Scientific Religion

Is religion compatible with science?

Without being a troll it is possible to ask now for the definition of science and religion. This is because these terms are extremely broad. For example are we talking about a hard science like chemistry or a soft science like psychology?

Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor, exactitude, and objectivity. Roughly speaking, the natural sciences (e.g. physics, biology, astronomy) are considered “hard”, whereas the social sciences (e.g. psychology, sociology, political science) are usually described as “soft”.Wikipedia 2021-10-24

The issue here is perceived methodological rigor. If we state that hard sciences are sciences that use the scientific method and experiments to test theories, then we are stating that hard sciences include

• producing testable predictions
• performing controlled experiments
• relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models
• a high degree of accuracy and objectivity
• higher levels of consensus
• faster progression of the field,
• greater explanatory success
• cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.

The implication here is that while the scientific method may be applied in soft sciences, it is the rigorous application and reliance upon the scientific method that separates hard and soft sciences.

Thus let us define “science” here as in relation to the use of the scientific method. We thus separate out the subjective bias of physicalism. It is an error to state that hard science only ever deals with the physical. It is rather a theory or hypothesis that only the physical exists as a result of a scientist's experience (usually heavily focused on physical experiments). But it is not a requirement of the application of the scientific method.

Thus the question is really more along the lines of how religion holds up when the scientific method is applied.

However there is another side of this story above; religion. Religion itself is not an examination of cause from a standpoint of objectivity, as the scientist would say “I do not know what this is” first and then attempt an explanatoin. Au contraire the religious person states “I do know what this is” and therefore does not require experimental evidence to attempt an explanation. Extended until the belief in God as an example, the scientist rejects the positive assertion that there is a God and states “I do not know;” and then, given no observation or experiment states “therefore God does not exist;” while the religious person states “I believe” in the absence of observation or experiment.

Thus we see, from the religious standpoint, the failure of science to adequately address religion:

• 1. In their statement “I do not know,” they are rejecting the positive assertion (that there is a God). This is in fact not objective.
• 2. It is a failure of science to predispose that the religious viewpoint itself is false simply because it does not require evidence.
• 3. Therefore, science attempts to ignore or deny the religious narrative and will often come to suprisingly erronous conclusions over the nature (or meaning) of religion, religious texts, etc.

It is precisely this “approach from the outside” method which will forever doom science to never having a basis for their statements; they will never be able to admit a belief without evidence (i.e. the revelation of God) and therefore they will always and forever be only guessing at what the truth possibly could be.

The religious person on the other hand believes that since they have a direct revelation from God, the creator, that they have the best possible information – an even better explanation than science can provide.

Thus on one hand it appears that religion and science cannot be reconciled.

• https://www.npr.org/2015/08/28/435416046/research-results-often-fail-to-be-replicated-researchers-say