Considering this, it is quite understandable if a man of science disregards God and faith, a school of thought which tries to explain all the oddities of this world, more often than not, by employing the supernatural. Science detests the fact that those explanations are without apparent proof.
Science vs. God is one of the age old debates. Copernicus was in the thick of it, but more famous is the story of Galileo Galilei. Both these scientists (and mathematicians) strived to put the Sun in its rightful place while the Catholic Church vehemently protested. History, especially recent history, is peppered with such stories, of skirmishes between science and faith.
As a result of the emphatic march of science into realms which were previously strongholds of God and faith, scientists are more equipped to question God's very existence. Mapping of the genes in human DNA and the apparent ability to explain and predict human behavioral patterns by brain mapping provides scientists with the tools to question age old beliefs that morality and behavior is controlled by the soul.
But is it necessary that a man of science be an atheist? Certainly not! Personally, I believe that there is a middle ground and that is what I will attempt to explain. It might seem absurd or wishful thinking, but I stand by my views as they enable me to keep an open mind. In fact, I cannot find a reason why this debate of Science vs. God must continue at all.
The primary reason I do not see any point in the debate can be attributed to the fact that I do not view science and unadulterated faith as opposite. For me they are the one and the same! Foolish as it might seem, I think I can offer an explanation for that.
Unadulterated faith is a complex thing. Religion or faith is open to interpretation (I will be using faith and religion interchangeably). The principles and rules of a religion are handed down from generation to generation and therein lay its flaws. This is akin to pure water flowing into one end of a dirty pipe. There is no way we can expect the water coming out the other end to retain its purity. Likewise, our view of religion today is similar to viewing pure white light through a dirty looking glass.
But all truth is not lost. The primary bone of contention between science and faith is without doubt, the origin of life. While science attempts to give a rational explanation using the theories of chemical transformations and evolution, faith attributes all creation to God. At the outset, these do seem like polar opposites but closer examination can convince one otherwise. My view of this debate is a like a game of hangman. Faith has given us a few letters to start with and science is attempting to fill the blanks!
Scientists concede that we don’t yet have a deep understanding of the mechanism of the universe and more importantly, dimensions. What if the God we are looking for exists outside the dimensions that we currently know? You might say this is just a ruse to shrug off the responsibility of explaining His existence, but you must note that this area is largely unexplored by science. Things we do not think possible in the present age might well come to happen in the future. Did the medieval man ever dream of watching the television? No! In that period there was no conceivable way of even imagining that such a thing would come to pass. Similar arguments can be made here regarding the existence of God.
Another peculiar property of the universe is the fact that it is ‘fine tuned’. Six dimensionless constants which are fundamental to all physical theory have perfect values. If the value of a single constant changed by the smallest fraction, it would throw everything into chaos and life would not have been possible in the universe. Such is the ‘fine tuned’ nature of these constants. Surely that is not a co-incidence?
Science attempts to explain this perfection through the multiverse theory. According to this theory, there are thousands, maybe millions, of systems like our universe with different combination of values for these constants. That would increase the odds that at least one of the systems would have the perfect values.
The theory is perfectly possible, but then comes the question of the mechanism of creation of these systems making it necessary for us to delve deeper into the investigation of the Beginning, the start of everything. Does this not look like an attempt to fill up the blanks with rational theories?
There are a few more disagreements regarding evolution. If God is so powerful, why did he not just create humans directly and save himself the trouble of waiting all those years? But then, you can argue, why would he leave such obvious tell-tale signs? Nothing in this world is without cause. If the creation of man took so long, there must have been a good reason and it is for us to unearth it.
Attributing everything to God does not mean that we have to stop questioning and investigating the phenomena around us. In fact, it should be treated as an indication of requirement for further study into their mysteries.
Neither religion nor science is yet perfect. Science is obviously incomplete and certain explanations provided by religion are plain non-sense. But science and faith can certainly work together to explain the complex machinery of the universe. For all the absurdities of faith, it remains a powerful source of hope and hope is one of the most powerful tools of man. A prime example is the field of medical sciences where we have seen quite a few ‘miracles.’ Probably these miracles can be explained by science in the future, but for the present, science has offered no hope in its grey areas. God has.
It is possible that God exists because of the present failings of science or maybe it is vice versa. But I expect a grand merger centuries down the line, subject to a few factors, one being humankind’s continued existence. But, whether man can preserve himself long enough to completely explore both science and God is an entirely different question.
For those who are interested in the debate, this piece which appeared in TIME, might make a good read http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html. It is a long article but an interesting one. It illustrates both sides of the debate.
Dr. Richard Dawkins is a well known atheist and an advocate for Darwin’s theory of evolution (The religious position of Darwin himself is subject to debate).
Dr. Francis Collins is a physician-geneticist and is a leader of the Human Genome Project. He is well known for being on the middle ground. A scientist with faith.
