International Islamic University Islamabad

Faculty of Engineering and Technology

Contribution to Muslim Scientists

Submitted By:
Ayesha Asghar
Registration No:
349-FET/BSEE/F17
Submitted to:
Ma,am Asia
Date:
April 19, 2021
 What is the Relationship between Science and Religion?
Overview
The relationship between science and religion has typically been characterized as one of conflict,
especially on the issue of origins (creationism vs. evolution). The historical reality is that
science and religion have more often been complementary to each other, and the relationship has
been dynamic. Science and religion are both important facets of modern life, and many of the
questions in this series deal with issues that are at the intersection of science and religion. The
purpose of this unit is to expose participants various ways that others have categorized science
and religion and to provide some strategies for evaluating the big questions of science and
religion.

What is Science?
While the term science is generally used to designate knowledge of the natural world, this slide
suggests that original definition was simply knowledge (as opposed to wisdom, which was
considered superior). Before the 19th century, many people practiced natural philosophy, which
sought to study the natural world, and natural theology, which attempted to use the natural world
to learn more about God. Natural philosophy eventually gave rise to physics and science
according to its modern definition. It is worth noting that various branches of science have
significant differences in their methods, e.g., physicists and chemists can perform controlled
experiments, while astronomers and paleontologists must rely on observations.

A Definition of Science
This slide gives one definition of science that agrees with most common definitions of science as
currently practiced. The important words are highlighted.
Science in often taught as a collection of facts, but science as practiced consists of problem-
solving and investigation.
Most philosophers of science agree that it is impossible to prove anything conclusively in
science. If you think about it, scientific proof would entail showing that something happens the
same way in all circumstances in the present, the past, and the future. Since the future and past
cannot be tested, all statements within science must be considered as being tentatively true. Note
that a single instance can disprove a scientific statement.
Empirical knowledge is obtained by the senses. In science the senses are enhanced by
microscopes, telescopes, and other forms of technology.
Science seeks to explain the natural world. There is some difference between the definitions of
hypothesis, theory, and law, but in general hypotheses are testable statements of a narrow topic.
Theories entail a number of hypotheses that are (and have been) tested and have never been
disproven. For example, Einstein’s theory of relativity predicted the bending of light as it passes
by a large object; the bending was experimentally verified years later exactly as predicted. The
term “law” is almost never used for new explanations, perhaps because of the fear that they will
be disproved. We speak of Newton’s laws and Einstein’s theory of relativity even though they
explain the same things. To some degree, laws are more mathematical than theories.
Regardless, a scientific theory describes a powerful explanation rather than a guess.
What is Religion?
The Protestant Reformation and increased exposure of Europeans to other religions led believers
to justify their religion as the true one. Since science didn’t receive its current definition until the
19th century, religion and science technically couldn’t have been in conflict until the latter date.

A Definition of Religion
Religion is probably harder to define than science if one takes into account all religions.
The supernatural power may be God or gods or forces that act on humans (as in Buddhism).
The institution includes churches and the Church universal as well as religious leaders and the
power and influence they exert.
The practices associated with religion serve to unite believers in community, to educate them,
and to change their lives in positive ways. The institutions serve to educate leaders and provide
resources to make a difference in individual believers, in the community, and in the world.
Religion seeks answers though most believers hold that the answers cannot be known (at least in
this world) by mortals. The importance is in the striving toward the answers rather than the
answers themselves.

How Do We Know Things in Science?

Ideally science is repeatable and is the same for everyone (though some philosophers of science
dispute this in practice). Science is most repeatable when it controls all variables except the one
being measured, though this is hard to do. When controlled experiments can’t be carried out,
observation and inferences drawn from them must suffice. Scientists generally say that about
1000 hours of observation are needed to draw meaningful conclusions. Ethology is the study of
animal behavior in the wild. Once obtained, scientific methods, data and conclusions are
published in journals where they are available to all scientists.

How Do We Know Things in Religion?

The general forms of knowledge are considered to be revealed (sacred texts and individual
revelations), nature (referred to in the past as the book of nature, which complements the Bible
for Christians). Reason was held to be a branch of natural knowledge that can be used to learn
about God. In the late 19th century, higher biblical criticism led to the study of the Bible by the
same techniques used to evaluate other ancient texts, looking at/for confirmatory texts from other
cultures, correlating biblical stories with archeology, and other methods.
The scientific study of religion
Science and religion are closely interconnected in the scientific study of religion, which can be
traced back to seventeenth-century natural histories of religion. Natural historians attempted to
provide naturalistic explanations for human behavior and culture, for domains such as religion,
emotions, and morality. For example, Bernard de Fontenelle’s De l’Origine des Fables (1724)
offered a causal account of belief in the supernatural. People often assert supernatural
explanations when they lack an understanding of the natural causes underlying extraordinary
events: “To the extent that one is more ignorant, or one has less experience, one sees more
miracles” (1724/1824: 295, my translation). This idea foreshadows Auguste Comte’s (1841)
belief that myths would gradually give way to scientific accounts. Hume’s Natural History of
Religion (1757/2007) is the best-known philosophical example of a natural historical explanation
of religious belief. It traces the origins of polytheism—which Hume thought was the earliest
form of religious belief—to ignorance about natural causes combined with fear and apprehension
about the environment. By deifying aspects of the environment, early humans tried to persuade
or bribe the gods, thereby gaining a sense of control.

