In this blog post, we will examine the relationship between science and religion and explore how these two fields can coexist, focusing on critiques of the absoluteness of science.
There is a well-known anecdote that often comes to mind when discussing the relationship between science and religion. It is the story of Galileo Galilei, who, after his trial by the Inquisition, is said to have remarked, “And yet it moves.” Although it has not been confirmed whether he actually said this, the historical events surrounding Galileo are widely recognized as a symbolic example of the conflict between science and religion. While religion sought to understand the world based on faith, science sought to explain facts through observation and verification. Because of this difference, the two fields have long been at odds with one another.
So why have science and religion come to be viewed as two fields that are difficult to reconcile? The primary reason is that, without fully acknowledging each other’s unique roles and characteristics, they sought to supplant one another’s domains. Religion, which held the authority of absolute truth from ancient times through the Middle Ages, gradually ceded its position to science with the development of modern science; in this process, the two fields competed for dominance over the universal principles and laws that explain the world. As a result, religion’s social influence has relatively diminished compared to science, which possesses greater predictive power and verifiability.
Today, few would dispute the fact that science has established itself as a reliable and verifiable body of knowledge. However, this does not mean that religion should be regarded as inferior to science or dismissed as merely unscientific discourse. Can we really conclude that science is always a superior and more rational domain than religion? This is by no means an easy question to answer, for science itself has evolved while constantly engaging with criticism of its own methodology and limitations. Therefore, rather than viewing the relationship between science and religion as a simple dichotomy, we need to examine it from the perspective of reflecting on their respective roles and limitations.
Religion originated from a sense of awe toward supernatural beings and the various rituals used to express this awe. Subsequently, religion spread to nearly every culture and became closely intertwined with various spheres—including politics, economics, and society—going beyond mere faith. In the process of overcoming their fear of nature, humans posited God as an absolute being transcending nature and sought the meaning of life and the reason for existence through faith. Many theists believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent—a being transcending humanity—and interpret phenomena beyond human understanding as part of divine providence.
With the advent of the modern era, science advanced by leaps and bounds. Science moved away from magical or empirically unverifiable explanations and began to describe the world based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, thereby establishing a high degree of reliability. Furthermore, by maintaining a critical stance toward claims that are difficult to verify through the scientific method, science has established its own independent academic status. For example, if a cancer patient were to reject all medical treatment and expect a cure through prayer alone, this would be difficult to accept as a rational choice in modern society. This is because medicine, based on scientific evidence, has continuously verified its actual therapeutic effects.
Science, having secured its exclusive academic status, now faces new challenges in two areas. The first is philosophical reflection on the scientific method itself, and the second is the various intractable problems that modern science has been unable to solve. These discussions present the view that it is difficult to assert that science occupies a position that is absolutely more objective and complete than any other system of knowledge, thereby enabling a new perspective on science.
Those who emphasize the superiority of science believe that it possesses greater reliability and objectivity than other disciplines or methods of inquiry. The science they understand is objective and verified knowledge, with no room for the intervention of personal opinions, preferences, or speculative imagination. Scientists such as Galileo Galilei overcame the existing magical worldview and established the scientific method based on observation and experimentation; this trend became the foundation of modern science.
The research methods used in modern science are primarily based on inductive reasoning.
Of course, deductive reasoning is also used, but the underlying theories and propositions are ultimately supported by empirical observation and verification. However, the belief that science provides absolute truth has faced persistent criticism due to the philosophical limitations of inductivism. This is because inductive reasoning cannot guarantee that a conclusion is necessarily true, even if all premises are true. Furthermore, the criterion of “sufficiently many observations” itself is unclear, and different results may emerge if the observational environment and conditions change. Moreover, since the observer’s interpretation inevitably plays a role in every observation, it is possible to reach different conclusions even regarding the same phenomenon.
As such, discussions surrounding the objectivity and legitimacy of science have long been a major topic in the philosophy of science. The prominent philosopher Karl Popper, drawing on critical rationalism, proposed “falsifiability” as the criterion for distinguishing science from non-science. According to his view, science is not a discipline that establishes absolute truth, but rather a system of knowledge that develops by continuously testing its theories and exposing them to the possibility of refutation. In other words, only falsifiable theories can be recognized as science, and it is through this process that science maintains its rationality.
However, this view was not immune to criticism. Paul Feyerabend argued that the very criterion for clearly distinguishing between science and non-science lacks sufficient persuasiveness. He also emphasized the “theory-dependence of observation”—the idea that observation always takes place within a specific theoretical framework—and pointed out that observation itself cannot be completely objective. In other words, since observations do not exist independently of theory but are given meaning by theory, it is difficult to achieve absolute objectivity through observation alone.
These discussions demonstrate that science is not a flawless system of knowledge but rather a process that evolves through continuous revision and verification. Of course, it is difficult to deny that modern science offers high predictive power and exceptional explanatory power. However, looking at the paradigm shifts that have recurred throughout the history of science, we see that theories accepted as absolute truths in one era have subsequently been revised or replaced by new evidence and theories. This demonstrates that science is a discipline that has evolved by acknowledging its own limitations. Therefore, it is closer to the general perspective of contemporary philosophy of science to understand science not as a completed truth, but as a body of knowledge that currently offers the highest levels of explanatory and predictive power.
If the limitations of inductivism pertain to the scientific method, the challenges facing modern physics reveal the difficulties inherent in the process of understanding nature itself. Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, published in 1915, radically transformed the worldview centered on classical mechanics and raised expectations that science would be able to gain a deeper understanding of the structure of the universe. However, the subsequent emergence of quantum mechanics presented a new worldview that differed significantly from existing intuitions.
