need to consult edicts or talk with leaders in the religious community before they would be able to be fully supportive, a common practice for many controversial issues in Islam.

Opinions varied widely on gene editing and animal cloning

Interviewees, regardless of their religion, said the idea of curing a baby of disease before birth or preventing a disease that a child could develop later in life would be a helpful, acceptable use of gene editing. But they often viewed gene editing for cosmetic reasons much more negatively.

Views on gene editing vary depending on how it is used

“I think science and technology aims to help the people. If you modify the baby, it is not good for them. The baby might also not want what the parents edited. In terms of the treatment of diseases, I think is good, as you can cure the baby.” – Buddhist man, age 23, Malaysia

“I like one half of it, the other half I don’t like. The half that I like was eliminating the diseases. The part where you can make the eye color and all that? I wouldn’t say I’m against it, but I’m definitely not up for it.” – Hindu woman, age 40, Singapore

Muslims’ concerns with “playing God”

“Cloning, to put it simply, you’re delving into an area where you’re playing God. It is concerning because if it’s taken as something that’s normal, it means that humans can do things that previously no one could do. That means we could create ourselves. That goes against the beliefs that I have, because as a Muslim, while we have the ability to do certain things, it does not mean that we should do those things.” – Muslim man, age 29, Singapore

Several interviewees brought up the idea of not agreeing with gene editing out of fear that people might want to Westernize their children. For example, some repeated the concern that gene editing would be used to create babies with blond hair and blue eyes. “In terms of the diseases, I think it is acceptable. If they want to change the hair or eyes color? We are not European people,” said one Muslim woman (age 47, Malaysia).

Views of cloning were similarly conditional. Individuals from all three religions remarked on their disapproval of cloning for humans. But interviewees generally found animal cloning to be a much more acceptable practice. Many people interviewed envisioned useful outcomes for society from animal cloning, such as providing meat to feed more people, or to help preserve nearly extinct animals. For example, a Hindu woman said, cloning “is a good idea because some of the animals, like tigers, are on the brink of extinction, so I think it is good to clone before they are extinct” (age 27, Malaysia).

Many of the issues raised about gene editing and cloning mirrored each other. Some of the concerns were based on religious traditions and values. For example, primarily Muslim interviewees mentioned that cloning could interfere with the power of God, who should be the only one who can create.

To the extent Hindus and Buddhists in the study expressed religious concerns pertaining to gene editing and cloning, they generally brought up the idea that these scientific methods might interfere with karma or reincarnation. (Some interviewees also mentioned the potential of IVF to interfere with karma, but they were generally less concerned about this.) One Buddhist woman, talking about gene editing, said: “Sometimes the person is born with sufferings, and it is because maybe previously he had been doing some evil things” (age 45, Singapore). When asked about cloning, a Hindu man expressed similar views. “For Hinduism, we believe that how we look like, how we are, our hands and our legs, it’s because of our past life. So, for example, they will always say that if I am handsome and I’m smart, it’s because in my past life I actually was a nicer person to people. Because of karma, because of reincarnation, I was born back into the better person” (Hindu man, age 25, Singapore).

Religious differences fade as interviewees think about the value of government investments in scientific research

Not all aspects of science are seen through a religious lens. Regardless of their religion, the people we spoke with overwhelmingly described investment in scientific research, including medicine, engineering and technology, as worthwhile. Malaysians and Singaporeans alike broadly shared this feeling.

Support for investment in scientific research

“I think it is very, very worth investing because the research is not just gathering information and data, but indirectly it creates job opportunities for the future. These would be very useful for the future and it can directly help a country to develop.” – Muslim man, age 33, Malaysia

“For me, engineering and technology investment is worthwhile because we want to be comparable to other advanced countries.” – Muslim man, age 21, Malaysia

“It’s never enough [investment], because the more we do, the better results we’ll get. … Maybe one day there would be a cure for cancer in a very easy way. Maybe they will be able to detect mental illnesses through scans. If that is possible through research, it will be a breakthrough for a lot of people.” – Hindu man, age 38, Singapore

On scientific research and national prestige

“If we do something that no other countries have been doing, we can make good money out of it and we can be a pioneer in that field. A lot of Malaysians have been contributing their ideas to other countries, but not to their own country. … So why not we do it for our own country, and get a name for Malaysia, and get famous.” – Hindu woman, age 29, Malaysia

In both countries, interviewees described government investment in science as a way to encourage economic development while also improving the lives of everyday people. People often were particularly enthusiastic about government investment in medicine and spoke of its potential to improve their country’s medical infrastructure and care for an aging population.

But others expressed some hesitation about government investment because they felt their government wasn’t doing a good job of ensuring that the research produced meaningful results, or because they thought the research didn’t benefit the public directly. “If there’s results, then it will be worthwhile. … I don’t think [there are results] because I’ve never heard anybody say ‘Wow, Singapore has discovered a new drug,’” said one Buddhist woman (Singapore, 26). Some interviewees also said they supported government investment in medical research, but that they thought the private sector could take care of investment in engineering or technology.

Malaysians also mentioned that a sense of national pride or prestige could come from government investment in science and the subsequent achievements. For example, one Buddhist woman (age 29) said research on medicine and technology could help Malaysia “become famous compared with other countries.” A Hindu man, 24, said he hoped the government would increase its spending on engineering and technology, because it would provide more jobs and show that Malaysia is a high-achieving country. He said more investment would “[help] a lot of people to achieve their dreams. You are putting Malaysia in the top table.” Another Malaysian man expressed a similar sentiment, saying: “For me, engineering and technology investment is worthwhile because we want to be comparable to other advanced countries” (Muslim, age 21).

We appreciate the thoughtful comments and guidance from Sharon Suh, Ajay Verghese and Pew Research Center religion experts including Besheer Mohamed, Neha Sahgal and Director of Religion Research Alan Cooperman on an earlier draft of this essay.

We greatly benefited from Mike Lipka’s editorial guidance, graphic design from Bill Webster, and copy editing from Aleksandra Sandstrom.

Based on Pew Research Center analysis of the 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor for all countries with at least 150 Muslim respondents in the survey sample. ↩
Based on Pew Research Center analysis of the 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor for all countries with at least 150 Hindu respondents in the survey sample. ↩
Based on Pew Research Center analysis of the 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor for all countries with at least 150 Buddhist respondents in the survey sample. ↩
Based on Pew Research Center analysis of the 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor for all countries with at least 150 Christian respondents in the survey sample. ↩
A similar perspective emerged from interviews with religious leaders in a 2016 Pew Research Center study about the possibility of using biotechnological interventions to augment human capabilities. To take one example, Lutheran theologian Ted Peters expected many mainline Protestant churches to see such developments positively because “I think they will see much of this for what it is: an effort to take advantage of these new technologies to help improve human life,” he said. ↩

Sign up for our Religion newsletter

Sent weekly on Wednesday

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

science, religion can walk hand in hand

We have been told that we can be people of faith or people of science, but we can't be both. That was historically not the case, and need not be the case today.

Related Papers

The Statesman

Govind Bhattacharjee

Religion has become corrupted and lost all its divinity. It is now for science to redeem it.

International Journal of Sciences

Graham Nicholson

“Many thanks for the video tape of your interview, which was provocative and (for most viewers I’m sure, uncomfortably) close to the mark. It’s hard to get frank talk on the relation of science and religion started, but it’s worth a few bumps and knocks to get it started.” Edward O Wilson—Professor Harvard University and Evolutionary Biologist

The Humanist

Josh Cuevas

Science progress

Taner Serdar

There is a widespread assumption that science and religion are incompatible with each other; it may be acceptable for a scientist to practise religion, but--it is believed--this should be seen as despite, not because of his or her scientific profession and knowledge. Such an assumption is wrong. Examination of conflicts between science and religion (such as those about evolution) show that they always arise through misinterpretation or tenacious presuppositions. Unfortunately protagonists (both anti-religion and anti-science) receive more publicity than conciliators. This paper reviews some of the background and development of arguments over creation and evolution and shows that there is no need to choose between a rigorous scientific approach and an avowedly religious acknowledgement of God as creator and sustainer.

Fraser Watts

Ludus Vitalis Revista De Filosofia De Las Ciencias De La Vida Journal of Philosophy of Life Sciences Revue De Philosophie Des Sciences De La Vie

Louw Feenstra

Pablo Zamorano

This paper was presented at the EPPA and at an NDSU colloquia in 2012

David Kyle Johnson

It is commonly maintained among academic theists that religion and science are not in conflict. I will argue, by analogy, that they undeniably are in conflict. I will begin by quickly defining religion and science. Then I will present multiple examples that are unquestionable instances of unscientific reasoning and beliefs and show how they precisely parallel common mainstream orthodox religious reasoning and doctrines. I will close by considering objections to my argument.

Journal of Religion

Thomas Olshewsky

RELATED PAPERS

Violetta Damia

Connective tissue research

Philip van der Eijk, Detlev Ganten und Roman Marek (eds.): Was ist Gesundheit? Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven aus Medizin, Geschichte und Kultur. Berlin: De Gruyter

Peter-Paul Baenziger

The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Luis Sabater

Acta VETERINARIA Indonesiana

Kholik Kholik

dhany bayu kristianto

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Biomedical Reports

Yousef Alomi

Dr. Mudassar Raza

Enes Malik Özdemir

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

Sairia Dass

Revista de Patologia do Tocantins

Allan Eduardo Pereira Rodrigues

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation

Anila Abraham

Annales de Dermatologie et de Vénéréologie

Wafa Koubaa

luis angel carbajal

Radioprotection

Philippe Voisin

Psicologia da saúde: teoria, intervenção e pesquisa

Marcela Costa Meira

Paula Kropf

Optics Communications

Mona Rostami

Jenny Seputro

Microorganisms

Michael Madigan

Maulana Malik

Construction and Building Materials

Özgür Bayer

Latin American Research Review

Mary Fran Malone

Revista do Instituto Florestal

Ademilson Coneglian

Ali A Mohamed

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Religion and Science

The relationship between religion and science is the subject of continued debate in philosophy and theology. To what extent are religion and science compatible? Are religious beliefs sometimes conducive to science, or do they inevitably pose obstacles to scientific inquiry? The interdisciplinary field of “science and religion”, also called “theology and science”, aims to answer these and other questions. It studies historical and contemporary interactions between these fields, and provides philosophical analyses of how they interrelate.

This entry provides an overview of the topics and discussions in science and religion. Section 1 outlines the scope of both fields, and how they are related. Section 2 looks at the relationship between science and religion in five religious traditions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. Section 3 discusses contemporary topics of scientific inquiry in which science and religion intersect, focusing on divine action, creation, and human origins.

1.1 A brief history

1.2 what is science, and what is religion, 1.3 taxonomies of the interaction between science and religion, 1.4 the scientific study of religion, 2.1 christianity, 2.3 hinduism, 2.4 buddhism, 2.5 judaism, 3.1 divine action and creation, 3.2 human origins, works cited, other important works, other internet resources, related entries, 1. science, religion, and how they interrelate.

Since the 1960s, scholars in theology, philosophy, history, and the sciences have studied the relationship between science and religion. Science and religion is a recognized field of study with dedicated journals (e.g., Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science ), academic chairs (e.g., the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University), scholarly societies (e.g., the Science and Religion Forum), and recurring conferences (e.g., the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology’s biennial meetings). Most of its authors are theologians (e.g., John Haught, Sarah Coakley), philosophers with an interest in science (e.g., Nancey Murphy), or (former) scientists with long-standing interests in religion, some of whom are also ordained clergy (e.g., the physicist John Polkinghorne, the molecular biophysicist Alister McGrath, and the atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe). Recently, authors in science and religion also have degrees in that interdisciplinary field (e.g., Sarah Lane Ritchie).

The systematic study of science and religion started in the 1960s, with authors such as Ian Barbour (1966) and Thomas F. Torrance (1969) who challenged the prevailing view that science and religion were either at war or indifferent to each other. Barbour’s Issues in Science and Religion (1966) set out several enduring themes of the field, including a comparison of methodology and theory in both fields. Zygon, the first specialist journal on science and religion, was also founded in 1966. While the early study of science and religion focused on methodological issues, authors from the late 1980s to the 2000s developed contextual approaches, including detailed historical examinations of the relationship between science and religion (e.g., Brooke 1991). Peter Harrison (1998) challenged the warfare model by arguing that Protestant theological conceptions of nature and humanity helped to give rise to science in the seventeenth century. Peter Bowler (2001, 2009) drew attention to a broad movement of liberal Christians and evolutionists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who aimed to reconcile evolutionary theory with religious belief. In the 1990s, the Vatican Observatory (Castel Gandolfo, Italy) and the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (Berkeley, California) co-sponsored a series of conferences on divine action and how it can be understood in the light of various contemporary sciences. This resulted in six edited volumes (see Russell, Murphy, & Stoeger 2008 for a book-length summary of the findings of this project).

The field has presently diversified so much that contemporary discussions on religion and science tend to focus on specific disciplines and questions. Rather than ask if religion and science (broadly speaking) are compatible, productive questions focus on specific topics. For example, Buddhist modernists (see section 2.4 ) have argued that Buddhist theories about the self (the no-self) and Buddhist practices, such as mindfulness meditation, are compatible and are corroborated by neuroscience.

In the contemporary public sphere, a prominent interaction between science and religion concerns evolutionary theory and creationism/Intelligent Design. The legal battles (e.g., the Kitzmiller versus Dover trial in 2005) and lobbying surrounding the teaching of evolution and creationism in American schools suggest there’s a conflict between religion and science. However, even if one were to focus on the reception of evolutionary theory, the relationship between religion and science is complex. For instance, in the United Kingdom, scientists, clergy, and popular writers (the so-called Modernists), sought to reconcile science and religion during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, whereas the US saw the rise of a fundamentalist opposition to evolutionary thinking, exemplified by the Scopes trial in 1925 (Bowler 2001, 2009).

Another prominent offshoot of the discussion on science and religion is the New Atheist movement, with authors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. They argue that public life, including government, education, and policy should be guided by rational argument and scientific evidence, and that any form of supernaturalism (especially religion, but also, e.g., astrology) has no place in public life. They treat religious claims, such as the existence of God, as testable scientific hypotheses (see, e.g., Dawkins 2006).

In recent decades, the leaders of some Christian churches have issued conciliatory public statements on evolutionary theory. Pope John Paul II (1996) affirmed evolutionary theory in his message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, but rejected it for the human soul, which he saw as the result of a separate, special creation. The Church of England publicly endorsed evolutionary theory (e.g., C. M. Brown 2008), including an apology to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theory.

This entry will focus on the relationship between religious and scientific ideas as rather abstract philosophical positions, rather than as practices. However, this relationship has a large practical impact on the lives of religious people and scientists (including those who are both scientists and religious believers). A rich sociological literature indicates the complexity of these interactions, among others, how religious scientists conceive of this relationship (for recent reviews, see Ecklund 2010, 2021; Ecklund & Scheitle 2007; Gross & Simmons 2009).

For the past fifty years, the discussion on science and religion has de facto been on Western science and Christianity: to what extent can the findings of Western sciences be reconciled with Christian beliefs? The field of science and religion has only recently turned to an examination of non-Christian traditions, providing a richer picture of interaction.

In order to understand the scope of science and religion and their interactions, we must at least get a rough sense of what science and religion are. After all, “science” and “religion” are not eternally unchanging terms with unambiguous meanings. Indeed, they are terms that were coined recently, with meanings that vary across contexts. Before the nineteenth century, the term “religion” was rarely used. For a medieval author such as Aquinas, the term religio meant piety or worship, and was not applied to religious systems outside of what he considered orthodoxy (Harrison 2015). The term “religion” obtained its considerably broader current meaning through the works of early anthropologists, such as E.B. Tylor (1871), who systematically used the term for religions across the world. As a result, “religion” became a comparative concept, referring to traits that could be compared and scientifically studied, such as rituals, dietary restrictions, and belief systems (Jonathan Smith 1998).

The term “science” as it is currently used also became common in the nineteenth century. Prior to this, what we call “science” fell under the terminology of “natural philosophy” or, if the experimental part was emphasized, “experimental philosophy”. William Whewell (1834) standardized the term “scientist” to refer to practitioners of diverse natural philosophies. Philosophers of science have attempted to demarcate science from other knowledge-seeking endeavors, in particular religion. For instance, Karl Popper (1959) claimed that scientific hypotheses (unlike religious and philosophical ones) are in principle falsifiable. Many authors (e.g., Taylor 1996) affirm a disparity between science and religion, even if the meanings of both terms are historically contingent. They disagree, however, on how to precisely (and across times and cultures) demarcate the two domains.

One way to distinguish between science and religion is the claim that science concerns the natural world, whereas religion concerns the supernatural world and its relationship to the natural. Scientific explanations do not appeal to supernatural entities such as gods or angels (fallen or not), or to non-natural forces (such as miracles, karma, or qi ). For example, neuroscientists typically explain our thoughts in terms of brain states, not by reference to an immaterial soul or spirit, and legal scholars do not invoke karmic load when discussing why people commit crimes.

Naturalists draw a distinction between methodological naturalism , an epistemological principle that limits scientific inquiry to natural entities and laws, and ontological or philosophical naturalism , a metaphysical principle that rejects the supernatural (Forrest 2000). Since methodological naturalism is concerned with the practice of science (in particular, with the kinds of entities and processes that are invoked), it does not make any statements about whether or not supernatural entities exist. They might exist, but lie outside of the scope of scientific investigation. Some authors (e.g., Rosenberg 2014) hold that taking the results of science seriously entails negative answers to such persistent questions into the existence of free will or moral knowledge. However, these stronger conclusions are controversial.

The view that science can be demarcated from religion in its methodological naturalism is more commonly accepted. For instance, in the Kitzmiller versus Dover trial, the philosopher of science Robert Pennock was called to testify by the plaintiffs on whether Intelligent Design was a form of creationism, and therefore religion. If it were, the Dover school board policy would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Building on earlier work (e.g., Pennock 1998), Pennock argued that Intelligent Design, in its appeal to supernatural mechanisms, was not methodologically naturalistic, and that methodological naturalism is an essential component of science.