In the nineteenth and early twentieth century, authors from newly emerging scientific disciplines,
such as anthropology, sociology, and psychology, examined the purported naturalistic roots of
religious belief. They did so with a broad brush, trying to explain what unifies diverse religious
beliefs across cultures, rather than accounting for cultural variations. In anthropology, the idea
that all cultures evolve and progress along the same lines (cultural evolutionism) was
widespread. Cultures with differing religious views were explained as being in an early stage of
development. For example, Tylor (1871) regarded animism, the belief that spirits animate the
world, as the earliest form of religious belief. Comte (1841) proposed that all societies, in their
attempts to make sense of the world, go through the same stages of development: the theological
(religious) stage is the earliest phase, where religious explanations predominate, followed by the
metaphysical stage (a non-intervening God), and culminating in the positive or scientific stage,
marked by scientific explanations and empirical observations.

The sociologist Émile Durkheim (1915) considered religious beliefs as social glue that helped to
keep society together. The psychologist Sigmund Freud (1927) saw religious belief as an
illusion, a childlike yearning for a fatherly figure. The full story Freud offers is quite bizarre: in
past times, a father who monopolized all the women in the tribe was killed and eaten by his sons.
The sons felt guilty and started to idolize their murdered father. This, together with taboos on
cannibalism and incest, generated the first religion. Freud also considered “oceanic feeling” (a
feeling of limitlessness and of being connected with the world) as one of the origins of religious
belief. He thought this feeling was a remnant of an infant’s experience of the self, prior to being
weaned off the breast. Authors such as Durkheim and Freud, together with social theorists such
as Karl Marx and Max Weber, proposed versions of the secularization thesis, the view that
religion would decline in the face of modern technology, science, and culture. Philosopher and
psychologist William James (1902) was interested in the psychological roots and the
phenomenology of religious experiences, which he believed were the ultimate source of
institutional religions.

From the 1920s onward, the scientific study of religion became less concerned with grand
unifying narratives, and focused more on particular religious traditions and beliefs.
Anthropologists, such as Edward Evans-Pritchard (1937/1965) and Bronislaw Malinowski
(1925/1992) no longer relied exclusively on second-hand reports (usually of poor quality and
from distorted sources), but engaged in serious fieldwork. Their ethnographies indicated that
cultural evolutionism was mistaken and that religious beliefs were more diverse than was
previously assumed. They argued that religious beliefs were not the result of ignorance of
naturalistic mechanisms; for instance, Evans-Pritchard noted that the Azande were well aware
that houses could collapse because termites ate away at their foundations, but they still appealed
to witchcraft to explain why a particular house had collapsed. More recently, Cristine Legare et
al. (2012) found that people in various cultures straightforwardly combine supernatural and
natural explanations, for instance, South Africans are aware AIDS is caused by a virus, but some
also believe that the viral infection is ultimately caused by a witch.
Psychologists and sociologists of religion also began to doubt that religious beliefs were rooted
in irrationality, psychopathology, and other atypical psychological states, as James (1902) and
other early psychologists had assumed. In the United States, in the late 1930s through the 1960s,
psychologists developed a renewed interest for religion, fueled by the observation that religion
refused to decline—thus casting doubt on the secularization thesis—and seemed to undergo a
substantial revival (see Stark 1999 for an overview). Psychologists of religion have made
increasingly fine-grained distinctions among types of religiosity, including extrinsic religiosity
(being religious as means to an end, for instance, getting the benefits of being in a social group)
and intrinsic religiosity (people who adhere to religions for the sake of their teachings) (Allport
and Ross 1967). Psychologists and sociologists now commonly study religiosity as an
independent variable, with an impact on, for instance, health, criminality, sexuality, and social
networks.

A recent development in the scientific study of religion is the cognitive science of religion. This
is a multidisciplinary field, with authors from, among others, developmental psychology,
anthropology, philosophy, and cognitive psychology. It differs from the other scientific
approaches to religion by its presupposition that religion is not a purely cultural phenomenon,
but the result of ordinary, early developed, and universal human cognitive processes (e.g., Barrett
2004, Boyer 2002). Some authors regard religion as the byproduct of cognitive processes that do
not have an evolved function specific for religion. For example, according to Paul Bloom (2007),
religion emerges as a byproduct of our intuitive distinction between minds and bodies: we can
think of minds as continuing, even after the body dies (e.g., by attributing desires to a dead
family member), which makes belief in an afterlife and in disembodied spirits natural and
spontaneous. Another family of hypotheses regards religion as a biological or cultural adaptive
response that helps humans solve cooperative problems (e.g., Bering 2011). Through their belief
in big, powerful gods that can punish, humans behave more cooperatively, which allowed human
group sizes to expand beyond small hunter-gatherer communities. Groups with belief in big gods
thus outcompeted groups without such beliefs for resources during the Neolithic, which explains
the current success of belief in such gods (Norenzayan 2013).

