On the Relationship Between Science and Faith

Does science remove the need for God? This age-old question is a point of contention for many, as the rise of atheism in the eighteenth century marked a gradation toward humanity using science—rather than an omniscient God—to fill the gaps between what is known and what is not known. Can science and faith exist in harmony, or are they doomed to eternal conflict?

The American paleontologist and historian of science Stephen Gould proposes the concept of non-overlapping magisteria, which is the idea that science and religion occupy completely different domains; that the two cultural systems do not, in fact, overlap.¹ Science’s dominion presides over the empirical realm, where facts are deduced through experimentation and observation; religion’s dominion presides over the intangible realm of morality and ethicality. Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626 AD) agreed to this segregation of authority. He states that we “do not presume, by the contemplation of nature to attain to the mysteries of God. . . . only let men beware . . . that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together.”²

Galileo, one of the greatest scientific minds of the Scientific Revolution, pointed out that nature itself is a demonstration of divinity rather than a remedy for it. He states:

[I]t is necessary for the Bible, in order to be accommodated to the understanding of every man, to speak many things which appear to differ from the absolute truth so far as the bare meaning of the words is concerned. But Nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men. . . . For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature’s actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible.³

It is important to note that, despite the adversity he faced from the Inquisition, Galileo remained a devout Catholic until his death in 1642.

Another point of significant contention rests with the biblical literalist view that evolution stands in direct opposition to Creation; but Gould discusses the Pope’s decree that the theory of evolution is completely compatible with the Catholic church’s worldview. Indeed, several theories attempt to reconcile the disparity between the scientific truth of evolution and the theological truth of Creation. Among them is day-age theory, which posits that the “days” described in the Bible’s first chapter are not 24-hour days, but in fact long periods spanning millennia. Another theory—the analogical day—characterizes Genesis 1 as an analogy “between God’s work and human work,” where the “use of the word day for both God and man establishes an analogy, not an identity.”⁴

Dixon states that ‘science’ and ‘religion’ are “both hazy categories with blurry boundaries.”⁵ Science and religion can be seen as two entirely different sources of truth; but despite their domains of non-overlapping territory, the English theoretical physicist John Polkinghorne argues that there is, in fact, some common ground between the two, in that they “both make a critical realist evaluation of their encounter with their very different subject matters,” and he goes on to state that we must “attempt a bit of intellectual daring and, above all, we have to be prepared to listen and learn from each other, showing mutual tolerance and acceptance in doing so.”⁶

The relationship between science and religion is incredibly complex, but it certainly doesn’t have to be in perpetual conflict. The brilliant Carl Sagan writes, “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality,” and that the notion that “science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”⁷