Methodological naturalism is a recent development in the history of science, though we can see precursors of it in medieval authors such as Aquinas who attempted to draw a theological distinction between miracles, such as the working of relics, and unusual natural phenomena, such as magnetism and the tides (see Perry & Ritchie 2018). Natural and experimental philosophers such as Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Robert Hooke, and Robert Boyle regularly appealed to supernatural agents in their natural philosophy (which we now call “science”). Still, overall there was a tendency to favor naturalistic explanations in natural philosophy. The X-club was a lobby group for the professionalization of science founded in 1864 by Thomas Huxley and friends. While the X-club may have been in part motivated by the desire to remove competition by amateur-clergymen scientists in the field of science, and thus to open up the field to full-time professionals, its explicit aim was to promote a science that would be free from religious dogma (Garwood 2008, Barton 2018). This preference for naturalistic causes may have been encouraged by past successes of naturalistic explanations, leading authors such as Paul Draper (2005) to argue that the success of methodological naturalism could be evidence for ontological naturalism.

Several typologies probe the interaction between science and religion. For example, Mikael Stenmark (2004) distinguishes between three views: the independence view (no overlap between science and religion), the contact view (some overlap between the fields), and a union of the domains of science and religion; within these views he recognizes further subdivisions, e.g., contact can be in the form of conflict or harmony. The most influential taxonomy of the relationship between science and religion remains Barbour’s (2000): conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. Subsequent authors, as well as Barbour himself, have refined and amended this taxonomy. However, others (e.g., Cantor & Kenny 2001) have argued that this taxonomy is not useful to understand past interactions between both fields. Nevertheless, because of its enduring influence, it is still worthwhile to discuss it in detail.

The conflict model holds that science and religion are in perpetual and principal conflict. It relies heavily on two historical narratives: the trial of Galileo (see Dawes 2016) and the reception of Darwinism (see Bowler 2001). Contrary to common conception, the conflict model did not originate in two seminal publications, namely John Draper’s (1874) History of the Conflict between Religion and Science and Andrew Dickson White’s (1896) two-volume opus A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom . Rather, as James Ungureanu (2019) argues, the project of these early architects of the conflict thesis needs to be contextualized in a liberal Protestant tradition of attempting to separate religion from theology, and thus salvage religion. Their work was later appropriated by skeptics and atheists who used their arguments about the incompatibility of traditional theological views with science to argue for secularization, something Draper and White did not envisage.

The vast majority of authors in the science and religion field is critical of the conflict model and believes it is based on a shallow and partisan reading of the historical record. While the conflict model is at present a minority position, some have used philosophical argumentation (e.g., Philipse 2012) or have carefully re-examined historical evidence such as the Galileo trial (e.g., Dawes 2016) to argue for this model. Alvin Plantinga (2011) has argued that the conflict is not between science and religion, but between science and naturalism. In his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (first formulated in 1993), Plantinga argues that naturalism is epistemically self-defeating: if both naturalism and evolution are true, then it’s unlikely we would have reliable cognitive faculties.

The independence model holds that science and religion explore separate domains that ask distinct questions. Stephen Jay Gould developed an influential independence model with his NOMA principle (“Non-Overlapping Magisteria”):

The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise. (2001: 739)

He identified science’s areas of expertise as empirical questions about the constitution of the universe, and religion’s domain of expertise as ethical values and spiritual meaning. NOMA is both descriptive and normative: religious leaders should refrain from making factual claims about, for instance, evolutionary theory, just as scientists should not claim insight on moral matters. Gould held that there might be interactions at the borders of each magisterium, such as our responsibility toward other living things. One obvious problem with the independence model is that if religion were barred from making any statement of fact, it would be difficult to justify its claims of value and ethics. For example, one could not argue that one should love one’s neighbor because it pleases the creator (Worrall 2004). Moreover, religions do seem to make empirical claims, for example, that Jesus appeared after his death or that the early Hebrews passed through the parted waters of the Red Sea.

The dialogue model proposes a mutualistic relationship between religion and science. Unlike independence, it assumes a common ground between both fields, perhaps in their presuppositions, methods, and concepts. For example, the Christian doctrine of creation may have encouraged science by assuming that creation (being the product of a designer) is both intelligible and orderly, so one can expect there are laws that can be discovered. Creation, as a product of God’s free actions, is also contingent, so the laws of nature cannot be learned through a priori thinking which prompts the need for empirical investigation. According to Barbour (2000), both scientific and theological inquiry are theory-dependent, or at least model-dependent. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity colors how Christian theologians interpret the first chapters of Genesis. Next to this, both rely on metaphors and models. Both fields remain separate but they talk to each other, using common methods, concepts, and presuppositions. Wentzel van Huyssteen (1998) has argued for a dialogue position, proposing that science and religion can be in a graceful duet, based on their epistemological overlaps. The Partially Overlapping Magisteria (POMA) model defended by Alister McGrath (e.g., McGrath and Collicutt McGrath 2007) is also worth mentioning. According to McGrath, science and religion each draw on several different methodologies and approaches. These methods and approaches are different ways of knowing that have been shaped through historical factors. It is beneficial for scientists and theologians to be in dialogue with each other.

The integration model is more extensive in its unification of science and theology. Barbour (2000) identifies three forms of integration. First, natural theology, which formulates arguments for the existence and attributes of God. It uses interpretations of results from the natural sciences as premises in its arguments. For instance, the supposition that the universe has a temporal origin features in contemporary cosmological arguments for the existence of God. Likewise, the fact that the cosmological constants and laws of nature are life-permitting (whereas many other combinations of constants and laws would not permit life) is used in contemporary fine-tuning arguments (see the entry to fine-tuning arguments ). Second, theology of nature starts not from science but from a religious framework, and examines how this can enrich or even revise findings of the sciences. For example, McGrath (2016) developed a Christian theology of nature, examining how nature and scientific findings can be interpreted through a Christian lens. Thirdly, Barbour believed that Whitehead’s process philosophy was a promising way to integrate science and religion.

While integration seems attractive (especially to theologians), it is difficult to do justice to both the scientific and religious aspects of a given domain, especially given their complexities. For example, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1971), who was both knowledgeable in paleoanthropology and theology, ended up with an unconventional view of evolution as teleological (which put him at odds with the scientific establishment) and with an unorthodox theology (which denied original sin and led to a series of condemnations by the Roman Catholic Church). Theological heterodoxy, by itself, is no reason to doubt a model. However, it shows obstacles for the integration model to become a live option in the broader community of theologians and philosophers who want to remain affiliate to a specific religious community without transgressing its boundaries. Moreover, integration seems skewed towards theism: Barbour described arguments based on scientific results that support (but do not demonstrate) theism, but failed to discuss arguments based on scientific results that support (but do not demonstrate) the denial of theism. Hybrid positions like McGrath’s POMA indicate some difficulty for Barbour’s taxonomy: the scope of conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration is not clearly defined and they are not mutually exclusive. For example, if conflict is defined broadly then it is compatible with integration. Take the case of Frederick Tennant (1902), who sought to explain sin as the result of evolutionary pressures on human ancestors. This view led him to reject the Fall as a historical event, as it was not compatible with evolutionary biology. His view has conflict (as he saw Christian doctrine in conflict with evolutionary biology) but also integration (he sought to integrate the theological concept of sin in an evolutionary picture). It is clear that many positions defined by authors in the religion and science literature do not clearly fall within one of Barbour’s four domains.

Science and religion are closely interconnected in the scientific study of religion, which can be traced back to seventeenth-century natural histories of religion. Natural historians attempted to provide naturalistic explanations for human behavior and culture, including religion and morality. For example, Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle’s De l’Origine des Fables (1724) offered a causal account of belief in the supernatural. People often assert supernatural explanations when they lack an understanding of the natural causes underlying extraordinary events: “To the extent that one is more ignorant, or one has less experience, one sees more miracles” (1724 [1824: 295], my translation). Hume’s Natural History of Religion (1757) is perhaps the best-known philosophical example of a natural historical explanation of religious belief. It traces the origins of polytheism—which Hume thought was the earliest form of religious belief—to ignorance about natural causes combined with fear and apprehension about the environment. By deifying aspects of the environment, early humans tried to persuade or bribe the gods, thereby gaining a sense of control.

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, authors from newly emerging scientific disciplines, such as anthropology, sociology, and psychology examined the purported naturalistic roots of religious beliefs. They did so with a broad brush, trying to explain what unifies diverse religious beliefs across cultures. Auguste Comte (1841) proposed that all societies, in their attempts to make sense of the world, go through the same stages of development: the theological (religious) stage is the earliest phase, where religious explanations predominate, followed by the metaphysical stage (a non-intervening God), and culminating in the positive or scientific stage, marked by scientific explanations and empirical observations.

In anthropology, this positivist idea influenced cultural evolutionism, a theoretical framework that sought to explain cultural change using universal patterns. The underlying supposition was that all cultures evolve and progress along the same trajectory. Cultures with differing religious views were explained as being in different stages of their development. For example, Tylor (1871) regarded animism as the earliest form of religious belief. James Frazer’s Golden Bough (1890) is somewhat unusual within this literature, as he saw commonalities between magic, religion, and science. Though he proposed a linear progression, he also argued that a proto-scientific mindset gave rise to magical practices, including the discovery of regularities in nature. Cultural evolutionist models dealt poorly with religious diversity and with the complex relationships between science and religion across cultures. Many authors proposed that religion was just a stage in human development, which would eventually be superseded. For example, social theorists such as Karl Marx and Max Weber proposed versions of the secularization thesis, the view that religion would decline in the face of modern technology, science, and culture.

Functionalism was another theoretical framework that sought to explain religion. Functionalists did not consider religion to be a stage in human cultural development that would eventually be overcome. They saw it as a set of social institutions that served important functions in the societies they were part of. For example, the sociologist Émile Durkheim (1912 [1915]) argued that religious beliefs are social glue that helps to keep societies together.

Sigmund Freud and other early psychologists aimed to explain religion as the result of cognitive dispositions. For example, Freud (1927) saw religious belief as an illusion, a childlike yearning for a fatherly figure. He also considered “oceanic feeling” (a feeling of limitlessness and of being connected with the world, a concept he derived from the French author Romain Rolland) as one of the origins of religious belief. He thought this feeling was a remnant of an infant’s experience of the self, prior to being weaned off the breast. William James (1902) was interested in the psychological roots and the phenomenology of religious experiences, which he believed were the ultimate source of all institutional religions.

From the 1920s onward, the scientific study of religion became less concerned with grand unifying narratives, and focused more on particular religious traditions and beliefs. Anthropologists such as Edward Evans-Pritchard (1937) and Bronisław Malinowski (1925) no longer relied exclusively on second-hand reports (usually of poor quality and from distorted sources), but engaged in serious fieldwork. Their ethnographies indicated that cultural evolutionism was a defective theoretical framework and that religious beliefs were more diverse than was previously assumed. They argued that religious beliefs were not the result of ignorance of naturalistic mechanisms. For instance, Evans-Pritchard (1937) noted that the Azande were well aware that houses could collapse because termites ate away at their foundations, but they still appealed to witchcraft to explain why a particular house collapsed at a particular time. More recently, Cristine Legare et al. (2012) found that people in various cultures straightforwardly combine supernatural and natural explanations, for instance, South Africans are aware AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, but some also believe that the viral infection is ultimately caused by a witch.

Psychologists and sociologists of religion also began to doubt that religious beliefs were rooted in irrationality, psychopathology, and other atypical psychological states, as James (1902) and other early psychologists had assumed. In the US, in the late 1930s through the 1960s, psychologists developed a renewed interest for religion, fueled by the observation that religion refused to decline and seemed to undergo a substantial revival, thus casting doubt on the secularization thesis (see Stark 1999 for an overview). Psychologists of religion have made increasingly fine-grained distinctions between types of religiosity, including extrinsic religiosity (being religious as means to an end, for instance, getting the benefits of being a member of a social group) and intrinsic religiosity (people who adhere to religions for the sake of their teachings) (Allport & Ross 1967). Psychologists and sociologists now commonly study religiosity as an independent variable, with an impact on, for instance, health, criminality, sexuality, socio-economic profile, and social networks.

A recent development in the scientific study of religion is the cognitive science of religion (CSR). This is a multidisciplinary field, with authors from, among others, developmental psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and cognitive psychology (see C. White 2021 for a comprehensive overview). It differs from other scientific approaches to religion in its presupposition that religion is not a purely cultural phenomenon. Rather, authors in CSR hold that religion is the result of ordinary, early developed, and universal human cognitive processes (e.g., Barrett 2004, Boyer 2002). Some authors regard religion as the byproduct of cognitive processes that are not evolved for religion. For example, according to Paul Bloom (2007), religion emerges as a byproduct of our intuitive distinction between minds and bodies: we can think of minds as continuing, even after the body dies (e.g., by attributing desires to a dead family member), which makes belief in an afterlife and in disembodied spirits natural and spontaneous. Another family of hypotheses regards religion as a biological or cultural adaptive response that helps humans solve cooperative problems (e.g., Bering 2011; Purzycki & Sosis 2022): through their belief in big, powerful gods that can punish, humans behave more cooperatively, which allowed human group sizes to expand beyond small hunter-gatherer communities. Groups with belief in big gods thus out-competed groups without such beliefs for resources during the Neolithic, which would explain the current success of belief in such gods (Norenzayan 2013). However, the question of which came first—big god beliefs or large-scale societies—is a continued matter of debate.

2. Science and religion in various religions

As noted, most studies on the relationship between science and religion have focused on science and Christianity, with only a small number of publications devoted to other religious traditions (e.g., Brooke & Numbers 2011; Lopez 2008). Since science makes universal claims, it is easy to assume that its encounter with other religious traditions would be similar to its interactions with Christianity. However, given different creedal tenets (e.g., in Hindu traditions God is usually not entirely distinct from creation, unlike in Christianity and Judaism), and because science has had distinct historical trajectories in other cultures, one can expect disanalogies in the relationship between science and religion in different religious traditions. To give a sense of this diversity, this section provides a bird’s eye view of science and religion in five major world religions: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism.

Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion, currently the religion with the most adherents. It developed in the first century CE out of Judaism. Christians adhere to asserted revelations described in a series of canonical texts, which include the Old Testament, which comprises texts inherited from Judaism, and the New Testament, which contains the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (narratives on the life and teachings of Jesus), as well as events and teachings of the early Christian churches (e.g., Acts of the Apostles, letters by Paul), and Revelation, a prophetic book on the end times.

Given the prominence of revealed texts in Christianity, a useful starting point to examine the relationship between Christianity and science is the two books metaphor (see Tanzella-Nitti 2005 for an overview): God revealed Godself through the “Book of Nature”, with its orderly laws, and the “Book of Scripture”, with its historical narratives and accounts of miracles. Augustine (354–430) argued that the book of nature was the more accessible of the two, since scripture requires literacy whereas illiterates and literates alike could read the book of nature. Maximus Confessor (c. 580–662), in his Ambigua (see Louth 1996 for a collection of and critical introduction to these texts) compared scripture and natural law to two clothes that envelop the Incarnated Logos: Jesus’ humanity is revealed by nature, whereas his divinity is revealed by the scriptures. During the Middle Ages, authors such as Hugh of St. Victor (ca. 1096–1141) and Bonaventure (1221–1274) began to realize that the book of nature was not at all straightforward to read. Given that original sin marred our reason and perception, what conclusions could humans legitimately draw about ultimate reality? Bonaventure used the metaphor of the books to the extent that “ liber naturae ” was a synonym for creation, the natural world. He argued that sin has clouded human reason so much that the book of nature has become unreadable, and that scripture is needed as an aid as it contains teachings about the world.

Christian authors in the field of science and religion continue to debate how these two books interrelate. Concordism is the attempt to interpret scripture in the light of modern science. It is a hermeneutical approach to Bible interpretation, where one expects that the Bible foretells scientific theories, such as the Big Bang theory or evolutionary theory. However, as Denis Lamoureux (2008: chapter 5) argues, many scientific-sounding statements in the Bible are false: the mustard seed is not the smallest seed, male reproductive seeds do not contain miniature persons, there is no firmament, and the earth is neither flat nor immovable. Thus, any plausible form of integrating the book of nature and scripture will require more nuance and sophistication. Theologians such as John Wesley (1703–1791) have proposed the addition of other sources of knowledge to scripture and science: the Wesleyan quadrilateral (a term not coined by Wesley himself) is the dynamic interaction of scripture, experience (including the empirical findings of the sciences), tradition, and reason (Outler 1985).

Several Christian authors have attempted to integrate science and religion (e.g., Haught 1995, Lamoureux 2008, Murphy 1995), making integration a highly popular view on the relationship between science and religion. These authors tend to interpret findings from the sciences, such as evolutionary theory or chaos theory, in a theological light, using established theological models such as classical theism or the doctrine of creation. John Haught (1995) argues that the theological view of kenosis (self-emptying of God in creation) anticipates scientific findings such as evolutionary theory: a self-emptying God (i.e., who limits Godself), who creates a distinct and autonomous world, makes a world with internal self-coherence, with a self-organizing universe as the result.

The dominant epistemological outlook in Christian science and religion has been critical realism, a position that applies both to theology (theological realism) and to science (scientific realism). Barbour (1966) introduced this view into the science and religion literature; it has been further developed by theologians such as Arthur Peacocke (1984) and Wentzel van Huyssteen (1999). Critical realism aims to offer a middle way between naïve realism (the world is as we perceive it) and instrumentalism (our perceptions and concepts are purely instrumental). It encourages critical reflection on perception and the world, hence “critical”. Critical realism has distinct flavors in the works of different authors, for instance, van Huyssteen (1998, 1999) develops a weak form of critical realism set within a postfoundationalist notion of rationality, where theological views are shaped by social, cultural, and evolved biological factors. Murphy (1995: 329–330) outlines doctrinal and scientific requirements for approaches in science and religion: ideally, an integrated approach should be broadly in line with Christian doctrine, especially core tenets such as the doctrine of creation, while at the same time it should be in line with empirical observations without undercutting scientific practices.

Several historians (e.g., Hooykaas 1972) have argued that Christianity was instrumental to the development of Western science. Peter Harrison (2007) maintains that the doctrine of original sin played a crucial role in this, arguing there was a widespread belief in the early modern period that Adam, prior to the Fall, had superior senses, intellect, and understanding. As a result of the Fall, human senses became duller, our ability to make correct inferences was diminished, and nature itself became less intelligible. Postlapsarian humans (i.e., humans after the Fall) are no longer able to exclusively rely on their a priori reasoning to understand nature. They must supplement their reasoning and senses with observation through specialized instruments, such as microscopes and telescopes. As the experimental philosopher Robert Hooke wrote in the introduction to his Micrographia :

every man, both from a deriv’d corruption, innate and born with him, and from his breeding and converse with men, is very subject to slip into all sorts of errors … These being the dangers in the process of humane Reason, the remedies of them all can only proceed from the real, the mechanical, the experimental Philosophy [experiment-based science]. (1665, cited in Harrison 2007: 5)

Another theological development that may have facilitated the rise of science was the Condemnation of Paris (1277), which forbade teaching and reading natural philosophical views that were considered heretical, such as Aristotle’s physical treatises. As a result, the Condemnation opened up intellectual space to think beyond ancient Greek natural philosophy. For example, medieval philosophers such as John Buridan (fl. 14th c) held the Aristotelian belief that there could be no vacuum in nature, but once the idea of a vacuum became plausible, natural philosophers such as Evangelista Torricelli (1608–1647) and Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) could experiment with air pressure and vacua (see Grant 1996, for discussion).