The uncertainty principle, one of the core principles of quantum mechanics, states that in the microscopic world, it is impossible to measure all physical quantities simultaneously with infinite precision. This demonstrated that nature cannot be fully explained by determinism alone, as assumed in classical mechanics. This shift brought about a major transformation in the way science understands nature and revealed that completely explaining all phenomena in the universe with a single theory is an extremely difficult task.
Since then, many scientists have continued their research to develop a theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics. Various approaches—such as string theory, M-theory, and quantum gravity—have been proposed, but to date, no unified theory has been established that has been sufficiently verified experimentally. These studies remain important areas of research in modern physics, and science continues its quest to understand the fundamental principles of the universe.
For these reasons, science has begun to reflect on the perspective that views itself as the sole guardian of absolute truth, while simultaneously turning its attention to areas that are difficult to fully explain through science alone. So why, specifically, should we reconsider the relationship between science and religion? It is because these two fields continue to exert a profound influence on the formation of human worldviews and values even today.
Although science has explained countless phenomena, there are still questions that science alone cannot clearly answer. For example, questions such as “Why does the universe exist?”, “What existed before the Big Bang?”, and “What is the ultimate meaning of existence?” remain difficult to fully answer even with current scientific knowledge. Of course, cosmology and modern physics continue to study these issues, but they have not yet reached a definitive conclusion.
In this regard, religion approaches humanity’s fundamental questions in a different way than science. Rather than relying on empirical verification, religion seeks to explain human existence and the meaning of life through faith and philosophical reflection. Such explanations do not serve to prove scientific facts but function as another way for humans to understand the world. Of course, since religious belief is based on personal conviction, it is difficult to determine its truth or falsity using scientific methods. However, it is certainly worth discussing that religious reflection can offer a meaningful perspective in the process of exploring ontological and ethical questions that science finds difficult to answer.
I believe that for science and religion to coexist harmoniously, it is important not to fuse the two domains into one, but rather to recognize each other’s distinct spheres. Since science and religion have fundamentally different ways of viewing the world, neither can replace the other. Rather, a healthier coexistence will be possible when they maintain their independence while fulfilling their respective roles.
In fact, the history of science shows that religion and science have not always been in conflict. There are studies suggesting that the religious worldview of European society at the time exerted a certain influence on the development of modern natural science. Furthermore, humanity’s efforts to explore the origin and order of the universe have been a central theme in both religion and science. However, rather than interpreting this as the doctrines of a specific religion or scientific theories directly validating one another, it is a more balanced approach to understand it in terms of the shared human interest in comprehending the world.
The Big Bang theory and religious views of creation can also be understood not as theories explaining the same content, but as systems that answer different questions. Science often seeks to explain how the universe has evolved, while religion frequently explores questions of meaning, such as “why do we exist?” Therefore, the two fields can fulfill their respective roles while respecting each other’s modes of explanation.
While science is a discipline that continuously discovers new facts and revises existing theories, religion has carried on a tradition of reflecting on human life, values, ethics, and the meaning of existence. Of course, religious interpretations and practices have evolved over time and across cultures, and different religions hold diverse perspectives. Therefore, rather than viewing religion as a fixed system, it is necessary to regard it as a tradition that has undergone constant interpretation and development throughout history.
Science is currently the knowledge system with the greatest explanatory power, but it develops on the premise that its own theories can be revised at any time by new evidence. This humble attitude is also a key driving force behind scientific progress. On the other hand, by continuously reflecting on human existence, the meaning of life, ethics, and values, religion offers diverse perspectives on areas that science finds difficult to address. In this regard, rather than viewing science and religion as mutually exclusive, they can be understood as different dimensions through which humans approach their understanding of the world.
The gap between religion and science sometimes seems insurmountable. However, the process of understanding these differences and respecting each other’s roles can play a meaningful part in helping humanity gain a broader understanding of the world. In modern society, science has made remarkable advances and significantly transformed human life. At the same time, science is in the process of generating new knowledge while constantly reflecting on its own methodology and limitations. As discussed earlier, rather than asserting that science is an absolutely superior value system to religion, it may be a more productive approach to acknowledge their respective roles and domains and seek a mutually complementary relationship.
Derek Harold Richard Barton, a chemist at the University of Texas and winner of the 1969 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, has expressed the view that “science and religion are by no means incompatible.” This perspective suggests the possibility that religion and science can explore truth in different ways. Of course, this view is a philosophical stance and is not universally accepted by all scientists or religious believers. However, it can be argued that the two fields play distinct roles: religion provides humans with an opportunity to reflect on the meaning and value of existence, while science offers the most powerful method for understanding natural phenomena.
Questions such as the origin of the universe and life, and the meaning of human existence, remain topics for which we have yet to find complete answers. Science continues its research to resolve these issues, while religion and philosophy seek to answer humanity’s fundamental questions in their own ways. Faced with a world they do not understand, humans have not simply remained in a state of fear but have constantly asked questions and strived to find answers. Science and religion can also be seen as distinct traditions of thought that have developed from this human spirit of inquiry.
Although science and religion may have different worldviews and methodologies, both fields share the common goal of helping humans understand the world and find meaning in life. Science seeks to explain nature through observation and experimentation, while religion reflects on the meaning and value of existence and ethical living. If we acknowledge these differences while respecting each other’s roles, science and religion can coexist not as opposing forces but as two pillars that enrich our understanding of humanity.
Humanity will continue to make new scientific discoveries, while at the same time constantly reflecting on the meaning of life and the reason for our existence. The pursuit of truth is not the sole responsibility of any one field. Science and religion approach the same questions through different methods, and in this process, humanity will gain a deeper understanding of the world and of itself. Ultimately, the pursuit of truth is not so much a process of reaching a final conclusion as it is a journey of ceaseless questioning and reflection, moving toward a better understanding.
