In this blog post, we will look at why religion still has influence in modern society, where science has made remarkable progress, and what it means.
Science and religion have been constantly clashing until the present day. In the past, Galileo was put on trial for supporting Copernicus’ heliocentric theory, which states that the Earth revolves around the Sun, instead of the geocentric theory that the universe revolves around the Earth. This was not just a clash between theories, but an event in which the paradigm of human beliefs and perceptions clashed. At that time, religion was the only authority that explained the world and the position of humans, and the heliocentric theory challenged that authority. Galileo’s case symbolically shows the inevitable conflict between science and religion.
However, as time passed and science advanced and society changed rapidly, science gradually began to move away from the influence of religion. Rather, in modern times, science has become a threat to religion, and this has even expanded into a philosophical issue. Scientologists, who claim that science can explain everything, expected that science would be able to identify the nature and ultimate purpose of human existence. The new atheists, who emerged in this era, expected that religion would soon be completely replaced by science, as religion is nothing more than an opiate for the ignorant. However, no matter how many scientific discoveries are made, religion still maintains its vitality, and the number of people who believe in religion is increasing. Why has science not completely ousted religion, contrary to their expectations? Is there a fundamental flaw in their argument?
The most famous of the new atheists who have emerged in this era, shouting for scientific omnipotence, is undoubtedly Richard Dawkins. He sharply criticizes religion in his books The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion. In particular, he argues that Darwinism is a universal theory of humans that goes beyond biology, and that religion can also be explained through Darwinism. But can a religion composed of metaphysical beliefs be explained by scientific methods that exclude metaphysics? In response, Dawkins tries to solve this problem by cleverly adding a metaphysical interpretation to science. In his book, he claims that genes are within us and that we control the world by remote control. In addition, his claim that protecting genes is the ultimate cause of human existence is more of a philosophical claim. Many of the concepts that Dawkins tried to explain through science were not facts that had been verified through scientific testing, but were merely his personal interpretations.
Dawkins further extends this logic to propose the concept of meme theory. He argues that just as living organisms evolve through genes, religious beliefs also evolve through memes. According to meme theory, just as genes transmit biological information through self-replication, memes transmit an individual’s thoughts and beliefs from brain to brain through imitation. Dawkins uses meme theory to explain the process of the spread and development of religious beliefs and tries to package it as scientific fact, but this is also just Dawkins’ metaphysical interpretation that has not been verified by scientific methods. He mentions that memes are parasitic entities in the brain and presents his own logic without scientific evidence as to how memes are specifically transmitted.
In fact, this type of argument is far from the objectivity that science aims for. Science is an effort to explain the world based on facts that have been rigorously observed and verified. However, Dawkins tries to include beliefs within the framework of science by adding his philosophical interpretation to scientific facts. This can be seen as an error not unlike the way religion has tried to suppress scientific discoveries in the past. Times have changed, and now atheists use the tool of science to emphasize their anti-religious beliefs. Just as Galileo was tried in the Inquisition in the past, today we see science-absolutists trying to suppress dissent by packaging science as a new “religion.” When science is used as a means to solidify certain beliefs rather than as a tool for the pursuit of truth, its essence is inevitably corrupted.
Science is neutral when used correctly with regard to religious or anti-religious beliefs. The role of science is to explore the question of facts and cannot provide answers to the ultimate value or meaning of human existence. For example, science can explain the fact that humans die, but it cannot answer the value and meaning of death. If we use science as a tool for religion or anti-religion, rather than as a tool for science, science will lead humans to issues of meaning and value that science cannot address. Science should go that far as a means to explore the truth, and its role should stop at that point.