Some authors claim that Christianity was unique and instrumental in catalyzing the scientific revolution. For example, according to the sociologist of religion Rodney Stark (2004), the scientific revolution was in fact a slow, gradual development from medieval Christian theology. Claims such as Stark’s, however, fail to recognize the legitimate contributions of Islamic and Greek scholars to the development of modern science, and fail to do justice to the importance of practical technological innovations in map-making and star-charting in the emergence of modern science. In spite of these positive readings of the relationship between science and religion in Christianity, there are sources of enduring tension. For example, there is still vocal opposition to the theory of evolution among Christian fundamentalists. In the public sphere, the conflict view between Christianity and science prevails, in stark contrast to the scholarly literature. This is due to an important extent to the outsize influence of a vocal conservative Christian minority in the American public debate, which sidelines more moderate voices (Evans 2016).

Islam is a monotheistic religion that emerged in the seventh century, following a series of purported revelations to the prophet Muḥammad. The term “Islam” also denotes geo-political structures, such as caliphates and empires, which were founded by Muslim rulers from the seventh century onward, including the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ottoman caliphates. Additionally, it refers to a culture which flourished within this political and religious context, with its own philosophical and scientific traditions (Dhanani 2002). The defining characteristic of Islam is belief in one God (Allāh), who communicates through prophets, including Adam, Abraham, and Muḥammad. Allāh‎’s revelations to Muḥammad are recorded in the Qurʾān, the central religious text for Islam. Next to the Qurʾān, an important source of jurisprudence and theology is the ḥadīth, an oral corpus of attested sayings, actions, and tacit approvals of the prophet Muḥammad. The two major branches of Islam, Sunni and Shia, are based on a dispute over the succession of Muḥammad. As the second largest religion in the world, Islam shows a wide variety of beliefs. Core creedal views include the oneness of God ( tawḥīd ), the view that there is only one undivided God who created and sustains the universe, prophetic revelation (in particular to Muḥammad), and an afterlife. Beyond this, Muslims disagree on a number of doctrinal issues.

The relationship between Islam and science is complex. Today, predominantly Muslim countries, such as the United Arabic Emirates, enjoy high urbanization and technological development, but they still underperform in common metrics of scientific research, such as publications in leading journals and number of citations per scientist, compared to other regions outside of the west such as India and China (see Edis 2007). Some Muslims hold a number of pseudoscientific ideas, some of which it shares with Christianity such as Old Earth creationism, whereas others are specific to Islam such as the recreation of human bodies from the tailbone on the day of resurrection, and the superiority of prayer in treating lower-back pain instead of conventional methods (Guessoum 2011: 4–5).

This contemporary lack of scientific prominence is remarkable given that the Islamic world far exceeded European cultures in the range and quality of its scientific knowledge between approximately the ninth and the fifteenth century, excelling in domains such as mathematics (algebra and geometry, trigonometry in particular), astronomy (seriously considering, but not adopting, heliocentrism), optics, and medicine. These domains of knowledge are commonly referred to as “Arabic science”, to distinguish them from the pursuits of science that arose in the west (Huff 2003). “Arabic science” is an imperfect term, as many of the practitioners were not speakers of Arabic, hence the term “science in the Islamic world” is more accurate. Many scientists in the Islamic world were polymaths, for example, Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna, 980–1037) is commonly regarded as one of the most significant innovators, not only in philosophy, but also in medicine and astronomy. His Canon of Medicine , a medical encyclopedia, was a standard textbook in universities across Europe for many centuries after his death. Al-Fārābī (ca. 872–ca. 950), a political philosopher from Damascus, also investigated music theory, science, and mathematics. Omar Khayyám (1048–1131) achieved lasting fame in disparate domains such as poetry, astronomy, geography, and mineralogy. The Andalusian Ibn Rušd (Averroes, 1126–1198) wrote on medicine, physics, astronomy, psychology, jurisprudence, music, and geography, next to developing a Greek-inspired philosophical theology.

A major impetus for science in the Islamic world was the patronage of the Abbasid caliphate (758–1258), centered in Baghdad. Early Abbasid rulers, such as Harun al-Rashid (ruled 786–809) and his successor Abū Jaʿfar Abdullāh al-Ma’mūn (ruled 813–833), were significant patrons of science. The former founded the Bayt al-Hikma (House of Wisdom), which commissioned translations of major works by Aristotle, Galen, and many Persian and Indian scholars into Arabic. It was cosmopolitan in its outlook, employing astronomers, mathematicians, and physicians from abroad, including Indian mathematicians and Nestorian (Christian) astronomers. Throughout the Islamic world, public libraries attached to mosques provided access to a vast compendium of knowledge, which spread Islam, Greek philosophy, and science. The use of a common language (Arabic), as well as common religious and political institutions and flourishing trade relations encouraged the spread of scientific ideas throughout the Islamic world. Some of this transmission was informal, e.g., correspondence between like-minded people (see Dhanani 2002), some formal, e.g., in hospitals where students learned about medicine in a practical, master-apprentice setting, and in astronomical observatories and academies. The decline and fall of the Abbasid caliphate dealt a blow to science in the Islamic world, but it remains unclear why it ultimately stagnated, and why it did not experience something analogous to the scientific revolution in Western Europe. Note, the decline of science in the Islamic world should not be generalized to other fields, such as philosophy and philosophical theology, which continued to flourish after the Abbasid caliphate fell.

Some liberal Muslim authors, such as Fatima Mernissi (1992), argue that the rise of conservative forms of Islamic philosophical theology stifled more scientifically-minded natural philosophy. In the ninth to the twelfth century, the Mu’tazila (a philosophical theological school) helped the growth of science in the Islamic world thanks to their embrace of Greek natural philosophy. But eventually, the Mu’tazila and their intellectual descendants lost their influence to more conservative brands of theology. Al-Ghazālī’s influential eleventh-century work, The Incoherence of the Philosophers ( Tahāfut al-falāsifa ), was a scathing and sophisticated critique of Greek-inspired Muslim philosophy, arguing that their metaphysical assumptions could not be demonstrated. This book vindicated more orthodox Muslim religious views. As Muslim intellectual life became more orthodox, it became less open to non-Muslim philosophical ideas, which led to the decline of science in the Islamic world, according to this view.

The problem with this narrative is that orthodox worries about non-Islamic knowledge were already present before Al-Ghazālī and continued long after his death (Edis 2007: chapter 2). The study of law ( fiqh ) was more stifling for science in the Islamic world than developments in theology. The eleventh century saw changes in Islamic law that discouraged heterodox thought: lack of orthodoxy could now be regarded as apostasy from Islam ( zandaqa ) which is punishable by death, whereas before, a Muslim could only apostatize by an explicit declaration (Griffel 2009: 105). (Al-Ghazālī himself only regarded the violation of three core doctrines as zandaqa , namely statements that challenged monotheism, the prophecy of Muḥammad, and resurrection after death.) Given that heterodox thoughts could be interpreted as apostasy, this created a stifling climate for science. In the second half of the nineteenth century, as science and technology became firmly entrenched in Western society, Muslim empires were languishing or colonized. Scientific ideas, such as evolutionary theory, became equated with European colonialism, and thus met with distrust. The enduring association between western culture, colonialism, and science led to a more prominent conflict view of the relationship between science and religion in Muslim countries.

In spite of this negative association between science and Western modernity, there is an emerging literature on science and religion by Muslim scholars (mostly scientists). The physicist Nidhal Guessoum (2011) holds that science and religion are not only compatible, but in harmony. He rejects the idea of treating the Qurʾān as a scientific encyclopedia, something other Muslim authors in the debate on science and religion tend to do. Moreover, he adheres to the no-possible-conflict principle, outlined by Ibn Rušd: there can be no conflict between God’s word (properly understood) and God’s work (properly understood). If an apparent conflict arises, the Qurʾān may not have been interpreted correctly.

While the Qurʾān asserts a creation in six days (like the Hebrew Bible), “day” is often interpreted as a very long span of time, rather than a 24-hour period. As a result, Old Earth creationism is more influential in Islam than Young Earth creationism. Adnan Oktar’s Atlas of Creation (published in 2007 under the pseudonym Harun Yahya), a glossy coffee table book that draws heavily on Christian Old Earth creationism, has been distributed worldwide (Hameed 2008). Since the Qurʾān explicitly mentions the special creation of Adam out of clay, most Muslims refuse to accept that humans evolved from hominin ancestors. Nevertheless, Muslim scientists such as Guessoum (2011) and Rana Dajani (2015) have advocated acceptance of evolution.

Hinduism is the world’s third largest religion, though the term “Hinduism” is an awkward catch-all phrase that denotes diverse religious and philosophical traditions that emerged on the Indian subcontinent between 500 BCE and 300 CE. The vast majority of Hindus live in India; most others live in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Southeast Asia, with a significant diaspora in western countries such as the United States (Hackett 2015 [ Other Internet Resources ]). In contrast to the Abrahamic monotheistic religions, Hinduism does not always draw a sharp distinction between God and creation. (While there are pantheistic and panentheistic views in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, these are minority positions.) Many Hindus believe in a personal God, and identify this God as immanent in creation. This view has ramifications for the science and religion debate, in that there is no sharp ontological distinction between creator and creature (Subbarayappa 2011). Religious traditions originating on the Indian subcontinent, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, are referred to as dharmic religions. Philosophical points of view are referred to as darśana .

One factor that unites the different strands of Hinduism is the importance of foundational texts composed between ca. 1600 and 700 BCE. These include the Vedas, which contain hymns and prescriptions for performing rituals, Brāhmaṇa, accompanying liturgical texts, and Upaniṣad, metaphysical treatises. The Vedas discuss gods who personify and embody natural phenomena such as fire (Agni) and wind (Vāyu). More gods appear in the following centuries (e.g., Gaṇeśa and Sati-Parvati in the 4th century). Note that there are both polytheistic and monotheistic strands in Hinduism, so it is not the case that individual believers worship or recognize all of these gods. Ancient Vedic rituals encouraged knowledge of diverse sciences, including astronomy, linguistics, and mathematics. Astronomical knowledge was required to determine the timing of rituals and the construction of sacrificial altars. Linguistics developed out of a need to formalize grammatical rules for classical Sanskrit, which was used in rituals. Large public offerings also required the construction of elaborate altars, which posed geometrical problems and thus led to advances in geometry. Classic Vedic texts also frequently used very large numbers, for instance, to denote the age of humanity and the Earth, which required a system to represent numbers parsimoniously, giving rise to a 10-base positional system and a symbolic representation for zero as a placeholder, which would later be imported in other mathematical traditions (Joseph 1991 [2000]). In this way, ancient Indian dharma encouraged the emergence of the sciences.

Around the sixth–fifth century BCE, the northern part of the Indian subcontinent experienced an extensive urbanization. In this context, medicine ( āyurveda ) became standardized. This period also gave rise to a wide range of heterodox philosophical schools, including Buddhism, Jainism, and Cārvāka. The latter defended a form of metaphysical naturalism, denying the existence of gods or karma. The relationship between science and religion on the Indian subcontinent is complex, in part because the dharmic religions and philosophical schools are so diverse. For example, Cārvāka proponents had a strong suspicion of inferential beliefs, and rejected Vedic revelation and supernaturalism in general, instead favoring direct observation as a source of knowledge.

Natural theology also flourished in the pre-colonial period, especially in the Advaita Vedānta, a darśana that identifies the self, ātman , with ultimate reality, Brahman. Advaita Vedāntin philosopher Adi Śaṅkara (fl. first half eighth century) was an author who regarded Brahman as the only reality, both the material and the efficient cause of the cosmos. Śaṅkara formulated design and cosmological arguments, drawing on analogies between the world and artifacts: in ordinary life, we never see non-intelligent agents produce purposive design, yet the universe is suitable for human life, just like benches and pleasure gardens are designed for us. Given that the universe is so complex that even an intelligent craftsman cannot comprehend it, how could it have been created by non-intelligent natural forces? Śaṅkara concluded that it must have been designed by an intelligent creator (C.M. Brown 2008: 108).

From 1757 to 1947, India was under British colonial rule. This had a profound influence on its culture as Hindus came into contact with Western science and technology. For local intellectuals, the contact with Western science presented a challenge: how to assimilate these ideas with Hinduism? Mahendrahal Sircar (1833–1904) was one of the first authors to examine evolutionary theory and its implications for Hindu religious beliefs. Sircar was an evolutionary theist, who believed that God used evolution to create current life forms. Evolutionary theism was not a new hypothesis in Hinduism, but the many lines of empirical evidence Darwin provided for evolution gave it a fresh impetus. While Sircar accepted organic evolution through common descent, he questioned the mechanism of natural selection as it was not teleological, which went against his evolutionary theism. This was a widespread problem for the acceptance of evolutionary theory, one that Christian evolutionary theists also wrestled with (Bowler 2009). He also argued against the British colonists’ beliefs that Hindus were incapable of scientific thought, and encouraged fellow Hindus to engage in science, which he hoped would help regenerate the Indian nation (C.M. Brown 2012: chapter 6).

The assimilation of Western culture prompted various revivalist movements that sought to reaffirm the cultural value of Hinduism. They put forward the idea of a Vedic science, where all scientific findings are already prefigured in the Vedas and other ancient texts (e.g., Vivekananda 1904). This idea is still popular within contemporary Hinduism, and is quite similar to ideas held by contemporary Muslims, who refer to the Qurʾān as a harbinger of scientific theories.

Responses to evolutionary theory were as diverse as Christian views on this subject, ranging from creationism (denial of evolutionary theory based on a perceived incompatibility with Vedic texts) to acceptance (see C.M. Brown 2012 for a thorough overview). Authors such as Dayananda Saraswati (1930–2015) rejected evolutionary theory. By contrast, Vivekananda (1863–1902), a proponent of the monistic Advaita Vedānta enthusiastically endorsed evolutionary theory and argued that it is already prefigured in ancient Vedic texts. His integrative view claimed that Hinduism and science are in harmony: Hinduism is scientific in spirit, as is evident from its long history of scientific discovery (Vivekananda 1904). Sri Aurobindo Ghose, a yogi and Indian nationalist who was educated in the West, formulated a synthesis of evolutionary thought and Hinduism. He interpreted the classic avatara doctrine, according to which God incarnates into the world repeatedly throughout time, in evolutionary terms. God thus appears first as an animal, later as a dwarf, then as a violent man (Rama), and then as Buddha, and as Kṛṣṇa. He proposed a metaphysical picture where both spiritual evolution (reincarnation and avatars) and physical evolution are ultimately a manifestation of God (Brahman). This view of reality as consisting of matter ( prakṛti ) and consciousness ( puruṣa ) goes back to sāṃkhya , one of the orthodox Hindu darśana, but Aurobindo made explicit reference to the divine, calling the process during which the supreme Consciousness dwells in matter involution (Aurobindo, 1914–18 [2005], see C.M. Brown 2007 for discussion).

During the twentieth century, Indian scientists began to gain prominence, including C.V. Raman (1888–1970), a Nobel Prize winner in physics, and Satyendra Nath Bose (1894–1974), a theoretical physicist who described the behavior of photons statistically, and who gave his name to bosons. However, these authors were silent on the relationship between their scientific work and their religious beliefs. By contrast, the mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887–1920) was open about his religious beliefs and their influence on his mathematical work. He claimed that the goddess Namagiri helped him to intuit solutions to mathematical problems. Likewise, Jagadish Chandra Bose (1858–1937), a theoretical physicist, biologist, biophysicist, botanist, and archaeologist who worked on radio waves, saw the Hindu idea of unity reflected in the study of nature. He started the Bose institute in Kolkata in 1917, the earliest interdisciplinary scientific institute in India (Subbarayappa 2011).

Buddhism, like the other religious traditions surveyed in this entry, encompasses many views and practices. The principal forms of Buddhism that exist today are Theravāda and Mahāyāna. (Vajrayāna, the tantric tradition of Buddhism, is also sometimes seen as a distinct form.) Theravāda is the dominant form of Buddhism of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. It traditionally refers to monastic and textual lineages associated with the study of the Pāli Buddhist Canon. Mahāyāna refers to a movement that likely began roughly four centuries after the Buddha’s death; it became the dominant form of Buddhism in East and Central Asia. It includes Chan or Zen, and also tantric Buddhism, which today is found mostly in Tibet, though East Asian forms also exist.

Buddhism originated in the historical figure of the Buddha (historically, Gautama Buddha or Siddhārtha Gautama, ca. 5 th –4 th century BCE). His teaching centered on ethics as well as metaphysics, incapsulated in the Four Noble Truths (on suffering and its origin in human desires), and the Noble Eightfold Path (right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration) to end suffering and to break the cycle of rebirths, culminating in reaching Nirvana. Substantive metaphysical teachings include belief in karma, the no-self, and the cycle of rebirth.

As a response to colonialist attitudes, modern Buddhists since the nineteenth century have often presented Buddhism as harmonious with science (Lopez 2008). The argument is roughly that since Buddhism doesn’t require belief in metaphysically substantive entities such as God, the soul, or the self (unlike, for example, Christianity), Buddhism should be easily compatible with the factual claims that scientists make. (Note, however, that historically most Buddhist have believed in various forms of divine abode and divinities.) We could thus expect the dialogue and integration view to prevail in Buddhism. An exemplar for integration is the fourteenth Dalai Lama, who is known for his numerous efforts to lead dialogue between religious people and scientists. He has extensively written on the relationship between Buddhism and various scientific disciplines such as neuroscience and cosmology (e.g., Dalai Lama 2005, see also the Science and Philosophy in the Indian Buddhist Classics series, a four-volume series conceived and compiled by the Dalai Lama, e.g., Jinpa 2017). Donald Lopez Jr (2008) identifies compatibility as an enduring claim in the debate on science and Buddhism, in spite of the fact that what is meant by these concepts has shifted markedly over time. As David McMahan (2009) argues, Buddhism underwent profound shifts in response to modernity in the west as well as globally. In this modern context, Buddhists have often asserted the compatibility of Buddhism with science, favorably contrasting their religion to Christianity in that respect.

