In defence of religion

Much has been said about religion being the stumbling block of progress. Religion, in their words, restraints people in a time past, in a season long expired. It locks people in a worldview that revolves around acceptance and is devoid of intellectual curiosity. It breeds Copenhagen interpretations and solipsist viewpoints.

However, as Einstein so aptly describes, the pursuit of science is like entering a library. Each book picked up had to have been written by someone. Each new physical law had to have been instituted by some higher being. Science is merely the discovery of all these.

Does religion then stump science? Nay, but it is science that stumps religion. Religion existed before the proliferation of science. Science stormed onto the scene staking claim to the ideological landscape, convinced that religion had to go. Yet, many of the founding Fathers of scientific theories were themselves staunch believers in a greater being. Einstein, having found that reality was all but a serious of random quantum collapses and decoherence, made his famous quote that God could not be merely playing dice with mankind. This fuelled him to search tirelessly for another answer to the seemingly random nature of reality. In so doing, he co-discovered the scientific theory of non-locality, named the EPR Paradox after the three discoverers. As Einstein exemplifies, science can easily co-exist with religion. For while one proclaims to be truth, the other strives to uncover truth.

In fact, the union of science and religion has already seen much evidence. For example, the Bible dictates that land should be left fallow every seventh year or be cursed with poor harvest season after season. In response, people have turned to fertilisers. For a while, mankind seemed to have conquered God. However, as is seen today, much of the world faces a devastating problem of widespread desertification and loss of arable land. And the irony is that while science tried to stamp out religion via the introduction of fertilisers, science has similarly endorsed religion by affirming the curses.

One of the pro-science arguments have always been that science is backed by mathematics and observations. Problems with this arise when we consider that mathematics itself is a science. To define science as being backed by science is then clearly tautological and foolish. And what of observation? It is similarly defined via science. Using the five senses, observations can be scientifically made. However, there is no way to ascertain that what you see is what I am seeing. As the rational dentist would proclaim, how does he know that the contortion of your face muscles indicate the same feeling he attributes to pain? Clearly, the scientific definition of truth as that being measured by the five senses is insufficient.

Why then does science so fervently oppose religion? Surely a balance is all that is required. For while there have been many documented cases of stubborn religious people unwilling to accept a new way to view the world, there have been many cases also of scientists falling too deeply into their scientific fervour to the extent of insane obsession.

Ultimately, we are led to question what religion truly is. And if faith is merely all it takes, is not the belief in science a type of religion in itself?