In this blog post, I’ll compare the historical development of science and religion (faith), examine the ways in which they resemble each other, and reflect on the perception in modern society that science is accepted as absolute truth.
Science and religion have long been perceived as opposing forces. However, if we examine how these two domains have developed throughout human history, we can discover surprising similarities.
Long ago, people observed natural phenomena and believed that the gods were angry; they worshiped nature itself as a sacred entity. Furthermore, shamans and priests—who were considered closest to the gods and served as messengers of their will—led their communities and wielded great authority.
Over time, various folk religions centered on the worship of nature emerged, and later, major religions arose that believed in one or multiple deities, such as God, Allah, and Vishnu. These religious groups regarded their own beliefs as absolute truth and sometimes rejected or persecuted those who followed other religions. Furthermore, religious leaders—such as priests, clerics, and monks—guided the religious lives of their followers with religious authority.
Later, humanity developed science, the discipline dedicated to understanding the laws of nature. Scientists sought to explain natural phenomena through experimentation and observation, and they adopted a cautious or skeptical attitude toward claims that had not been verified by scientific methods. Furthermore, scientists gained high levels of social trust and authority, assuming the role of educating citizens about science and conveying new knowledge.
Folk beliefs from an era for which no records even exist evolved into major religions, and as science subsequently grew rapidly, it has become the core knowledge system guiding all aspects of modern society. Of course, religion and science coexist even today, but in modern society, science plays a central role in various fields such as politics, industry, medicine, and technology.
In this article, I will categorize the development of scientific theories into three broad types and compare examples of each with the development of religion. Through this, I aim to critically examine the modern societal perspective that views science solely as an absolute and rational truth, completely distinct from religion.
Science refers to a body of knowledge that explains and systematizes natural phenomena through observation, experimentation, and verifiable methods. Faith, on the other hand, refers to trust and belief in an absolute being or value. At first glance, science and faith appear to be completely different concepts. However, in my view, there are clearly similarities between the two domains.
Before explaining this, let’s first examine how scientific theories develop. Scientific theories are constantly accumulating, being revised, and evolving, and the process by which new scientific theories emerge can be broadly divided into three types.
The first type involves supplementing and expanding existing theories.
The second type involves presenting a new paradigm that conflicts with existing theories.
Third, there are cases where a new theory pioneers a new field of research rather than directly competing with the existing framework.
An example of the first type—supplementing and expanding existing theories—is the development of acid-base theory.
The early Arrhenius acid-base theory defined substances that release H⁺ in aqueous solution as acids and those that release OH⁻ as bases. However, this theory alone could not explain all acids and bases. Subsequently, the Brønsted–Lowry acid-base theory significantly broadened its scope by defining substances that release H⁺ as acids and those that accept H⁺ as bases. Nevertheless, some phenomena remained unexplained, and eventually, the Lewis acid-base theory defined substances that accept an electron pair as acids and those that donate an electron pair as bases, thereby enabling a broader explanation of acids and bases.
Scientists conduct research from various angles to refine and complete existing theories, sharing and verifying each other’s findings through a collaborative process. This process bears some resemblance to how, within a single major religion, various sects with differing interpretations and doctrines advance the religious system through discussion and interpretation.
For example, there are attempts to interpret the contents of the Bible from new perspectives or to explain specific doctrines more precisely by comparing various religious texts. Of course, the purposes of these activities differ: in science, they aim to gain verification and consensus within the scientific community, whereas in religion, they aim to further solidify faith and doctrine.
“Creation science” is often cited as an example of this. Creation science is an attempt to provide a scientific explanation for the religious belief in creation; however, the current scientific community classifies it as pseudoscience rather than science, on the grounds that it does not meet the criteria of verifiable scientific methodology.
Furthermore, some religious groups propose new interpretations based on existing Christian doctrines and develop their own distinct doctrines. This process can also be viewed as an example, as it involves ongoing diverse interpretations and debates surrounding existing doctrines.
As an example of the second type—cases that conflict with existing theories—we can cite Ptolemy’s geocentric model and Copernicus’s heliocentric model.
The geocentric model systematized by Ptolemy was accepted as the standard theory in astronomy for a long time, dating back to ancient times. This theory could predict the positions of planets and stars with considerable accuracy and aligned well with the worldview of the time, which held that humans and the Earth were the center of the universe. For these reasons, many people did not question this system for a long time.
However, as time passed, astronomical observation techniques advanced and observational data accumulated, leading to the discovery of discrepancies between the actual motions of celestial bodies and the existing theory that were difficult to explain. Rather than abandoning the existing system, astronomers of the time continued to modify the theory by adding elements such as epicycles and eccentric circles to resolve these discrepancies. Although adjustments were made repeatedly whenever discrepancies with new observational results arose, the geocentric model became an increasingly complex system, and the cycle of solving one problem only to have another emerge continued.
Eventually, in the 16th century, Copernicus proposed a new astronomical system centered on the Sun. His work, ‘On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres’ (‘De revolutionibus orbium coelestium’), was an attempt to explain the various contradictions inherent in the geocentric model from a new perspective. Subsequently, the heliocentric model evolved further through the research of Kepler, Galileo, and Newton, eventually forming the foundation of modern astronomy.
Thus, Ptolemy’s system—which had long been accepted as absolute truth—was not easily discarded even after its errors were discovered. Scholars of the time attempted to resolve these errors by making increasingly complex revisions to the existing system. This can be attributed to their reluctance to readily accept the possibility that the established theory might be wrong.
This process bears some resemblance to the way religions treat traditional doctrines as absolute truths. In religion, devout believers trust their faith and do not easily change their beliefs, even when others present various pieces of evidence. Similarly, astronomers of that era sought to maintain the existing astronomical system for a long time and were reluctant to accept new theories even after numerous problems had been revealed.