The full picture of the relationship between Buddhism and religion is more nuanced than one of wholesale acceptance of scientific claims. I will here focus on East Asia, primarily Japan and China, and the reception of evolutionary theory in the early twentieth century to give a sense of this more complex picture. The earliest translations of evolutionary thought in Japan and China were not drawn from Darwin’s Origin of Species or Descent of Man , but from works by authors who worked in Darwin’s wake, such as Ernst Haeckel and Thomas Huxley. For example, the earliest translated writings on evolutionary theory in China was a compilation by Yan Fu entitled On Natural Evolution ( Tianyan lun ), which incorporated excerpts by Herbert Spencer and Thomas Huxley. This work drew a close distinction between social Darwinism and biological evolution (Ritzinger 2013). Chinese and Japanese Buddhists received these ideas in the context of western colonialism and imperialism. East Asian intellectuals saw how western colonial powers competed with each other for influence on their territory, and discerned parallels between this and the Darwinian struggle for existence. As a result, some intellectuals such as the Japanese political adviser and academic Katō Hiroyuki (1836–1916) drew on Darwinian thought and popularized notions such as “survival of the fittest” to justify the foreign policies of the Meiji government (Burenina 2020). It is in this context that we can situate Buddhist responses to evolutionary theory.

Buddhists do not distinguish between human beings as possessing a soul and other animals as soulless. As we are all part of the cycle of rebirth, we have all been in previous lives various other beings, including birds, insects, and fish. The problem of the specificity of the human soul does not even arise because of the no-self doctrine. Nevertheless, as Justin Ritzinger (2013) points out, Chinese Buddhists in the 1920s and 1930s who were confronted with early evolutionary theory did not accept Darwin’s theory wholesale. In their view, the central element of Darwinism—the struggle for existence—was incompatible with Buddhism, with its emphasis on compassion with other creatures. They rejected social Darwinism (which sought to engineer societies along Darwinian principles) because it was incompatible with Buddhist ethics and metaphysics. Struggling to survive and to propagate was clinging onto worldly things. Taixu (1890–1947), a Chinese Reformer and Buddhist modernist, instead chose to appropriate Pyotr Kropotkin’s evolutionary views, specifically on mutual aid and altruism. The Russian anarchist argued that cooperation was central to evolutionary change, a view that is currently also more mainstream. However, Kropotkin’s view did not go far enough in Taixu’s opinion because mutual aid still requires a self. Only when one recognizes the no-self doctrine could one dedicate oneself entirely to helping others, as bodhisattvas do (Ritzinger 2013).

Similar dynamics can be seen in the reception of evolutionary theory among Japanese Buddhists. Evolutionary theory was introduced in Japan during the early Meji period (1868–1912) when Japan opened itself to foreign trade and ideas. Foreign experts, such as the American zoologist Edward S. Morse (1838–1925) shared their knowledge of the sciences with Japanese scholars. The latter were interested in the social ramifications of Darwinism, particularly because they had access to translated versions of Spencer’s and Huxley’s work before they could read Darwin’s. Japanese Buddhists of the Nichiren tradition accepted many elements of evolutionary theory, but they rejected other elements, notably the struggle for existence, and randomness and chance, as this contradicts the role of karma in one’s circumstances at birth.

Among the advocates of the modern Nishiren Buddhist movement is Honda Nisshō (1867–1931). Honda emphasized the importance of retrogressions (in addition to progress, which was the main element in evolution that western authors such as Haeckel and Spencer considered). He strongly argued against social Darwinism, the application of evolutionary principles in social engineering, on religious grounds. He argued that we can accept humans are descended from apes without having to posit a pessimistic view of human nature that sees us as engaged in a struggle for survival with fellow human beings. Like Chinese Buddhists, Honda thought Kropotkin’s thesis of mutual aid was more compatible with Buddhism, but he was suspicious of Kropotkin’s anarchism (Burenina 2020). His work, like that of other East Asian Buddhists indicates that historically, Buddhists are not passive recipients of western science but creative interpreters. In some cases, their religious reasons for rejecting some metaphysical assumptions in evolutionary theory led them to anticipate recent developments in biology, such as the recognition of cooperation as an evolutionary principle.

Judaism is one of the three major Abrahamic monotheistic traditions, encompassing a range of beliefs and practices that express a covenant between God and the people of Israel. Central to both Jewish practice and beliefs is the study of texts, including the written Torah (the Tanakh, sometimes called “Hebrew Bible”), and the “Oral Law” of Rabbinic Judaism, compiled in such works like the Talmud. There is also a corpus of esoteric, mystical interpretations of biblical texts, the Kabbalah, which has influenced Jewish works on the relationship between science and religion. The Kabbalah also had an influence on Renaissance and early modern Christian authors such as Pico Della Mirandola, whose work helped to shape the scientific revolution (see the entry on Giovanni Pico della Mirandola ). The theologian Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben-Maimon, 1138–1204, aka Rambam) had an enduring influence on Jewish thought up until today, also in the science and religion literature.

Most contemporary strains of Judaism are Rabbinic, rather than biblical, and this has profound implications for the relationship between religion and science. While both Jews and Evangelical Christians emphasize the reading of sacred texts, the Rabbinic traditions (unlike, for example, the Evangelical Christian tradition) holds that reading and interpreting texts is far from straightforward. Scripture should not be read in a simple literal fashion. This opens up more space for accepting scientific theories (e.g., Big Bang cosmology) that seem at odds with a simple literal reading of the Torah (e.g., the six-day creation in Genesis) (Mitelman 2011 [ Other Internet Resources ]). Moreover, most non-Orthodox Jews in the US identify as politically liberal, so openness to science may also be an identity marker given that politically liberal people in the US have positive attitudes toward science (Pew Forum, 2021 [ Other Internet Resources ]).

Jewish thinkers have made substantive theoretical contributions to the relationship between science and religion, which differ in interesting respects from those seen in the literature written by Christian authors. To give just a few examples, Hermann Cohen (1842–1918), a prominent neo-Kantian German Jewish philosopher, thought of the relationship between Judaism and science in the light of the advances in scientific disciplines and the increased participation of Jewish scholars in the sciences. He argued that science, ethics, and Judaism should all be conceived of as distinct but complementary sciences. Cohen believed that his Jewish religious community was facing an epistemic crisis. All references to God had become suspect due to an adherence to naturalism, at first epistemological, but fast becoming ontological. Cohen saw the concept of a transcendent God as foundational to both Jewish practice and belief, so he thought adherence to wholesale naturalism threatened both Jewish orthodoxy and orthopraxy. As Teri Merrick (2020) argues, Cohen suspected this was in part due to epistemic oppression and self-censuring (though Cohen did not frame it in these terms). Because Jewish scientists wanted to retain credibility in the Christian majority culture, they underplayed and neglected the rich Jewish intellectual legacy in their practice. In response to this intellectual crisis, Cohen proposed to reframe Jewish thought and philosophy so that it would be recognized as both continuous with the tradition and essentially contributing to ethical and scientific advances. In this way, he reframed this tradition, articulating a broadly Kantian philosophy of science to combat a perceived conflict between Judaism and science (see the entry on Hermann Cohen for an in-depth discussion).

Jewish religious scholars have examined how science might influence religious beliefs, and vice versa. Rather than a unified response we see a spectrum of philosophical views, especially since the nineteenth and early twentieth century. As Shai Cherry (2003) surveys, Jewish scholars in the early twentieth century accepted biological evolution but were hesitant about Darwinian natural selection as the mechanism. The Latvian-born Israeli rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935) thought that religion and science are largely separate domains (a view somewhat similar to Gould’s NOMA), though he believed that there was a possible flow from religion to science. For example, Kook challenged the lack of directionality in Darwinian evolutionary theory. Using readings of the Kabbalah (and Halakhah, Jewish law), he proposed that biological evolution fits in a larger picture of cosmic evolution towards perfection.

By contrast, the American rabbi Morcedai Kaplan (1881–1983) thought information flow between science and religion could go in both directions, a view reminiscent to Barbour’s dialogue position. He repeatedly argued against scientism (the encroachment of science on too many aspects of human life, including ethics and religion), but he believed nevertheless we ought to apply scientific methods to religion. He saw reality as an unfolding process without a pre-ordained goal: it was progressive, but not teleologically determined. Kaplan emphasized the importance of morality (and identified God as the source of this process), and conceptualized humanity as not merely a passive recipient of evolutionary change, but an active participant, prefiguring work in evolutionary biology on the importance of agency in evolution (e.g., Okasha 2018). Thus, Kaplan’s reception of scientific theories, especially evolution, led him to formulate an early Jewish process theology.

Reform Judaism endorses an explicit anti-conflict view on the relationship between science and religion. For example, the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885, the first document of the Reform rabbinate, has a statement that explicitly says that science and Judaism are not in conflict:

We hold that the modern discoveries of scientific researches in the domain of nature and history are not antagonistic to the doctrines of Judaism.

This Platform had an enduring influence on Reform Judaism over the next decades. Secular Jewish scientists such as Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Douglas Daniel Kahneman, and Stephen J. Gould have also reflected on the relationship between science and broader issues of existential significance, and have exerted considerable influence on the science and religion debate.

3. Central topics in the debate

Current work in the field of science and religion encompasses a wealth of topics, including free will, ethics, human nature, and consciousness. Contemporary natural theologians discuss fine-tuning, in particular design arguments based on it (e.g., R. Collins 2009), the interpretation of multiverse cosmology, and the significance of the Big Bang (see entries on fine-tuning arguments and natural theology and natural religion ). For instance, authors such as Hud Hudson (2013) have explored the idea that God has actualized the best of all possible multiverses. Here follows an overview of two topics that continue to generate substantial interest and debate: divine action (and the closely related topic of creation) and human origins. The focus will be on Christian work in science and religion, due to its prevalence in the literature.

Before scientists developed their views on cosmology and origins of the world, Western cultures already had a doctrine of creation, based on biblical texts (e.g., the first three chapters of Genesis and the book of Revelation) and the writings of church fathers such as Augustine. This doctrine of creation has the following interrelated features: first, God created the world ex nihilo, i.e., out of nothing. Differently put, God did not need any pre-existing materials to make the world, unlike, e.g., the Demiurge (from Greek philosophy), who created the world from chaotic, pre-existing matter. Second, God is distinct from the world; the world is not equal to or part of God (contra pantheism or panentheism) or a (necessary) emanation of God’s being (contra Neoplatonism). Rather, God created the world freely. This introduces an asymmetry between creator and creature: the world is radically contingent upon God’s creative act and is also sustained by God, whereas God does not need creation (Jaeger 2012b: 3). Third, the doctrine of creation holds that creation is essentially good (this is repeatedly affirmed in Genesis 1). The world does contain evil, but God does not directly cause this evil to exist. Moreover, God does not merely passively sustain creation, but rather plays an active role in it, using special divine actions (e.g., miracles and revelations) to care for creatures. Fourth, God made provisions for the end of the world, and will create a new heaven and earth, in this way eradicating evil.

Views on divine action are related to the doctrine of creation. Theologians commonly draw a distinction between general and special divine action, but within the field of science and religion there is no universally accepted definition of these two concepts. One way to distinguish them (Wildman 2008: 140) is to regard general divine action as the creation and sustenance of reality, and special divine action as the collection of specific providential acts, such as miracles and revelations to prophets. Drawing this distinction allows for creatures to be autonomous and indicates that God does not micromanage every detail of creation. Still, the distinction is not always clear-cut, as some phenomena are difficult to classify as either general or special divine action. For example, the Roman Catholic Eucharist (in which bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus) or some healing miracles outside of scripture seem mundane enough to be part of general housekeeping (general divine action), but still seem to involve some form of special intervention on God’s part. Alston (1989) makes a related distinction between direct and indirect divine acts. God brings about direct acts without the use of natural causes, whereas indirect acts are achieved through natural causes. Using this distinction, there are four possible kinds of actions that God could do: God could not act in the world at all, God could act only directly, God could act only indirectly, or God could act both directly and indirectly.

In the science and religion literature, there are two central questions on creation and divine action. To what extent are the Christian doctrine of creation and traditional views of divine action compatible with science? How can these concepts be understood within a scientific context, e.g., what does it mean for God to create and act? Note that the doctrine of creation says nothing about the age of the Earth, nor does it specify a mode of creation. This allows for a wide range of possible views within science and religion, of which Young Earth creationism is but one that is consistent with scripture. Indeed, some scientific theories, such as the Big Bang theory, first proposed by the Belgian Roman Catholic priest and astronomer Georges Lemaître (1927), look congenial to the doctrine of creation. The theory is not in contradiction, and could be integrated into creatio ex nihilo as it specifies that the universe originated from an extremely hot and dense state around 13.8 billion years ago (Craig 2003), although some philosophers have argued against the interpretation that the universe has a temporal beginning (e.g., Pitts 2008).

The net result of scientific findings since the seventeenth century has been that God was increasingly pushed into the margins. This encroachment of science on the territory of religion happened in two ways: first, scientific findings—in particular from geology and evolutionary theory—challenged and replaced biblical accounts of creation. Although the doctrine of creation does not contain details of the mode and timing of creation, the Bible was regarded as authoritative, and that authority got eroded by the sciences. Second, the emerging concept of scientific laws in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century physics seemed to leave no room for special divine action. These two challenges will be discussed below, along with proposed solutions in the contemporary science and religion literature.

Christian authors have traditionally used the Bible as a source of historical information. Biblical exegesis of the creation narratives, especially Genesis 1 and 2 (and some other scattered passages, such as in the Book of Job), remains fraught with difficulties. Are these texts to be interpreted in a historical, metaphorical, or poetic fashion, and what are we to make of the fact that the order of creation differs between these accounts (Harris 2013)? The Anglican archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656) used the Bible to date the beginning of creation at 4004 BCE. Although such literalist interpretations of the biblical creation narratives were not uncommon, and are still used by Young Earth creationists today, theologians before Ussher already offered alternative, non-literalist readings of the biblical materials (e.g., Augustine De Genesi ad litteram , 416). From the seventeenth century onward, the Christian doctrine of creation came under pressure from geology, with findings suggesting that the Earth was significantly older than 4004 BCE. From the eighteenth century on, natural philosophers, such as Benoît de Maillet, Lamarck, Chambers, and Darwin, proposed transmutationist (what would now be called evolutionary) theories, which seem incompatible with scriptural interpretations of the special creation of species. Following the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859), there has been an ongoing discussion on how to reinterpret the doctrine of creation in the light of evolutionary theory (see Bowler 2009 for an overview).

Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett (2003) have outlined a divine action spectrum to clarify the distinct positions about creation and divine action in the contemporary science and religion literature that focuses on Christians, agnostics, and atheists. They discern two dimensions in this spectrum: the degree of divine action in the natural world, and the form of causal explanations that relate divine action to natural processes. At one extreme are creationists. Like other theists, they believe God has created the world and its fundamental laws, and that God occasionally performs special divine actions (miracles) that intervene in the fabric of those laws. Creationists deny any role of natural selection in the origin of species. Within creationism, there are Old and Young Earth creationism, with the former accepting geology and rejecting evolutionary biology, and the latter rejecting both. Next to creationism is Intelligent Design, which affirms divine intervention in natural processes. Intelligent Design creationists (e.g., Dembski 1998) believe there is evidence of intelligent design in organisms’ irreducible complexity; on the basis of this they infer design and purposiveness (see Kojonen 2016). Like other creationists, they deny a significant role for natural selection in shaping organic complexity and they affirm an interventionist account of divine action. For political reasons they do not label their intelligent designer as God, as they hope to circumvent the constitutional separation of church and state in the US which prohibits teaching religious doctrines in public schools (Forrest & Gross 2004). Theistic evolutionists hold a non-interventionist approach to divine action: God creates indirectly, through the laws of nature (e.g., through natural selection). For example, the theologian John Haught (2000) regards divine providence as self-giving love, and natural selection and other natural processes as manifestations of this love, as they foster creaturely autonomy and independence. While theistic evolutionists allow for special divine action, particularly the miracle of the Incarnation in Christ (e.g., Deane-Drummond 2009), deists such as Michael Corey (1994) think there is only general divine action: God has laid out the laws of nature and lets it run like clockwork without further interference. Deism is still a long distance from ontological materialism, the view that the material world is all there is. Ontological materialists tend to hold that the universe is intelligible, with laws that scientists can discover, but there is no lawgiver and no creator.

Views on divine action were influenced by developments in physics and their philosophical interpretation. In the seventeenth century, natural philosophers, such as Robert Boyle and John Wilkins, developed a mechanistic view of the world as governed by orderly and lawlike processes. Laws, understood as immutable and stable, created difficulties for the concept of special divine action (Pannenberg 2002). How could God act in a world that was determined by laws?

One way to regard miracles and other forms of special divine action is to see them as actions that somehow suspend or ignore the laws of nature. David Hume (1748: 181), for instance, defined a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity, or by the interposal of some invisible agent”, and, more recently, Richard Swinburne (1968: 320) defines a miracle as “a violation of a law of Nature by a god”. This concept of divine action is commonly labeled interventionist. Interventionism regards the world as causally deterministic, so God has to create room for special divine actions. By contrast, non-interventionist forms of divine action require a world that is, at some level, non-deterministic, so that God can act without having to suspend or ignore the laws of nature.

In the seventeenth century, the explanation of the workings of nature in terms of elegant physical laws suggested the ingenuity of a divine designer. The design argument reached its peak during the seventeenth and early eighteenth century (McGrath 2011). For example, Samuel Clarke (1705: part XI, cited in Schliesser 2012: 451) proposed an a posteriori argument from design by appealing to Newtonian science, calling attention to the

exquisite regularity of all the planets’ motions without epicycles, stations, retrogradations, or any other deviation or confusion whatsoever.

A late proponent of this view of nature as a perfect smooth machine is William Paley’s Natural Theology (1802).

Another conclusion that the new laws-based physics suggested was that the universe was able to run smoothly without requiring an intervening God. The increasingly deterministic understanding of the universe, ruled by deterministic causal laws as, for example, outlined by Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827), seemed to leave no room for special divine action, which is a key element of the traditional Christian doctrine of creation. Newton resisted interpretations like these in an addendum to the Principia in 1713: the planets’ motions could be explained by laws of gravity, but the positions of their orbits, and the positions of the stars—far enough apart so as not to influence each other gravitationally—required a divine explanation (Schliesser 2012). Alston (1989) argued, contra authors such as Polkinghorne (1998), that mechanistic, pre-twentieth century physics is compatible with divine action and divine free will. Assuming a completely deterministic world and divine omniscience, God could set up initial conditions and the laws of nature in such a way as to bring God’s plans about. In such a mechanistic world, every event is an indirect divine act.