Worldviews
This slide makes the point that all of us have our own worldview, and that there is variation
among scientists and people of faith in their worldviews. At the very least, this should make us
realize that we may not have the complete truth since most others disagree with us in some
aspect of our worldview.

Scientific and Christian Beliefs

One historical way that these two categories were understood is through primary and secondary
causes. According to this understanding, God was the primary cause but worked through
natural, or secondary, causes. Science investigated the secondary causes but could never prove
(or disprove) the existence of God. Few people would disagree with either of the categories of
beliefs presented.
How Do Science and Religion Relate to Each Other?
Ian Barbour’s four-fold typology is the most commonly cited classification system for beliefs
about science and religion. Barbour has been criticized somewhat as presenting his categories as
a progression in the order listed (from conflict to independence to dialogue to integration). In his
book, Barbour gives examples of each of these and makes the point that certain issues may lend
themselves more to one category than another.

How Do We Evaluate Claims Made by Religion and Science?

This topic is very difficult for most people. We often hear claims that we disagree with for some
reason. How do we determine who is correct? The easy thing for most of us is to stick with our
preconceived idea of what is correct, but some claims should prompt us to search for more
information. Critical thinking is how we can do this; the thinking about our own thinking is what
makes it difficult since we must look at strengths and weaknesses in our own and others’

The Intersection of Science and Religion

Scientific and technological advances have had profound effects on human life. In the 19th
century, most families could expect to lose one or more children to disease. Today, in the United
States and other developed countries, the death of a child from disease is uncommon. Every day
we rely on technologies made possible through the application of scientific knowledge and
processes. The computers and cell phones which we use, the cars and airplanes in which we
travel, the medicines that we take, and many of the foods that we eat were developed in part
through insights obtained from scientific research. Science has boosted living standards, has
enabled humans to travel into Earth’s orbit and to the moon, and has given us new ways of
thinking about ourselves and the universe.
Evolutionary biology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science. This booklet
documents some of the major contributions that an understanding of evolution has made to
human well-being, including its contributions to preventing and treating human disease,
developing new agricultural products, and creating industrial innovations. More broadly,
evolution is a core concept in biology that is based both in the study of past life forms and in the
study of the relatedness and diversity of present-day organisms. The rapid advances now being
made in the life sciences and in medicine rest on principles derived from an understanding of
evolution. That understanding has arisen both through the study of an ever-expanding fossil
record and, equally importantly, through the application of modern biological and molecular
sciences and technologies to the study of evolution. Of course, as with any active area of science,
many fascinating questions remain, and this booklet highlights some of the active research that is
currently under way that addresses questions about evolution.

However, polls show that many people continue to have questions about our knowledge of
biological evolution. They may have been told that scientific understanding of evolution is
incomplete, incorrect, or in doubt. They may be skeptical that the natural process of biological
evolution could have produced such an incredible array of living things, from microscopic
bacteria to whales and redwood trees, from simple sponges on coral reefs to humans capable of
contemplating life’s history on this planet. They may wonder if it is possible to accept evolution
and still adhere to religious beliefs.

This Web site speaks to those questions. It is written to serve as a resource for people who find
themselves embroiled in debates about evolution. It provides information about the role that
evolution plays in modern biology and the reasons why only scientifically based explanations
should be included in public school science courses. Interested readers may include school board
members, science teachers and other education leaders, policymakers, legal scholars, and others
in the community who are committed to providing students with quality science education. This
site is also directed to the broader audience of high-quality school and college students as well as
adults who wish to become more familiar with the many strands of evidence supporting
evolution and to understand why evolution is both a fact and a process that accounts for the
diversity of life on Earth.

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory"
and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a
theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or
inconclusive evidence.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the
word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a
vast body of evidence.
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them
substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit
around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that
matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates
that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other
foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and
confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will
not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution
is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable
observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make
predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the
theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before
the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who
discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed
terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed
the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction
increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence

that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also
use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many
times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional
examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact.
Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological
evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of
evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

Compatibility of Science and Religion

Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that
differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations.
Because biological evolution accounts for events that are also central concerns of religion —
including the origins of biological diversity and especially the origins of humans — evolution
has been a contentious idea within society since it was first articulated by Charles Darwin and
Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858.

Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith. Today, many
religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living
things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that
evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written
eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet,
explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution.
Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that
believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.
Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations
must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based
observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to
modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not
depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting
evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of
nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion
are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit
science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.
Excerpts of Statements by Religious Leaders Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and
Science
Many religious denominations and individual religious leaders have issued statements
acknowledging the occurrence of evolution and pointing out that evolution and faith do not

Conclusion
The conclusion is an admonition to consider that issues of science and religion are almost always
complex, and that the answers they entail are also complex. Only when we consider as many
claims as possible and our own thinking about those claims can we grow in both faith and
knowledge.