Of course, one could argue that this is different from religious belief. For scholars of that era, existing theories were not mere opinions but the fundamental framework for understanding the world—one they had learned and studied since childhood. Denying those theories meant having to reexamine a significant portion of the knowledge they had accumulated up to that point, which is why it was so difficult for them to accept new theories.
Conversely, this logic can also be applied to religious believers. Believers, too, learn about the existence of God within their religious communities from childhood and spend their lives studying scriptures and doctrines over a long period of time. Therefore, accepting the claim one day that God does not exist could amount to negating the worldview and the very foundation of their lives that they have believed in until now. In this regard, we can see that there is a certain degree of commonality between the psychology of scientists who find it difficult to accept new scientific theories and that of religious believers who cannot easily abandon their existing faith.
The third type is a theory that pioneers a new field of research. This does not mean completely replacing existing theories, but rather opening up a new field of research that is relatively independent from the existing framework. Of course, in science, it is rare for a field to emerge that is completely disconnected from existing knowledge; in most cases, new fields develop by expanding upon existing research.
A prime example of this is quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics emerged at a time when classical mechanics had already established itself as a highly successful theory. However, as experimental results—such as blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, and atomic spectra—which were difficult to explain using existing theories began to accumulate, a new theory became necessary, and quantum mechanics began to develop based on this need.
Einstein famously stated, “God does not play dice,” and continued to question the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics until the end. However, he did not reject quantum theory itself; rather, he believed that the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics was not a complete explanation.
In the early days of quantum mechanics, many scientists found it difficult to accept this new theory. This was because it required a way of thinking very different from classical mechanics, which had long been regarded as an absolute law of nature. While classical mechanics still offers excellent explanatory power in the macroscopic world, it has gradually become clear that quantum mechanics provides a more accurate description of natural phenomena in the microscopic world, such as atoms and electrons.
For this reason, the early scientific community was divided between researchers who actively embraced quantum mechanics and those who remained skeptical. Since then, as numerous theories and experiments have accumulated, quantum mechanics has established itself as a core theory of modern physics. Quantum mechanics continues to undergo constant verification and development even today, serving as a crucial foundation in various fields of modern science and technology, such as semiconductors, lasers, MRI, and quantum computers.
While quantum mechanics is undoubtedly a part of science, it has pioneered a new field of research distinct from the science that was previously based solely on classical mechanics. As a result, various natural phenomena that could not be explained before have begun to be understood, and the scope of application for classical mechanics has also been more clearly defined. Quantum mechanics does not completely negate classical mechanics; rather, the two theories—each with its own distinct scope of application—are used together within modern physics.
When examining the emergence and establishment of quantum mechanics, one can see that this process shares certain similarities with the history of religion. It can be compared to the history of the Protestant Reformation, during which Protestantism split from the Roman Catholic Church.
The newly emerged Protestantism did not completely reject existing Christian traditions but developed new theology and doctrine based on the Bible. It also faced opposition and criticism from the established religious system that had long held authority, and it took a considerable amount of time for it to establish itself as an independent religious tradition. This process bears some resemblance to how early quantum mechanics was not readily accepted by the established scientific community.
Furthermore, following the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church also sought change by pursuing various reforms, while Protestantism evolved into multiple denominations, developing new theologies and ideas. Similarly, the emergence of quantum mechanics did not completely eliminate classical mechanics but rather drove the advancement of science as a whole, serving as a catalyst for the further refinement of existing theories. Considering these points, we can find certain similarities in their developmental processes, despite them being different fields.
Whether we consider cases where long-accepted scientific theories are believed in absolutely, as if they were a matter of faith, or examine the historical trajectory of science, science and religion share more similarities than is generally thought. Of course, science is a discipline that develops based on experimentation, observation, and verification, and it does not share the same nature as religion. However, as seen in the examples discussed earlier, science is also influenced by existing traditions and authority, and theories long accepted as established truths are sometimes revised or discarded in light of new evidence.
So why do we take it for granted that science represents absolute truth?
Over a long period of trial and error, debate, and countless verifications, science has established itself as the most reliable method for exploring nature today. In the past, it was intertwined with alchemy and natural philosophy, and researchers who proposed new theories were sometimes criticized; however, through repeated verification and reproducibility, the system of modern science was established. Through this process, science has become the most trusted system of knowledge for many people today.
In this regard, we can also reflect on the history of religion. Christianity, a major religion, began with the teachings of Jesus and faced persecution from the ancient Roman Empire; however, after gaining official recognition, it became the state religion of the Roman Empire, and countless people came to learn its doctrines and embrace the faith. Of course, science and religion are fundamentally different in nature, purpose, and methods of verification, so they cannot be viewed as the same. However, we can find certain commonalities in the process by which an idea or system spreads and gains authority within society.
I am not arguing that science and religion are exactly the same. Rather, I believe that science and religion are fundamentally different domains. However, I do see similarities in the process by which humans accept, trust, and develop a particular system. From a certain perspective, science—while not a religion that believes in transcendent beings such as God, Allah, or Buddha—can also be understood as an intellectual tradition or belief system that explores and trusts the “laws of the universe,” which operate according to consistent principles.
Of course, the biggest difference between science and religion is that science can revise or discard existing theories when new evidence is presented. Nevertheless, we need to ask ourselves at least once whether we might be treating the science we’ve learned since childhood as something overly absolute. This is because trusting science and uncritically deifying it are two different things. In this regard, while respecting science, we must also remember the very spirit of science—the spirit of constantly questioning and verifying.