Advances in twentieth-century physics, including the theories of general and special relativity, chaos theory, and quantum theory, overturned the mechanical clockwork view of creation. In the latter half of the twentieth century, chaos theory and quantum physics have been explored as possible avenues to reinterpret divine action. John Polkinghorne (1998) proposed that chaos theory not only presents epistemological limits to what we can know about the world, but that it also provides the world with an “ontological openness” in which God can operate without violating the laws of nature. One difficulty with this model is that it moves from our knowledge of the world to assumptions about how the world is: does chaos theory mean that outcomes are genuinely undetermined, or that we as limited knowers cannot predict them? Robert Russell (2006) proposed that God acts in quantum events. This would allow God to directly act in nature without having to contravene the laws of nature. His is therefore a non-interventionist model: since, under the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, there are no natural efficient causes at the quantum level, God is not reduced to a natural cause. Murphy (1995) outlined a similar bottom-up model where God acts in the space provided by quantum indeterminacy. These attempts to locate God’s actions either in chaos theory or quantum mechanics, which Lydia Jaeger (2012a) has termed “physicalism-plus-God”, have met with sharp criticism (e.g., Saunders 2002; Jaeger 2012a,b). After all, it is not even clear whether quantum theory would allow for free human action, let alone divine action, which we do not know much about (Jaeger 2012a). Next to this, William Carroll (2008), building on Thomistic philosophy, argues that authors such as Polkinghorne and Murphy are making a category mistake: God is not a cause in the way creatures are causes, competing with natural causes, and God does not need indeterminacy in order to act in the world. Rather, as primary cause God supports and grounds secondary causes. While this neo-Thomistic proposal is compatible with determinism (indeed, on this view, the precise details of physics do not matter much), it blurs the distinction between general and special divine action. Moreover, the Incarnation suggests that the idea of God as a cause among natural causes is not an alien idea in theology, and that God incarnate as Jesus at least sometimes acts as a natural cause (Sollereder 2015).

There has been a debate on the question to what extent randomness is a genuine feature of creation, and how divine action and chance interrelate. Chance and stochasticity are important features of evolutionary theory (the non-random retention of random variations). In a famous thought experiment, Gould (1989) imagined that we could rewind the tape of life back to the time of the Burgess Shale (508 million years ago); the chance that a rerun of the tape of life would end up with anything like the present-day life forms is vanishingly small. However, Simon Conway Morris (2003) has insisted species very similar to the ones we know now, including humans, would evolve under a broad range of conditions.

Under a theist interpretation, randomness could either be a merely apparent aspect of creation, or a genuine feature. Plantinga suggests that randomness is a physicalist interpretation of the evidence. God may have guided every mutation along the evolutionary process. In this way, God could

guide the course of evolutionary history by causing the right mutations to arise at the right time and preserving the forms of life that lead to the results he intends. (2011: 121)

By contrast, other authors see stochasticity as a genuine design feature, and not just as a physicalist gloss. Their challenge is to explain how divine providence is compatible with genuine randomness. (Under a deistic view, one could simply say that God started the universe up and did not interfere with how it went, but that option is not open to the theist, and most authors in the field of science and religion are not deists.) The neo-Thomist Elizabeth Johnson (1996) argues that divine providence and true randomness are compatible: God gives creatures true causal powers, thus making creation more excellent than if they lacked such powers. Random occurrences are also secondary causes. Chance is a form of divine creativity that creates novelty, variety, and freedom. One implication of this view is that God may be a risk taker—although, if God has a providential plan for possible outcomes, there is unpredictability but not risk. Johnson uses metaphors of risk taking that, on the whole, leave the creator in a position of control. Creation, then, is akin to jazz improvisation. Why would God take risks? There are several solutions to this question. The free will theodicy says that a creation that exhibits stochasticity can be truly free and autonomous:

Authentic love requires freedom, not manipulation. Such freedom is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution, and not by strings of divine direction attached to every living creature. (Miller 1999 [2007: 289])

The “only way theodicy” goes a step further, arguing that a combination of laws and chance is not only the best way, but the only way for God to achieve God’s creative plans (see, e.g., Southgate 2008 for a defense).

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have similar creation stories, which ultimately go back to the first book of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis). According to Genesis, humans are the result of a special act of creation. Genesis 1 offers an account of the creation of the world in six days, with the creation of human beings on the sixth day. It specifies that humans were created male and female, and that they were made in God’s image. Genesis 2 provides a different order of creation, where God creates humans earlier in the sequence (before other animals), and only initially creates a man, later fashioning a woman out of the man’s rib. Islam has a creation narrative similar to Genesis 2, with Adam being fashioned out of clay. These handcrafted humans are regarded as the ancestors of all living humans today. Together with Ussher’s chronology, the received view in eighteenth-century Europe was that humans were created only about 6000 years ago, in an act of special creation.

Humans occupy a privileged position in these creation accounts. In Christianity, Judaism, and some strands of Islam, humans are created in the image of God ( imago Dei ). Humans also occupy a special place in creation as a result of the Fall. In Genesis 3, the account of the Fall stipulates that the first human couple lived in the Garden of Eden in a state of innocence and/or righteousness. This means they were able to not sin, whereas we are no longer able to refrain from sinning. By eating from the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil they fell from this state, and death, manual labor, as well as pain in childbirth were introduced. Moreover, as a result of this so-called “original sin”, the effects of Adam’s sin are passed on to every human being. The Augustinian interpretation of original sin also emphasizes that our reasoning capacities have been marred by the distorting effects of sin (the so-called noetic effects of sin): as a result of sin, our original perceptual and reasoning capacities have been marred. This interpretation is influential in contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. For example, Plantinga (2000) appeals to the noetic effects of sin to explain religious diversity and unbelief, offering this as an explanation for why not everyone believes in God even though this belief would be properly basic.

There are different ways in which Christians have thought about the Fall and original sin. In Western Christianity, Augustine’s doctrine of original sin is very influential, though there is no generally accepted Christian doctrine on original sin (Couenhoven 2005). For Augustine, humans were in a state of original righteousness before the Fall, and by their action not only marred themselves but the entirety of creation. By contrast, Eastern Orthodox churches are more influenced by Irenaeus, an early Church Father who argued that humans were originally innocent and immature, rather than righteous. John Hick (1966) was an influential proponent of “Irenaean style” theodicy in contemporary Christianity.

Over the past decades, authors in the Christian religion and science literature have explored these two interpretations (Irenaean, Augustinian) and how they can be made compatible with scientific findings (see De Smedt and De Cruz 2020 for a review). Scientific findings and theories relevant to human origins come from a range of disciplines, in particular geology, paleoanthropology (the study of ancestral hominins, using fossils and other evidence), archaeology, and evolutionary biology. These findings challenge traditional religious accounts of humanity, including the special creation of humans, the imago Dei , the historical Adam and Eve, and original sin.

In natural philosophy, the dethroning of humanity from its position as a specially created species predates Darwin and can already be found in early transmutationist publications. For example, Benoît de Maillet’s posthumously published Telliamed (1748, the title is his name in reverse) traces the origins of humans and other terrestrial animals from sea creatures. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed chimpanzees as the ancestors to humans in his Philosophie Zoologique (1809). The Scottish publisher and geologist Robert Chambers’ anonymously published Vestiges of Creation (1844) stirred controversy with its detailed naturalistic account of the origin of species. He proposed that the first organisms arose through spontaneous generation, and that all subsequent organisms evolved from them. Moreover, he argued that humans have a single evolutionary origin:

The probability may now be assumed that the human race sprung from one stock, which was at first in a state of simplicity, if not barbarism (1844: 305)

a view starkly different from the Augustinian interpretation of humanity as being in a prelapsarian state of perfection.

Darwin was initially reluctant to publish on human origins. While he did not discuss human evolution in his Origin of Species , he promised, “Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history” (1859: 487). Huxley (1863) wrote Man’s Place in Nature , the first book on human evolution from a Darwinian point of view which discussed fossil evidence, such as the then recently uncovered Neanderthal fossils from Gibraltar. Darwin’s (1871) Descent of Man identified Africa as the likely place where humans originated, and used comparative anatomy to demonstrate that chimpanzees and gorillas were closely related to humans. In the twentieth century, paleoanthropologists debated whether humans separated from the other great apes (at the time wrongly classified into the paraphyletic group Pongidae ) about 15 million years ago, or about 5 million years ago. Molecular clocks—first immune responses (e.g., Sarich & Wilson 1967), then direct genetic evidence (e.g., Rieux et al. 2014)—favor the shorter chronology.

The discovery of many hominin fossils, including Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 million years ago), Australopithecus afarensis (nicknamed “Lucy”), about 3.5 million years old, the Sima de los Huesos hominins (about 400,000 years old, ancestors to the Neanderthals), Homo neanderthalensis , and the intriguing Homo floresiensis (small hominins who lived on the island of Flores, Indonesia, dated to 700,000–50,000 years ago) have created a rich, complex picture of hominin evolution. These finds are supplemented by detailed analyses of ancient DNA extracted from fossil remains, bringing to light a previously unknown species of hominin (the Denisovans) who lived in Siberia up to about 40,000 years ago. Taken together, this evidence indicates that humans did not evolve in a simple linear fashion, but that human evolution resembles an intricate branching tree with many dead ends, in line with the evolution of other species. Genetic and fossil evidence favors a predominantly African origin of our species Homo sapiens (as early as 315,000 years ago) with limited gene-flow from other hominin species such as Neanderthals and Denisovans (see, e.g., Richter et al. 2017).

In the light of these scientific findings, contemporary science and religion authors have reconsidered the questions of human uniqueness, imago Dei , the Incarnation, and the historicity of original sin. Some authors have attempted to reinterpret human uniqueness as a number of species-specific cognitive and behavioral adaptations. For example, van Huyssteen (2006) considers the ability of humans to engage in cultural and symbolic behavior, which became prevalent in the Upper Paleolithic, as a key feature of uniquely human behavior. Other theologians have opted to broaden the notion of imago Dei. Given what we know about the capacities for morality and reason in non-human animals, Celia Deane-Drummond (2012) and Oliver Putz (2009) reject an ontological distinction between humans and non-human animals, and argue for a reconceptualization of the imago Dei to include at least some nonhuman animals. Joshua Moritz (2011) raises the question of whether extinct hominin species, such as Homo neanderthalensis and Homo floresiensis , which co-existed with Homo sapiens for some part of prehistory, partook in the divine image.

There is also discussion of how we can understand the Incarnation (the belief that Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, became a human being) with the evidence we have of human evolution. Some interpret Christ’s divine nature quite liberally. For instance, Peacocke (1979) regarded Jesus as the point where humanity is perfect for the first time. Christ is the progression and culmination of what evolution has been working toward in the teleological, progressivist interpretation of evolution by Teilhard de Chardin (1971). According to Teilhard, evil is still horrible but no longer incomprehensible; it becomes a natural feature of creation—since God chose evolution as his mode of creation, evil arises as an inevitable byproduct. Deane-Drummond (2009), however, points out that this interpretation is problematic: Teilhard worked within a Spencerian progressivist model of evolution, and he was anthropocentric, seeing humanity as the culmination of evolution. Contemporary evolutionary theory has repudiated the Spencerian progressivist view, and adheres to a stricter Darwinian model. Deane-Drummond, who regards human morality as lying on a continuum with the social behavior of other animals, conceptualizes the Fall as a mythical, rather than a historical event. It represents humanity’s sharper awareness of moral concerns and its ability to make wrong choices. She regards Christ as incarnate wisdom, situated in a theodrama that plays against the backdrop of an evolving creation. Like all human beings, Christ is connected to the rest of creation through common descent. By saving us, he saves the whole of creation.

Debates on the Fall and the historical Adam have centered on how these narratives can be understood in the light of contemporary science. On the face of it, limitations of our cognitive capacities can be naturalistically explained as a result of biological constraints, so there seems little explanatory gain to appeal to the narrative of the Fall. Some have attempted to interpret the concepts of sin and Fall in ways that are compatible with paleoanthropology, notably Peter van Inwagen (2004) and Jamie K. Smith (2017), who have argued that God could have providentially guided hominin evolution until there was a tightly-knit community of primates, endowed with reason, language, and free will, and this community was in close union with God. At some point in history, these hominins somehow abused their free will to distance themselves from God. These narratives follow the Augustinian tradition. Others, such as John Schneider (2014, 2020), on the other hand, argue that there is no genetic or paleoanthropological evidence for such a community of superhuman beings.

This survey has given a sense of the richness of the literature of science and religion. Giving an exhaustive overview would go beyond the scope of an encyclopedia entry. Because science and religion are such broad terms, the literature has split up in diverse fields of “science engaged theology”, where a specific claim or subfield in science is studied in relation to a specific claim in theology (Perry & Ritchie 2018). For example, rather than ask if Christianity is compatible with science, one could ask whether Christian eschatology is compatible with scientific claims about cultural evolution, or the cosmic fate of the universe. As the scope of science and religion becomes less parochial and more global in its outlook, the different topics the field can engage with become very diverse.

Al-Ghazālī, 11th century, Tahāfut al-falāsifa , translated by Sabih Ahmad Kamali as The Incoherence of the Philosophers , Lahore: Pakistan Philosophical Congress, 1963.
Allport, Gordon W. and J. Michael Ross, 1967, “Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice.”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 5(4): 432–443. doi:10.1037/h0021212
Alston, William P., 1989, “God’s Action in the World”, in Divine Nature and Human Language: Essays in Philosophical Theology , , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 197–222.
Augustine, 416 [2002], De Genesi ad litteram , Translated as “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” in On Genesis , John E. Rotelle (ed.), Edmund Hill (trans.), (The works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century), Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 2002, pp. 155–506.
Aurobindo Ghose, 1914–19 [2005], The Life Divine , Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. Collection of essays initially published from 1914–19 and first revised and published as collection in 1939/1940, two volumes.
Barbour, Ian G., 1966, Issues in Science and Religion , New York: Vantage.
–––, 2000, When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? , New York: HarperCollins.
Barrett, Justin L., 2004, Why Would Anyone Believe in God? , Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Barton, Ruth, 2018, The X-Club: Power and Authority in Victorian Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bering, Jesse M., 2011, The God Instinct. The Psychology of Souls, Destiny and the Meaning of Life , London: Nicholas Brealy.
Bloom, Paul, 2007, “Religion Is Natural”, Developmental Science , 10(1): 147–151. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00577.x
Bowler, Peter J., 2001, Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-Twentieth-Century Britain , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 2009, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Boyer, Pascal, 2002, Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought , London: Vintage.
Brooke, John Hedley, 1991, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107589018
Brooke, John Hedley and Ronald L. Numbers (eds.), 2011, Science and Religion Around the World , New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, C. Mackenzie, 2007, “Colonial and Post-Colonial Elaborations of Avataric Evolutionism”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science , 42(3): 715–748. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2007.00862.x
–––, 2008, “The Design Argument in Classical Hindu Thought”, International Journal of Hindu Studies , 12(2): 103–151. doi:10.1007/s11407-008-9058-8
–––, 2012, Hindu Perspectives on Evolution: Darwin, Dharma, and Design , (Routledge Hindu Studies Series), London/New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203135532
Burenina, Yulia, 2020, “Japanese Responses to Evolutionary Theory, with Particular Focus on Nichiren Buddhists”, in Asian Religious Responses to Darwinism: Evolutionary Theories in Middle Eastern, South Asian, and East Asian Cultural Contexts , C. Mackenzie Brown (ed.), (Sophia Studies in Cross-Cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures 33), Cham: Springer International Publishing, 337–367. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-37340-5_14
Cantor, Geoffrey and Chris Kenny, 2001, “Barbour’s Fourfold Way: Problems with His Taxonomy of Science‐religion Relationships”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science , 36(4): 765–781. doi:10.1111/0591-2385.00395
Carroll, William E., 2008, “Divine Agency, Contemporary Physics, and the Autonomy of Nature”, The Heythrop Journal , 49(4): 582–602. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2265.2008.00385.x
[Chambers, Robert], 1844, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation , London: John Churchill.
Cherry, Shai, 2003, “Three Twentieth-Century Jewish Responses to Evolutionary Theory”, Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism , 3(1): 247–290. doi:10.2979/ALE.2003.-.3.247
Clarke, Samuel, 1705, A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God , London: Will. Botham.
Collins, Robin, 2009, “The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine‐Tuning of the Universe”, in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology , William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (eds.), Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 202–281. doi:10.1002/9781444308334.ch4
Comte, Auguste, 1841, Cours de Philosophie Positive: La Partie Historique de la Philosophie Sociale en Tout ce Qui Concerne l’État Théologique et l’État Métaphysique (vol. 5), Paris: Bachelier.
Conway Morris, Simon, 2003, Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511535499
Corey, Michael A., 1994, Back to Darwin: The Scientific Case for Deistic Evolution , Lanham, MA: University Press of America.
Couenhoven, Jesse, 2005, “St. Augustine’s Doctrine of Original Sin”, Augustinian Studies , 36(2): 359–396. doi:10.5840/augstudies200536221
Craig, William Lane, 2003, “The Cosmological Argument”, in The Rationality of Theism , Paul Copan and Paul K. Moser (eds.), London: Routledge, pp. 112–131.
Dajani, Rana, 2015, “Why I Teach Evolution to Muslim Students”, Nature , 520(7548): 409–409. doi:10.1038/520409a
Dalai Lama [Tenzin Gyatso], 2005, The Universe in a Single Atom , New York: Morgan Roads Books.
Darwin, Charles, 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life , London: John Murray.
–––, 1871, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex , London: John Murray.
Dawes, Gregory W., 2016, Galileo and the Conflict between Religion and Science , (Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Religion 13), New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315637723
Dawkins, Richard, 2006, The God Delusion , Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Deane-Drummond, Celia, 2009, Christ and Evolution: Wonder and Wisdom , Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
–––, 2012, “God’s Image and Likeness in Humans and Other Animals: Performative Soul-Making and Graced Nature”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science , 47(4): 934–948. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2012.01308.x
De Smedt, Johan and Helen De Cruz, 2020, The Challenge of Evolution to Religion , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108685436
Dembski, William A., 1998, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511570643
Dhanani, Alnoor, 2002, “Islam”, in Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction , Gary B. Fengren (ed.), Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 73–92.
Draper, John, 1874, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science , New York: Appleton.
Draper, Paul, 2005, “God, Science, and Naturalism”, in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion , William Wainwright (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 272–303.
Durkheim, Émile, 1912 [1915], Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse , Paris: Alcan. Translated as The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious Sociology , Joseph Ward Swain (trans.), London: Allen & Unwin, 1915.
Ecklund, Elaine Howard, 2010, Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392982.001.0001
–––, 2021, “Science and Religion in (Global) Public Life: A Sociological Perspective”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion , 89(2): 672–700. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfab046
Ecklund, Elaine Howard and Christopher P. Scheitle, 2007, “Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics”, Social Problems , 54(2): 289–307. doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289
Edis, Taner, 2007, An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam , Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Evans, Michael S., 2016, Seeking Good Debate: Religion, Science, and Conflict in American Public Life , Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Evans-Pritchard, Edward Evans, 1937, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande , Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Reprinted 1965.
Fontenelle, Bernard le Bovier de, 1724 [1824], “De l’Origine des Fables”, reprinted in Oeuvres de Fontenelle , Paris: J. Pinard, 1824, pp. 294–310.
Forrest, Barbara, 2000, “Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection”, Philo , 3(2): 7–29. doi:10.5840/philo20003213
Forrest, Barbara and Paul R. Gross, 2004, Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195157420.001.0001
Frazer, James, G., 1890, The Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religion , London: MacMillan.
Freud, Sigmund, 1927, Die Zukunft einer Illusion , Leipzig, Wien & Zürich: Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag.
Garwood, Christine, 2008, Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea , London: Pan Macmillan.
Gould, Stephen J., 1989, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History , London: Penguin.
–––, 2001, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”, in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics , Robert T. Pennock (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 737–749.
Grant, Edward, 1996, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511817908
Griffel, Frank, 2009, Al-Ghazali’s Philosophical Theology , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331622.001.0001
Gross, Neil and Solon Simmons, 2009, “The Religiosity of American College and University Professors”, Sociology of Religion , 70(2): 101–129. doi:10.1093/socrel/srp026
Guessoum, Nidhal, 2011, Islam’s Quantum Question: Reconciling Muslim Tradition and Modern Science , London and New York: Tauris.
Hameed, Salman, 2008, “Bracing for Islamic Creationism”, Science , 322(5908): 1637–1638. doi:10.1126/science.1163672
Harris, Mark, 2013, The Nature of Creation. Examining the Bible and Science , Durham: Acumen.
Harrison, Peter, 1998, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511585524
–––, 2007, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511487750
–––, 2015, The Territories of Science and Religion , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Haught, John F., 1995, Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation , New York: Paulist Press.
–––, 2000, God after Darwin: A Theology of Evolution , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hick, John, 1966, Evil and the God of Love . New York: Harper & Row.
Hooke, Robert, 1665, Micrographia , London: The Royal Society.
Hooykaas, Reijer, 1972, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science , Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Hudson, Hud, 2013, “Best Possible World Theodicy”, in The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil , Justin P. McBrayer and Daniel Howard-Snyder (eds.), Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 236–250. doi:10.1002/9781118608005.ch16
Huff, Toby E., 2003, The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West , second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316257098
Hume, David, 1748, Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding , London: A. Millar.
–––, 1757 [2007], The Natural History of Religion , London: A. and H. Bradlaugh Bonner. Reprinted in his A Dissertation on the Passions; The Natural History of Religion: A Critical Edition , Tom L. Beauchamp (ed.), (The Clarendon Edition of the Works of David Hume), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007, 30–87.
Huxley, Thomas H., 1863, Evidences as to Man’s Place in Nature , London: Williams and Norgate.
Jaeger, Lydia, 2012a, “Against Physicalism-plus-God: How Creation Accounts for Divine Action in Nature’s World”, Faith and Philosophy , 29(3): 295–312. doi:10.5840/faithphil201229330
–––, 2012b, What the Heavens Declare: Science in the Light of Creation , Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
James, William, 1902, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature , New York: Longmans, Green.
Jinpa, Thupten (ed.), 2017, Science and Philosophy in the Indian Buddhist Classics. Volume 1: The Physical World, Somerville: Wisdom Publications.
John Paul II, 1996, “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth”, Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (22 October 1996). [ John Paul II 1996 available online ]
Johnson, Elizabeth A., 1996, “Does God Play Dice? Divine Providence and Chance”, Theological Studies , 57(1): 3–18. doi:10.1177/004056399605700101
Joseph, George Gheverghese, 1991 [2000], The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics , London: I. B. Tauris. Second edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.
Kojonen, Erkki Vesa Rope, 2016, The Intelligent Design Debate and the Temptation of Scientism , London/New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315556673
Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste, 1809, Philosophie Zoologique, ou Exposition des Considérations Relatives à l’Histoire Naturelle des Animaux , Paris: Museum d'Histoire Naturelle (Jardin des Plantes).
Lamoureux, Denis O., 2008, Evolutionary Creation. A Christian Approach to Evolution , Cambridge, UK: Lutterworth Press.
Legare, Cristine H., E. Margaret Evans, Karl S. Rosengren, and Paul L. Harris, 2012, “The Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations Across Cultures and Development: Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations”, Child Development , 83(3): 779–793. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01743.x
Lemaître, Georges, 1927, “Un Univers Homogène de Masse Constante et de Rayon Croissant, Rendant Compte de la Vitesse Radiale des Nébuleuses Extra-Galactiques”, Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles A , 47: 49–59.
Lopez, Donald S. Jr., 2008, Buddhism and Science, A Guide for the Perplexed, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Louth, Andrew, 1996, Maximus the Confessor , London and New York: Routledge.
[Maillet, Benoît de], 1748, Telliamed, ou Entretiens d’un Philosophe Indien avec un Missionaire François, sur la Diminution de la Mer, la Formation de la Terre, l’Origine de l’Homme, etc. , Amsterdam: Chez L'honoré & fils.
Malinowski, Bronislaw, 1925 [1992], “Magic, Science, and Religion”, in Science, Religion and Reality , James Needham (ed.), New York: Macmillan, 19–84. Reprinted in his Magic, Science, and Religion and Other Essays , Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1948. New printing, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1992.
McGrath, Alister E., 2011, Darwinism and the Divine: Evolutionary Thought and Natural Theology , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444392524
–––, 2016, Re-Imagining Nature: The Promise of a Christian Natural Theology , Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781119256540
McGrath, Alister E. and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, 2007, The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine , London: SPCK.
McMahan, David L., 2009, The Making of Buddhist Modernism , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183276.001.0001
Mernissi, Fatima, 1992, La Peur-Modernité: Conflit Islam Démocratie , Paris: Editions Albin Michel. Translated as Islam and Democracy: Fear of the Modern World , Mary Jo Lakeland (trans.), Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992.
Merrick, Teri, 2020, Helmholtz, Cohen, and Frege on Progress and Fidelity: Sinning Against Science and Religion , (Philosophical Studies in Contemporary Culture 27), Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-57299-0
Miller, Kenneth R., 1999 [2007], Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution , New York: Cliff Street Books. Reprinting, New York: Harper, 2007.
Moritz, Joshua M., 2011, “Evolution, the End of Human Uniqueness, and the Election of the Imago Dei ”, Theology and Science , 9(3): 307–339. doi:10.1080/14746700.2011.587665
Murphy, Nancey, 1995, “Divine Action in the Natural Order: Buridan’s Ass and Schrödinger’s Cat”, in Chaos and Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action (Volume 2) , Robert J. Russell, Nancey Murphy, and Arthur Peacocke (eds.), Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, pp. 325–358.
Norenzayan, Ara, 2013, Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Okasha, Samir, 2018, Agents and Goals in Evolution , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198815082.001.0001
Outler, Albert C., 1985, “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral—in John Wesley”, Wesleyan Theological Journal , 20(1): 7–18.
Paley, William, 1802 [2006], Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity , London: R. Faulder. Reprinted as Natural Theology , Matthew D. Eddy and David Knight (eds.), (Oxford World’s Classics), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart, 2002, “The Concept of Miracle”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science , 37(3): 759–762. doi:10.1111/1467-9744.00452
Peacocke, Arthur R., 1979, Creation and the World of Science: The Re-Shaping of Belief , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1984, Intimations of Reality: Critical Realism in Science and Religion , Greencastle, IN: DePauw University.
Pennock, Robert T., 1998, “The Prospects for a Theistic Science”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith , 50: 205–209.
Perry, John and Sarah Lane Ritchie, 2018, “Magnets, Magic, and Other Anomalies: In Defense of Methodological Naturalism”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science , 53(4): 1064–1093. doi:10.1111/zygo.12473
Peters, Ted and Martinez Hewlett, 2003, Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict, Conversation, and Convergence , Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
Philipse, Herman, 2012, God in the Age of Science? A Critique of Religious Reason , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697533.001.0001
Pitts, J. Brian, 2008, “Why the Big Bang Singularity Does Not Help the Kalām Cosmological Argument for Theism”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 59(4): 675–708. doi:10.1093/bjps/axn032
Plantinga, Alvin, 1993, Warrant and Proper Function , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195078640.001.0001
–––, 2000, Warranted Christian Belief , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195131932.001.0001
–––, 2011, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199812097.001.0001
Polkinghorne, John, 1998, Science and Theology: An Introduction , Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Popper, Karl, 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery , New York: Hutchinson.
Purzycki, Benjamin G. and Richard Sosis, 2022, Religion Evolving. Cultural, Cognitive, and Ecological Dynamics , Sheffield: Equinox.
Putz, Oliver, 2009, “Moral Apes, Human Uniqueness, and the Image of God”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science , 44(3): 613–624. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2009.01019.x
Richter, Daniel, Rainer Grün, Renaud Joannes-Boyau, Teresa E. Steele, Fethi Amani, Mathieu Rué, Paul Fernandes, Jean-Paul Raynal, Denis Geraads, Abdelouahed Ben-Ncer, Jean-Jacques Hublin, and Shannon P. McPherron, 2017, “The Age of the Hominin Fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and the Origins of the Middle Stone Age”, Nature , 546(7657): 293–296. doi:10.1038/nature22335
Rieux, Adrien, Anders Eriksson, Mingkun Li, Benjamin Sobkowiak, Lucy A. Weinert, Vera Warmuth, Andres Ruiz-Linares, Andrea Manica, and François Balloux, 2014, “Improved Calibration of the Human Mitochondrial Clock Using Ancient Genomes”, Molecular Biology and Evolution , 31(10): 2780–2792. doi:10.1093/molbev/msu222
Ritzinger, Justin R., 2013, “Dependent Co-evolution: Kropotkin’s Theory of Mutual Aid and its Appropriation by Chinese Buddhists”, Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal , 26: 89–112. Reprinted 2020 in Asian Religious Responses to Darwinism , C. Mackenzie Brown (ed.), (Sophia Studies in Cross-Cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures 33), Cham: Springer International Publishing, 319–336. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-37340-5_13
Rosenberg, Alex, 2014, “Disenchanted Naturalism” in Contemporary Philosophical Naturalism and its Implications , Bana Bashour and Hans D. Muller (eds.), London and New York: Routledge, pp. 17–36.
Russell, Robert, 2006, “Quantum Physics and the Theology of Non-Interventionist Objective Divine Action”, in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science , Philip Clayton and Zachary Simpson (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 579–595.
Russell, Robert, Nancey Murphy, and William Stoeger, S.J. (eds.), 2008, Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Twenty Years of Challenge and Progress , Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences.
Sarich, Vincent M. and Allan C. Wilson, 1967, “Immunological Time Scale for Hominid Evolution”, Science , 158(3805): 1200–1203. doi:10.1126/science.158.3805.1200
Saunders, Nicholas, 2002, Divine Action and Modern Science , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610035
Schliesser, Eric, 2012, “Newton and Spinoza: On Motion and Matter (and God, of Course): Newton and Spinoza”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 50(3): 436–458. doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.2012.00132.x
Schneider, John R., 2012, “The Fall of ‘Augustinian Adam’: Original Fragility and Supralapsarian Purpose”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science , 47(4): 949–969. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2012.01307.x
–––, 2020, Animal Suffering and the Darwinian Problem of Evil , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108767439
Smith, James K., 2017, “What Stands on the Fall? A Philosophical Exploration”, in Evolution and the Fall , William Cavanaugh and James K. Smith (eds.), Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, pp. 48–64.
Smith, Jonathan Z., 1998, “Religion, religions, religious”, in Critical Terms for Religious Studies , M. C. Taylor (ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 269–284.
Sollereder, Bethany, 2015, “A Modest Objection: Neo-Thomism and God as a Cause Among Causes”, Theology and Science , 13(3): 345–353. doi:10.1080/14746700.2015.1053762
Southgate, Christopher, 2008, The Groaning of Creation. God, Evolution and the Problem of Evil , Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Stark, Rodney, 1999, “Atheism, Faith, and the Social Scientific Study of Religion”, Journal of Contemporary Religion , 14(1): 41–62. doi:10.1080/13537909908580851
–––, 2004, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stenmark, Mikael, 2004, How to Relate Science and Religion: A Multidimensional Model , Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Subbarayappa, B.V., 2011, “Indic Religions” in Science and Religion around the World , John Hedley Brooke and Ron Numbers (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 195–209.
Swinburne, Richard G., 1968, “Miracles”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 18(73): 320–328. doi:10.2307/2217793
Tanzella-Nitti, Giuseppe, 2005, “The Two Books Prior to the Scientific Revolution”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith , 57(3): 225–248.
Taylor, C.A., 1996, Defining Science: A Rhetoric of Demarcation , Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Tennant, Frederick R., 1902, The Origin and Propagation of Sin , Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, 1971, “Christology and Evolution”, written 1933, collected in Comment je crois , Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1969. Translated in Christianity and Evolution , Rene Hague (trans.), San Diego: Harcourt, pp. 76–95.
Torrance, Thomas F., 1969, Theological Science , London: Oxford University Press.
Tylor, Edward Burnett, 1871, Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art, and Custom , London: John Murray.
Ungureanu, James, 2019, Science, Religion, and the Protestant Tradition: Retracing the Origins of Conflict, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
van Huyssteen, J. Wentzel, 1998, Duet or Duel? Theology and Science in a Postmodern World , London: SCM Press.
–––, 1999, The Shaping of Rationality: Towards Interdisciplinary in Theology and Science , Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
–––, 2006, Alone in the World? Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology , Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
van Inwagen, Peter, 2004, “The Argument from Evil”, in Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil , Peter van Inwagen (ed.), Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, pp. 55–73.
Vivekananda, Swami, 1904, “The Vedanta for the World”, in Aspects of the Vedanta , Madras: Natesan & Co, pp. 124–160.
Whewell, William, 1834, “On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences. By Mrs. Somerville”, Quarterly Review , 51: 54–68.
White, Andrew Dickson, 1896, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom , New York: Appleton.
White, Claire, 2021, An Introduction to the Cognitive Science of Religion. Connecting Evolution, Brain, Cognition and Culture, Abingdon & New York: Routledge.
Wildman, Wesley, 2008, “The Divine Action Project, 1988–2003”, in Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action: Twenty Years of Challenge and Progress , Robert Russell, Nancey Murphy, and William Stoeger (eds.), Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, pp. 133–176.
Worrall, John, 2004, “Science Discredits Religion”, in Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion , Michael L. Peterson and Raymond J. VanArragon (eds.), Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 59–72.
Clayton, Philip and Zachary Simpson (eds.), 2006, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199543656.001.0001
Dixon, Thomas, G. N. Cantor, and Stephen Pumfrey (eds.), 2010, Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fehige, Yiftach (ed.), 2016, Science and Religion: East and West , London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315659831
Harrison, Peter (ed.), 2010, The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521885386
McGrath, Alister, 2020, Science and Religion: A New Introduction , third edition, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stump, J. B. and Alan G. Padgett (eds.), 2012, The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity , Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118241455

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Brown, Malcolm, 2008, “Good Religion Needs Good science”, Church of England web site. [ Brown 2008 available online (archived) ].
Hackett, Conrad, 2015, “By 2050, India to Have World’s Largest Populations of Hindus and Muslims”, 21 April 2015, Pew Research Center. [ Hackett 2015 available online ].
Mitelman, Geoffrey A., 2011, “Why Judaism Embraces Science”, HuffPost , 20 June 2011; reposted on Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion web site. Mitelman 2011 available online
Pew Forum, 2021, “Most U.S. Jews Identify as Democrats, but Most Orthodox Are Republicans”, Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, 4 May 2021. [ Pew Forum 2021 available online ]
Plantinga, Alvin, “Religion and Science”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/religion-science/ >. [This was the previous entry on religion and science in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — see the version history .]
Wikipedia article on the relationship between religion and science .
National Center for Science Education: Science and Religion .
Evolution Resources by Kenneth R. Miller .

Comte, Auguste | cosmological argument | Hume, David: on religion | teleology: teleological arguments for God’s existence | theology, natural and natural religion

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Bryce Huebner, Evan Thompson, Meir-Simchah Panzer, Teri Merrick, Geoff Mitelman, Joshua Yuter, Katherine Dormandy, Isaac Choi, Egil Asprem, Johan De Smedt, Taede Smedes, H.E. Baber, Fabio Gironi, Erkki Kojonen, Andreas Reif, Raphael Neelamkavil, Hans Van Eyghen, and Nicholas Joll, for their feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Campus News
Campus Events
Devotionals and Forums
Readers’ Forum
Education Week
Breaking News
Police Beat
Video of the Day
Current Issue
August 2023
February 2023
January 2023
The Daily Universe Magazine, December 2022
The Daily Universe, November 2022
The Daily Universe Magazine, October 2022
The Daily Universe Magazine, September 2022 (Black 14)
The Daily Universe Magazine, March 2022
The Daily Universe Magazine, February 2022
The Daily Universe Magazine, January 2022
December 2021
The Daily Universe Magazine, November 2021
The Daily Universe, October 2021
The Daily Universe Magazine, September 2021
Hope for Lahaina: Witnesses of the Maui Wildfires
Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial
The Black 14: Healing Hearts and Feeding Souls
Camino de Santiago
A Poor Wayfaring Man
Palmyra: 200 years after Moroni’s visits
The Next Normal
Called to Serve In A Pandemic
The World Meets Our Campus
Defining Moments of BYU Sports
If Any of You Lack Wisdom

Campus events

Science and religion go hand in hand

Science and Mormonism have far too much in common to continue to behave as embittered enemies, BYU law professor John Welch said at the 12th annual Summerhays lecture last Thursday.

Welch, the Robert K. Thomas professor of law and editor-in-chief at BYU Studies, spoke of the importance of staying current on topics where science and religion intersect and of building bridges between science and religion in addition to his comments on the similarities between modern Mormon and scientific belief.

“It is time for us to call a peace treaty,” Welch said. “If there is a war between religion and science, it has gone on long enough.”

Welch pointed out that both Mormonism and science strive to obtain truth, giving the two a common goal.

“Anyone who shares this principal with us is our friend,” he said.

But, Welch said there is a need for humility in both Mormonism and science as well. Neither knows all truth, but must admit that some truths have yet to be revealed or understood. According to Welch, both science and religion attempt to answer old problems with new thinking, but use different tools to do so — with religion relying on revelation from the spirit and science on experimentation.

“Because no one tool can know all truth, no tool should be discarded,” Welch said.

Because these similarities are more important than the differences between the two, Welch said Mormons must work to bridge the gap between science and religion.

“Our ongoing task is to be building bridges,” he said, “even if it means laying ourselves down as a bridge over troubled waters, taking fire from both sides.”

To do so, Welch said Mormons must stop “shooting [them]selves in the foot with bad arguments,” and read current publications on the connection between LDS beliefs and modern science. Each of those in attendance received a list of recommended readings compiled by Welch.

Summerhays lectures, each of which deal with topics that intersect scientific and religious issues, take place annually at BYU. The series is sponsored by the Summerhays family, and is hosted by the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences.

Forgotten password

Please enter the email address that you use to login to TeenInk.com, and we'll email you instructions to reset your password.

Poetry All Poetry Free Verse Song Lyrics Sonnet Haiku Limerick Ballad
Fiction All Fiction Action-Adventure Fan Fiction Historical Fiction Realistic Fiction Romance Sci-fi/Fantasy Scripts & Plays Thriller/Mystery All Novels Action-Adventure Fan Fiction Historical Fiction Realistic Fiction Romance Sci-fi/Fantasy Thriller/Mystery Other
Nonfiction All Nonfiction Bullying Books Academic Author Interviews Celebrity interviews College Articles College Essays Educator of the Year Heroes Interviews Memoir Personal Experience Sports Travel & Culture All Opinions Bullying Current Events / Politics Discrimination Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking Entertainment / Celebrities Environment Love / Relationships Movies / Music / TV Pop Culture / Trends School / College Social Issues / Civics Spirituality / Religion Sports / Hobbies All Hot Topics Bullying Community Service Environment Health Letters to the Editor Pride & Prejudice What Matters
Reviews All Reviews Hot New Books Book Reviews Music Reviews Movie Reviews TV Show Reviews Video Game Reviews Summer Program Reviews College Reviews
Art/Photo Art Photo Videos
Summer Guide Program Links Program Reviews
College Guide College Links College Reviews College Essays College Articles

Summer Guide

College guide.

Song Lyrics

All Fiction

Action-Adventure
Fan Fiction
Historical Fiction
Realistic Fiction
Sci-fi/Fantasy
Scripts & Plays
Thriller/Mystery

All Nonfiction

Author Interviews
Celebrity interviews
College Articles
College Essays
Educator of the Year
Personal Experience
Travel & Culture

All Opinions

Current Events / Politics
Discrimination
Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking
Entertainment / Celebrities
Environment
Love / Relationships
Movies / Music / TV
Pop Culture / Trends
School / College
Social Issues / Civics
Spirituality / Religion
Sports / Hobbies

All Hot Topics

Community Service
Letters to the Editor
Pride & Prejudice
What Matters

All Reviews

Hot New Books
Book Reviews
Music Reviews
Movie Reviews
TV Show Reviews
Video Game Reviews

Summer Program Reviews

College Reviews
Writers Workshop
Regular Forums
Program Links
Program Reviews
College Links

Religion and Science Go Hand in Hand

In the past, humanity was convinced that the sun revolved around the Earth and that we were the absolute center of the universe. We can look back on that time now and wonder how we ever thought such things. We have discovered we are not the center of the universe, instead a mere speck of dust floating in empty space. With all of these amazing revelations over the years, humanity has creatively found answers to many mysteries. Today we still have many questions about our existence and often turn to different sources for a concrete answer. These sources include science and religion, and some might think that these two ideas don’t agree. Yet science and religion go hand in hand because they compliment each other, give a better understanding of our world, and both involve faith in finding answers.

To begin with, these two concepts give us a better understanding of our world. They can be compared to our overall vision capabilities and how we perceive our environment. As you close one eye and then close the other, you will see two different pictures. But when both eyes are open, they create a third dimensional view of the world that is the true image. Both images are correct, but a little skewed when they stand alone. With this analogy, having one eye open to religion and the other eye open to science will give us a better understanding of the world around us. Both aspects of religion and science strengthen each other. For example, “Science has benefited from religion in the past- as during the Reformation, [...] And religion has grown stronger in the past due to science- when Copernicus showed that the Earth was not the center of the universe,” (Braun, 74-75). Here, both values have been able to strengthen our understanding of the other in the past, and can still continue today. Many misconceptions about the world can be twisted easily into something close minded and hateful about either religion or science.

Another reason why religion and science go hand in hand is because they are complementary. Religion and science don’t consist of the same truths which in result makes them two different things. But both ideas are both examples of revelations given, that in turn strengthen each other where one leaves questions. An example of this is, “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. They are complementary,” (King). In this quote, Martin Luther King Jr. compares these two values, and addresses that their differences complete one another. Scientific research explains how certain aspects of the world work, such as the laws of gravity or survival of the fittest. While religion on the other hand explains why things are the way they are. There are many different faiths in the world, and most lead their followers to live righteous lives and to think ahead of long term benefits and consequences. Without one aspect or the other, we are either lost without a purpose and passion for life, or blind to the physical world we interact with. Together, religion and science create a more in depth perception of our environment and conscience. They don’t clash nor disagree, they instead complete the understanding of the other.

Lastly, both science and religion involve faith in finding answers. Although we cannot know all of the solutions to questions in our lifetime today, we can turn to sources of fact and feeling for guidance. President Russell M. Nelson, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints said, “In the meantime, “we are limited in our ability to comprehend all the mysteries of the world around us through scientific endeavors,” he says. “Likewise, we are limited in our understanding of the mysteries of God and His grand design for His children.”” (Stanton). President Nelson is a renowned heart surgeon who has a great understanding and love for both religion and science. His faith has held him steadfast to a righteous life, and his love for science has expanded his knowledge of the world. Both fields required him to trust and believe the answers presented to him as he has grown. We cannot know every possible answer during our lives here on Earth, and many become discouraged and harden their hearts because of these limits. We must have faith to believe we will receive the outcomes presented by science and religion together.

Despite all of this compatibility shown, people still tend to argue with one another over which idea is the true one to follow. These arguments include criticizing the inconsistencies of words of religious scripts, or judging the inconsistencies of scientific information. This topic is not at all black and white, it is instead various mixtures of grey that many people can interpret differently. Some people don’t believe in religion, and often wander with a loss of purpose in the world. Many won’t accept science and are simply blind to the possibilities. With all of these voices trying to be heard in our world, it’s hard to determine which to believe. But we don’t need to pick one side over the other. They are both unique and valuable forms of revelation that come together to form one singular unit of understanding. Both sides have always been open minded and nurturing, it’s only our choice to determine what we believe to be true.

In closing, religion and science are two different forms of revelation that go hand in hand. They provide a better understanding of our world while we spend our time here on Earth. They complement each other to expand our grasp on life, and involve faith and trust to find answers as we continue to look for guidance. We argue with each other over what is right and what is wrong, and in result we create more of a barrier between ourselves. But not everything in life will be separated exactly into what is right and what is not. Both religion and science contribute to our quality of life here on Earth, we don’t have to let one be overheard by the other. They are perfectly compatible and unitary in a world that tries to tell us they are not.

Works Cited:

King, Martin Luther. Strength to Love. Fortress, 2010.

Stanton, Alicia K. Science and Our Search for Truth.

Braun, Eric. Creationism versus Evolution. Greenhaven Press, 2006.

This was required for school

Share this on

Send to a friend.

Thank you for sharing this page with a friend!

Tell my friends

Choose what to email.

Which of your works would you like to tell your friends about? (These links will automatically appear in your email.)

Send your email

Delete my account, we hate to see you go please note as per our terms and conditions, you agreed that all materials submitted become the property of teen ink. going forward, your work will remain on teenink.com submitted “by anonymous.”, delete this, change anonymous status, send us site feedback.

If you have a suggestion about this website or are experiencing a problem with it, or if you need to report abuse on the site, please let us know. We try to make TeenInk.com the best site it can be, and we take your feedback very seriously. Please note that while we value your input, we cannot respond to every message. Also, if you have a comment about a particular piece of work on this website, please go to the page where that work is displayed and post a comment on it. Thank you!

Pardon Our Dust

Teen Ink is currently undergoing repairs to our image server. In addition to being unable to display images, we cannot currently accept image submissions. All other parts of the website are functioning normally. Please check back to submit your art and photography and to enjoy work from teen artists around the world!

How Can Spirituality and Science Can Go Hand in Hand?

Science is the empirical analysis of hypotheses backed up by evidence. So, it's fairly reliable. Yet, there are some phenomena that still can't be explained by science. One of those is psychic abilities. Indeed, one in three Americans claim that they have experienced a psychic moment according to a YouGov poll . Those who are spiritual await personal experience of something before committing it as a belief. So, is there a way for spirituality and science to go hand in hand?

Psychologist Bem reported to have found evidence that ESP (extrasensory perception) could be used to predict when a certain image would appear on a screen. His experiment involved a group of test subjects guessing whether or not an image would pop up behind a curtain on screen. In the study, there was a 53.7% chance that they guessed correctly. This gives some credence to the ability to predict what would come next. While there have been many other studies into such phenomena, few provide such interesting results as Bem's.

Deja-vu has also been studied by scientists in order to determine whether or not it is an example of us predicting events. Freud claimed it was a manifestation of unconscious fantasy, while others suggest it is merely a delay in our brain transferring information. Though others still are adamant it proves there is some element of sixth sense at play. Most people do have some anecdotal evidence of knowing something before it has happened.

One of the most interesting fortune telling examples is the psychic. Psychics, mediums, and clairvoyants tap into otherworldly knowledge to give us information about the deceased or advice on life. As TheCircle shows, there are plenty of psychics and clairvoyants making a living today. People rely on these expert psychic Readers in order to receive some spiritual guidance, and many people make return visits, happy with their results. Whether it is a Tarot Reader, clairvoyant, or medium, each one has a unique way of finding answers and fulfilment. And most who visit have an example of these experts knowing something they otherwise couldn't have done.

Following the teachings of our star signs - the set of characteristics assigned based on when we were born and where the planetary forces were strongest - is also popular. But is there any science behind that? Well, there is evidence that using star charts and specific methods to determine star signs is actually scientific. Researchers into the subject behave in a scientific manner and attempt to answers questions reinforced with evidence and provable facts.

It also leads to continuing research and discusses testable ideas, which indicate that while many might choose not to believe in them, they are of some scientific value. After all, not everyone has the same metabolism, some people survive without significant organs, and others have different reactions to drugs. So not all scientific things can be equally distributed across a population. The essence of being spiritual is believing what can be seen and experienced on a personal level, much as science is based around committing to fact that which can be tested.

While science hasn't given us any conclusive results, many people remain open-minded about psychic phenomena and the ability to use such abilities to divine our futures. Quantitative evidence may be light on the ground, but there is plenty of qualitative evidence to convince you that there is something about the greater consciousness that indicates psychic abilities are apparent.

Most Popular

Sungrazer Comet: SOHO-5008 Photobombed Historic Total Solar Eclipse Before Disintegrating Into Nothingness

Total Solar Eclipse Stretches Across North America From Mexico To Canada

UFO Allegedly Spotted Over Texas During Total Solar Eclipse; What Was It?

Secrets of the Blue Zones: Lessons From the Healthiest and Longest Living People

What Is Eclipse Sickness? Americans Reported Feeling Physical, Mental Changes Before Celestial Event

What Is Eclipse Sickness? Americans Report Feeling Physical, Mental Changes Before Celestial Event

Weirdest Species Nomenclature: Top 6 Animals With Unusual Scientific Names

Worm-Like Parasite Found Living in Woman’s Eye for Two Years; Ocular Pentastomiasis Likely Acquired From Crocodile Meat

300-Year-Old Medical Prosthesis Helped 18th-Century Man From Poland Live With Cleft Palate

Russia’s Angara-A5 Rocket Blasts Off Into Space From Far East Cosmodrome After Two Failed Launches

Nicholas Manella on Pioneering Leadership: The Tech Journey in Healthcare and Life Sciences

Subscribe to the science times.

Mysterious 'Surfboard UFO' Captured Whizzing Past the Moon; NASA Explains Sighting

1973 Alien Abduction in Mississippi: New Witness Reveals Encounter With Five-Foot Aliens Allegedly Scooping Up Fishermen; Netflix Show Features Bizarre Event

Giraffe-Sized Asteroid Skims Past Earth in Extreme Proximity; Next Closest Flyby May Happen in 70 Years

Coronium: Hypothetical Eclipse Element That Doesn’t Exist

WHAT IS STAND Our Mission Our Values Our Help Contact
WHAT WE FIGHT FOR Religious Freedom Religious Literacy Equality & Human Rights Inclusion & Respect Free Speech Responsible Journalism Corporate Accountability
RESOURCES Expert Studies Landmark Decisions White Papers FAQs Religious Freedom Resource Center Priest-Penitent Privilege Islamophobia Freedom of Religion & Human Rights Topic Index
HATE MONITOR Biased Media Propagandists Hatemongers False Experts Hate Monitor Blog
NEWSROOM News Media Watch Videos Blog
TAKE ACTION Combat Hate & Discrimination Champion Freedom of Religion Demand Accountability

Why Religion and Tolerance Must Go Hand in Hand

In the state of Utah, in a grand tabernacle, 10,000 faithful rise as the choir, 300 strong, sings a powerful plea to heaven.

At the same time, halfway around the world, a mother in famine-ravaged Somalia begs Allah to spare the life of her starving infant. Unlike the resonant volume of the choir, her prayers come in whispers.

In Ontario, Canada, a group of indigenous women of the Ojibwa nation pray together, not in words but in movements, their bangled costumes chiming in rhythm to the generations-old Jingle Dance.

The path taken by those who choose hate is the one true path to perdition.

Do the Christian prayers land? Are the Muslim mother’s quiet pleadings drowned out by the vaulting harmonies of the choir? Are words even necessary, as the Ojibwa dance their healing dance?

Whose supplications reach the Divine Presence? Is there even a Divine Presence? Does anyone know for sure? There are no pat answers to these questions, nor should there be.

Questions of faith are answered by faith and faith alone.

Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard wrote , “‘Faith’ and ‘belief’ do not necessarily surrender to logic: they cannot even be declared to be illogical. They can be things quite apart.”

A religion cannot use logic or evidence to prove itself, nor would it.

A religion cannot advocate for itself, nor should it.

A religion simply is.

And, to the shame of mankind, just as there is no logic in faith, so is there no logic used by those who hate it.

Hence, the path taken by those who choose hate is the one true path to perdition.

Hate has no part in any conversation about religion. Nor does suspicion, rumor or derision. The casual witticism dropped in cocktail chatter at the expense of some minority faith. The deluded podium poundings of this bigot or that demagogue urging the mob to show no mercy to the outsider, the stranger in strange clothing, the “other” who chants prayers in a different tongue. All these intolerances—little and big, from individual slight to community genocide—are the enemies of all religions—and so much so that the history of religious intolerance is a history of pain and death.

Some, most famously Beatle John Lennon , offer an “obvious” solution to the scourge of religious intolerance: no religion at all. The logic sounds simple enough: with no religion to hate, there’d be no hate.

But even one day without religion would plunge the world into chaos beyond imagining:

As 64 percent of the agencies committed to feeding the hungry are faith-based, countless millions would go hungry.

As 20 percent of our hospitals are affiliated with religious institutions, a healthcare crisis of staggering proportions would ensue.

As 45 million volunteers worldwide—or nearly half—represent one religious organization or another, disaster relief, daycare, and myriad community services would collapse, shattering the world’s infrastructure of care.

Add to that the absence of tens of billions of philanthropic dollars to needy children and families. And to that the wiping out of nearly one-fifth of America’s universities (sponsored, as they are, by religious institutions)—resulting in the waste of 2 million of our brightest minds, at a cost of over 35 billion dollars and untold harm to science, the humanities and the quality of human life itself—and you have a true apocalypse.

Mr. Hubbard, seeing the real threat of atomic apocalypse, wrote: “Materialistic science operating on the premise that Man came from mud only, that the mind is a queerly erroneous stimulus-response mechanism, that the human soul is a delusion, that God was a myth of some aberrated Mesopotamian, has presented us at last with the immediate and real threat of Man’s extinction as a species.”

We need religion, faith—the still, small voice of our thoughts—that guides us when logic fails, or when illogic takes hold of us.

A more viable solution to the problem of religious intolerance would simply be religious tolerance. “Imagine” what would happen were we to follow the example, not of John Lennon, but of his fellow songwriter, Leonard Cohen —an observant Jew, Buddhist monk, and serious student of the teachings of many faiths, including Scientology and Christianity—who famously said, “I’ve never met a religion I didn’t like.”

The Quran teaches : “If God had pleased, he would have made all mankind one religion. But He hath done otherwise” (5:48). Muhammad incorporated these words when he told his countrymen: “Wilt thou force men to believe when belief can come only from God?” He even drew up a charter for the holy city of Medina—the birthplace of Islam—guaranteeing freedom of religion and religious tolerance for all. These hallowed concepts that comprise the first words of our own Bill of Rights were laid down as law, then, by the Prophet a millennium earlier than the founders of the United States.

The Prophet understood, when he included the welcoming of all faiths as the law of the land, that our thoughts are our most intimate possessions, and the most precious of these are the ones labeled “beliefs.” They get us up in the morning and carry us through our day. They comfort us when logic tells us all is lost and heighten our joy when fortune blesses us.

Religion, according to writer Yuval Noah Harari, is our greatest invention , a man-made evolutionary step born not from physical survival but from spiritual need. Possibly we’re still getting used to it. Possibly we need just a little more time and patience.

After all, it’s only been 45,000 years.

Our Mission
Religious Freedom
Religious Literacy
Equality & Human Rights
Inclusion & Respect
Free Speech
Responsible Journalism
Corporate Accountability
Expert Studies
Landmark Decisions
White Papers
Religious Freedom Resource Center
Priest-Penitent Privilege
Islamophobia
Freedom of Religion & Human Rights
Topic Index
Biased Media Propagandists
Hatemongers
False Experts
Hate Monitor Blog
Media Watch
Combat Hate & Discrimination
Champion Freedom of Religion
Demand Accountability

Mail: [email protected] | Phone: +91 892-112-8830

Why science and spirituality should go hand-in-hand .

At present, everybody is living a fast-paced life. There are huge developments taking place and you need to keep a track with all the recent developments to keep yourself updated with what is happening around you. There is rapid development in technology and people are becoming very much dependent on it. Science has proved to be a boon for mankind. Your lifestyle would have been stale without science. However, the modern lifestyle also has a negative impact on you which in turn makes you lose your connectivity with yourself and you tend to neglect the spiritual aspect of your life.

Now let’s look at the scientific as well as the spiritual view of life.

The Scientific View of Life

The scientific view of life is generally an objective view. It is based on facts. It is not influenced by interpretations or personal beliefs. It takes into account the external things and nothing related to personal feelings or thoughts. Scientific view in life will make you consider things in a detached, fact-based and impartial way.

A Spiritual View of Life

On the other hand, the spiritual view is a subjective view. Sensing your life is subjective. It is influenced by your thoughts, feelings, opinions, tastes, etc. Opinions are not based on facts, but depends on choices and experiences. Spirituality is your experience with your inner self. It makes you realize your purpose in life. After having seen the two different views of life, let us see the impact of science on your life.

Role of Science in today’s life

Science has influenced almost all the activities of your life. It has improved human lives from personal comfort to global issues. The moment you get up in the morning till you go to bed at night, you are dependent only on science. Your cosmetic products, electrical appliances, vehicles, gadgets, etc. It is all science. You cannot imagine your life without it as it has made your life easier. Vast advancements in the field of medicine have increased the life expectancy and have reduced the mortality rate. Improvement in chemical fertilizers has increased the productivity of the farms. Communication and transportation have become simpler. Man is now able to explore space because of the developments in technology science.

However, it comes with disadvantages too. Too much dependence on machines has made us mechanical. You are becoming less sensible as you are losing on your natural talents and capacity to think. Also, the natural products which you used for your personal care are replaced by the chemical products which has in turn taken us away from nature. Apart from this, the fiendish weapons like a missile, nuclear bombs, etc. Have caused a threat to the world. Despite so many developments taking place for the sake of making your life easier and better, you still have an endless list of problems on your table.

Present day Problems in Life

Life comes with ups and downs. There will be problems in your life which you cannot avoid. There can be problems relating to health, finance, relationships, career, etc. And you need to analyze them to find solutions. However, in your busy schedules, you are not able to give enough time to yourself to solve your own problems and they get accumulated day by day and one fine day you find yourself in a total mess.

These days it is common to see people, spending most of the time on gadgets to run away from their problems. Social networking is good, but it has negative impacts too. You exhibit your life and express your feelings on social media. You start judging yourself based on the number of ‘likes’ and ‘comments’ you get. In this process, you lose connectivity with yourself and find pleasure in material things. It is important to know what opinion you have about yourself than what others feel about you.

Nowadays, mostly both the parents are working and as we know, there is tremendous work pressure. They do not have time to spend with their children. On weekends, instead of spending time with them, they choose to take a rest by handing over them the gadgets for playing games or watching videos which is absolutely wrong. Gadgets cause distraction and children ruin their vision at a young age. Also, it hinders their mental development and creativity and the child will neither connect to self nor to the parents. The child will never be able to explore his/her potential.

Due to high work pressure and long working hours, even at the time of sickness, you need to stand on your toes to work. Hence, you rely on painkillers, even for a normal headache, fever or body pain. Though painkiller is an effective scientific invention giving immediate relief, it is not a good choice. You could be easily recovered after resting your body for a while, but still, you tend to choose the shortcut and make a bad choice. Also, these days people prefer instant food to home cooked food. This is due to the lack of time to cook in your busy schedules. Science has made your life easier, but your mind should be educated enough to make the right choices.

Here, instead of labeling it as ‘disadvantages of science’ it would be more appropriate to call it as ‘misuse of science’. Science doesn’t come with demerits, but it is us who make the wrong choices. Science is a boon, but wrong choices and misuse can turn it to be a curse to mankind. In order to make the right choices, it is very essential that we understand your mind.

Understanding your Mind

It is vital that you build a connection with yourself. For that, you need to understand your mind. For building a deep connection with your inner body, it is essential that you spare some time from your routine and spend it in solitude. Unless you have a connection with yourself, you cannot understand your body.

Lack of understanding your mind can complicate your life. It can make you think of questions like what is the purpose of your life. It can create too many confusions in your mind and can weaken your capability to take any decision. This can create stress in your life which can further lead to losing your confidence.

Once you are able to understand your mind and connect to your soul, you will understand your body in a better way rather than just mechanically going about. This will also help you in keeping the illnesses away. You need to sit in peace for some time to ask yourself several questions like - ‘Am I doing the right thing? What is more important to me- my work or my family? For whom do I earn? Am I doing enough for the ones whom I love? Am I taking care of my body? Is success so important to me even at the cost of my principles and ethics? Am I utilizing the precious time wisely?. The answer which is a combination of your mind and soul would be the best suited for you. Thus, for living a better and a stress-free life, it is essential to understand your mind and to walk the path of spirituality. Let us understand the role of spirituality in your life.

The Role of Spirituality in this Connection

Spirituality will help you to connect to yourself and know what you are and what you exactly want in your life. Spirituality will teach you to find peace and happiness in watching nature. It will make you more ethical and considerate towards other living beings.

When you feel like running away from your problems, spirituality will teach you to spend time in solitude instead of spending time on gadgets. If you are unwell, then it will make you connect to your inner body and you will understand what your body needs. If your body is tired, then your inner voice will ask you to keep the painkillers away and to just rest your body for a while.

Spirituality will guide you in making choices which will nourish your soul. At Living in Wellbeing, we organize various workshops and programs for adults as well as children to provide a guidance on understanding the concept of Spirituality which will enrich your spiritual journey, thus making you strong enough to face the challenges of your life However, the role of science in our life is equally significant. If everyone combines the miraculous science with the power of spirituality, the world will be a beautiful place to live.

Science and Spirituality

Just as spirituality is essential for your well-being, science is equally important for your progress. Science shows you the objective aspect of life and spirituality shows you the one associated with emotions. Combining both can help you to strike a balance in your life. Science without heart is destruction, but when it is combined with compassion, it can be a blessing. Practicality in life along with the ability to accept whatever that comes in your way will make you live a sorted life.

To summarize, science and spirituality, both are significant in your life. Spirituality is the science of life. Just as there is technology outside your body, there is a technology within our body and you need to find a meeting point of both. Thus, science and spirituality should go hand in hand.

Happiness & Harmony In Life

Healthy Living Tips for All

Life Hacks for Life Change

Motivational & Inspirational Tips

Stress-Free Life - Useful Tips

Wellness & Wellbeing for All

View all categories & articles, read related recent articles.

Health Benefits Of Broccoli Rabe

If you are a fan of French cuisine, then you might be familiar with the leafy vegetable, …

What Are The Best Ways To Inspire Or Motivate People?

Motivation has always been a vital part of mental healthcare. People with higher …

Unbelievable Health Benefits Of Star Apple

Star apple is an exotic fruit that has its origin in the Caribbean. Today, most tropical …

How Would You Define “Freedom”?

Freedom is a very powerful word. In this fast-moving world, have you ever given a thought …

Health & Nutritional Benefits Of Broccoli

Broccoli is a very nutritious vegetable belonging to the cabbage family. The florets of …

What’s The Best Way To Resist Peer Pressure?

Peer pressure has been a big issue among adolescents and young adults. Even after working …

Why do science and faith have to go hand in hand?

Science and faith have to go hand in hand because science provides focus and focus helps us solve questions, discover the truth and conceive inventions. faith provides perspective and perspective helps us see how our creations and discoveries go on to impact a combination vital for the success of societies. if the two function true to their roles, they will work together for the betterment of humanity..

do you agree with industrialisation and urbanisation go hand in hand

Lift your science book in your hand. Do you do any work?

Election 2024
Entertainment
Newsletters
Photography
Personal Finance
AP Investigations
AP Buyline Personal Finance
Press Releases
Israel-Hamas War
Russia-Ukraine War
Global elections
Asia Pacific
Latin America
Middle East
Election Results
Delegate Tracker
AP & Elections
March Madness
AP Top 25 Poll
Movie reviews
Book reviews
Personal finance
Financial Markets
Business Highlights
Financial wellness
Artificial Intelligence
Social Media

Conservative Christians praise Trump’s anti-abortion record but say he’s stopped short of the goal

FILE - Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gestures during a speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., Jan. 18, 2016. For conservative, anti-abortion Christians, former President Donald Trump delivered in four years what no other Republican before him had been able to do. He transformed the U.S. Supreme Court into a conservative majority that would go on to overturn Roe v. Wade. (AP Photo/Steve Helber, File)

Copy Link copied

For conservative, anti-abortion Christians, former President Donald Trump delivered in four years what no other Republican before him had been able to do: A conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court that would go on to overturn Roe v. Wade, a Holy Grail of the movement.

With abortion rights now controlled by each state, rather than legalized nationwide by the 1973 court ruling, Trump made clear Monday that he would not be leading the push for a federal abortion ban as he vies for his second term in the Oval Office. Some anti-abortion religious leaders criticized his approach, while others gave thanks for Trump’s past anti-abortion wins and vowed to keep pressing for federal restrictions.

“Roe is done. The opportunity to protect life is at hand,” Brent Leatherwood, who leads the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm, said in a statement.

Candidates who profess the anti-abortion views of the voters they’re wooing “should be articulating a robust vision for establishing a true culture of life where babies are saved, mothers are served, and families are supported,” he said. “Anything short of that is not a serious attempt to court pro-life voters.”

FILE - Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks at a Get Out The Vote rally in Conway, S.C., Feb. 10, 2024. Trump still says he's proud that the Supreme Court justices he nominated overturned Roe v. Wade. Yet he avoided questions about whether he would support a national abortion ban should he return to the White House. Trump tried to put the issue to rest on Monday, April 8, in a video statement where Trump did not call for a national abortion ban, disappointing religious conservatives. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)

The Trump campaign did not respond to The Associated Press’ request for comment. But in the video posted Monday on his Truth Social site, Trump backed the patchwork of state abortion laws that followed the 2022 Supreme Court decision upending federal abortion protections. Trump took credit for the outcome, a historic ruling celebrated by his evangelical base.

“Many states will be different. Many will have a different number of weeks or some will have more conservative than others and that’s what they will be,” Trump said. “At the end of the day it’s all about will of the people.”

Ed Stetzer, dean of Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, categorized Trump’s approach as functionally a pro-states’ rights, pro-abortion access position, and fellow anti-abortion Christians should recognize it for the political move that it is.

“Convictions about life are better than following the political winds, and it appears that President Trump’s convictions have given way to the political winds,” said Stetzer, who thinks it is too early to tell if this would cause some conservative Christians not to vote for him.

As Republican-led states have outlawed or further restricted abortion, Democrats believe the fight over abortion rights helps them at the polls. The issue will be on some state ballots again this year.

For many anti-abortion advocates, voting for President Joe Biden, who is vowing to restore Roe v. Wade’s protections if re-elected, is not an option. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, one of the nation’s biggest anti-abortion advocacy groups, rebuked Trump’s position, but remains committed to defeating Biden and congressional Democrats.

“We are deeply disappointed in President Trump’s position. Unborn children and their mothers deserve national protections and national advocacy from the brutality of the abortion industry,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, a Catholic and president of the organization, in a statement.

“Saying the issue is ‘back to the states’ cedes the national debate to the Democrats,” she said.

The Faith & Freedom Coalition, an evangelical advocacy group founded by conservative activist Ralph Reed, said in a statement that it still plans to contact millions of voters of faith between now and the election to make sure they know where the current president stands on abortion: “Biden and the far Left are the real extremists, and their radical position on abortion is not only morally repugnant but is way outside mainstream.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a statement that he is pushing for federal restrictions on abortion and for former President Trump, if reelected, to reverse Biden administration policies that expand abortion access.

“I applaud President Trump for the work he has done, but that work is not over,” he said.

Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

IMAGES

A Speech on "Religion and Science Can Go Hand in Hand."
A Speech on "Religion and Science Can Go Hand in Hand."
Can science and religion go hand in hand?
Ray Bradbury Quote: “Science and religion have to go hand in hand with
Science and Religion Essay
Simon Singh: Religion and Science Shake Hands

VIDEO

Dr. Michio Kaku talks about Science and Religion #scientist
🚨🗣️Fear & Respect Go Hand & Hand 🤝
God, Religion & Science By Ebrahim Victory Part 3
Significance of World Hand Hygiene Day : Dr. Landry Kabego
What Really Matters By His Holiness Radhanath Swami
Science or Religion

COMMENTS

How religion and science can go hand in hand: Opinion
Science explores the how of life. It utilizes the scientific method of observation to understand the mechanism by which things are as they are. Religion explores the why of life — not how things ...
A Speech on "Religion and Science Can Go Hand in Hand."
A Speech on "Religion and Science Can Go Hand in Hand.". As scientists has proven that all the living beings existence in this world, which the people, who are the believer of religion should accept as well. Like that, the people, who are the believers of science also, should accept that people have strong religious faiths regarding various ...
A complex God: why science and religion can co-exist
On the other hand, the existence of a God providing free will to humans requires the existence of science. Otherwise we could only ever operate at the whim of God. Science and religion go hand in ...
On the Intersection of Science and Religion
Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2011 and 2012 that examined the views of Muslims found that, in most regions, half or more said there was no conflict between religion and science, including 54% in Malaysia (Muslims in Singapore were not surveyed). Three-in-ten Malaysian Muslims said there is a conflict between science and religion; the share of Muslims around the world who ...
Debate: Can Religion and Science Co-exist?
Religion and science are indeed incompatible. Religion and science both offer explanations for why life and the universe exist. Science relies on testable empirical evidence and observation. Religion relies on subjective belief in a creator. Only one explanation is correct. The other must be discarded.
science, religion can walk hand in hand
2000 •. Taner Serdar. There is a widespread assumption that science and religion are incompatible with each other; it may be acceptable for a scientist to practise religion, but--it is believed--this should be seen as despite, not because of his or her scientific profession and knowledge. Such an assumption is wrong.
Religion and Science
This entry provides an overview of the topics and discussions in science and religion. Section 1 outlines the scope of both fields, and how they are related. Section 2 looks at the relationship between science and religion in five religious traditions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. Section 3 discusses contemporary topics ...
Science, religion go hand-in-hand
Chicago - Science and religion can mix easily in the United States, a relatively religious country, a survey released on Sunday found. The study by Rice University, in Texas, polled more than 10 ...
Science, religion do go hand-in-hand
Science, religion do go hand-in-hand. Recently, Julie Payette, the new Governor General of Canada, created a minor furor when she addressed the Canadian Science Policy Conference in Ottawa. She ...
Religion and science can go hand in hand
Dear Dr. Graham: Are science and religion opposed to each other? I'll be entering college in a few weeks, and I hope to become a doctor someday. But I'm a
Science and religion go hand in hand
Jack Welch speaks on religion and science on Thursday, September 22, 2011 in the Harold B. Lee Library. "It is time for us to call a peace treaty," Welch said. "If there is a war between ...
Religion and Science Go Hand in Hand
In closing, religion and science are two different forms of revelation that go hand in hand. They provide a better understanding of our world while we spend our time here on Earth. They complement ...
Religion and Science: A Brief Introduction to the Great Debate
Synopsis. Religion versus science is a fascinating topic of debate for centuries with inconclusive results. The scientific community has constantly dealt with the puzzle of why and how religious ...
Can Religion and STEM go Hand in Hand?
A simple look at the classrooms at GCU reinforce the idea that the two can go hand in hand, whether by conscious partitioning or by seeking common ground. Grand Canyon University's College of Science, Engineering and Technology offers a STEM-focused education that nurtures and supports a Christian worldview. To learn more about us, visit our ...
Here's How Science and Spirituality Go Hand-In-Hand
If it takes a minimum of 6-7 years to become a qualified scientist, then spirituality is the same. Though it may not take 7 years, it does take concerted effort and time to develop spiritual awareness and comprehension. It's okay to be skeptical, but if you can acknowledge the notion that spiritual awareness takes time and effort to learn ...
Religion, science can go hand in hand if they're properly understood
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Science and Spirituality
Science is one of the few things in which one has to go in for accuracy of thought and accuracy of handling. Those who go for higher education are from middle classes. They have almost lost the use of their hands. The secret and pleasure of science cannot be used or understood if a body does not use his hands.
Religion and scientific education: hand in hand, in the form of
This paper sets out to provide an overview on coordination of religion & science, and their real meaning in life of human being. Religion is a human activity (Dow, 2007) and a matter of belief and practice, as a product of human mind (Albert Einstein, 1930). It is a primary, essential universal social phenomenon which seriously concerns almost every human being (Ambedkar, 1957). Religious ...
How Can Spirituality and Science Can Go Hand in Hand?
The essence of being spiritual is believing what can be seen and experienced on a personal level, much as science is based around committing to fact that which can be tested. While science hasn't ...
Why Religion and Tolerance Must Go Hand in Hand
A religion cannot use logic or evidence to prove itself, nor would it. A religion cannot advocate for itself, nor should it. A religion simply is. And, to the shame of mankind, just as there is no logic in faith, so is there no logic used by those who hate it. Hence, the path taken by those who choose hate is the one true path to perdition.
Science, religion do go hand-in-hand
Science, religion do go hand-in-hand She praised scientific progress and achievement and castigated those who clung to pernicious and outmoded ideas, including militant religious fundamentalism.
Why Science and Spirituality Should Go Hand-In-Hand
Role of Science in today's life. Science has influenced almost all the activities of your life. It has improved human lives from personal comfort to global issues. The moment you get up in the morning till you go to bed at night, you are dependent only on science. Your cosmetic products, electrical appliances, vehicles, gadgets, etc. It is ...
Why do science and faith have to go hand in hand?
Solution. Science and faith have to go hand in hand because Science provides focus and focus helps us solve questions, discover the truth and conceive inventions. Faith provides perspective and perspective helps us see how our creations and discoveries go on to impact a combination vital for the success of societies. If the two function true to ...
Conservative Christians press Trump to do more on abortion
For conservative, anti-abortion Christians, former President Donald Trump delivered in four years what no other Republican before him had been able to do: A conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court that would go on to overturn Roe v. Wade, a Holy Grail of the movement. With abortion rights now controlled by each state, rather than legalized nationwide by the 1973 court ruling, Trump made clear ...