It is a well-documented phenomenon that in times of socio-economic uncertainty and hardship, religious institutions enjoy a surge of popularity. In a somewhat surprising turn of events, partly in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks conducted in the name of religious extremism, and partly due to certain U.S. states’ attempts to eliminate the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools, history has seen a shift in the cultural zeitgeist. The rise of a wave of new atheism is often said to have been ushered in by the four horsemen of the apocalypse- Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens, all of them writers of popular atheistic literature that has topped bestselling charts. This new wave of atheism primarily takes religious claims to fall within the boundaries of science, and hence the ‘God hypothesis’ is treated as one which can be subject to the empirical inquiry characteristic of the scientific method. The conclusion drawn by Dawkins in The God Delusion is that the theory of evolution and modern cosmological theories satisfies, or shows the potential of satisfying, the existence of humankind and the universe, thereby eliminating the necessity of belief in an omnipotent, supernatural creator. Readers get the impression that holding religious beliefs is incompatible with accepting the existing body of scientific knowledge and the scientific method. But is this really the case?
It is certainly true that religious texts do make claims on the natural world, claims that can justifiably be put to empirical testing. However, in most cases such claims do not factor into the theist’s practice of the religion. This of course, excludes fundamentalists who interpret religious texts literally, such as the Creationists who believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary (I should note here the religious people referred to throughout this article are moderate theists, not fundamentalists). For moderate theists, the discrepancies between claims in religious texts and accepted scientific theories are not resolved by rejecting the scientific theories, but rather by taking a moral, spiritual or rhetorical reading of the passage in question, as opposed to a naturalistic one. Hence holding religious beliefs does not preclude one from accepting current scientific knowledge.
Nevertheless, I argue that there is a certain incompatibility of science and religion, but only insofar as it pertains to the standards of evaluation used. It is this incompatibility, I suspect, that have led many atheists of the new wave to dismiss religious beliefs as irrational. This claim is misguided, for the inability of religious beliefs to hold up under scientific methods of inquiry does not necessarily imply that such beliefs are irrational. The rapid progress and universally acknowledged efficacy of science, along with all the fruits of its discoveries, has led people to hold these standards of evaluation, which have served us so well in science, to be the golden standard of rationality. However, because of the very nature of religious beliefs, they cannot be evaluated by scientific standards of evaluation. In particular, I wish to single out the criterion of falsification of theories, which requires that theories can be empirically proven wrong. That a theory can be falsified is one of the essential components required of a scientific theory, but such a criterion cannot, and should not be applied to religious beliefs.
Take for example the key religious tenet shared by most major monotheistic religions—the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent god. In a hypothetical scenario, a young patient has a life-threatening disease and is predicted to meet his/her imminent death by the doctors, if he/she does not undergo a risky surgical procedure which has a low success rate. The parents of this young patient are devout believers and pray for his/her successful surgery and recovery. There are two possible outcomes. First, the patient has a successful surgery and recovers, and goes on to lead a healthy, fulfilling life. The parents’ prayers are considered to have been answered by God, and thus their faith in the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God is affirmed and strengthened. Second, the surgery fails, and the young patient eventually passes away. Since the requests of their prayer have not been met, does their child’s death then serve as disconfirming evidence for the existence of a benevolent God for the devout parents? In the overwhelming majority of cases, it does not. The parents are consoled by the belief that their child’s death is part of a larger plan set out by God, and that their child has gone on to heaven—an eminently more desirable place to live than earth.
The purpose of this hypothetical scenario is to show that religious beliefs, by virtue of their origins and subject matter, cannot be falsified. Scientific theories only pass muster if they make predictions which can serve as disconfirming instances of the theory itself, but it is irrelevant whether or not religious claims can be falsified. This is because for the overwhelming majority, the origins of their religious beliefs do not arise out of rational argumentation; it is not solely because theists are convinced of the arguments for God’s existence—the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments, for instance—that they come to hold the beliefs that they do. More often than not, beliefs are formed by a combination of other factors such as the socio-cultural context that the individual is raised in, or through religious experiences. Furthermore, the nature of religious beliefs is such that it allows for skeptical theism. According to skeptical theism, it is reasonable and even expected that humans, with our limited epistemic abilities, are unable to comprehend why an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God would permit apparently gratuitous suffering, precisely because we lack the knowledge which only an omniscient being would possess. This forbearance, perhaps most aptly summed up by the oft quoted maxim that “God works in mysterious ways”, effectively places the purported effects of God on the natural world, such as the effects of intercessory prayer on sick patients, beyond the scrutiny of scientific investigation and evaluation. It is only in this sense that I argue that science is incompatible with religion, while claiming that this does not make religious beliefs irrational.
That science and religion are incompatible with regards to their standards of evaluation raises interesting questions as to precisely what standards should be adopted for religious beliefs given the plurality of religions—most of which make conflicting claims—and the justification behind the conversion of some theists to atheism. These questions may appear to be abstract ruminations, but they have significant moral and ethical implications.
Regardless of the views that one has towards religion, it is imperative that one applies the principle of charity; to give the strongest, most rational interpretation of the other party’s argument before evaluating it. Constructing straw man arguments against the other party, a commonplace phenomenon on the internet, is unproductive and merely generates unnecessary disrespect, contempt and animosity. Snide remarks about theists not having outgrown their imaginary friend, or likening belief in God to belief in the tooth fairy, or characterising atheists as immoral, ignorant fools serves no useful purpose in rational discourse. This problem is exacerbated by how content providers increasingly harness more sophisticated methods of customizing content based on what we have previously watched or read. This serves to reinforce pre-existing beliefs while simultaneously reducing exposure to alternative views, thereby resulting in the increasing polarisation between atheists and theists, as well as between theists of different faiths.
But maybe I am preaching to the choir. It is perhaps an inevitable, but nonetheless desired side-effect of the sustained efforts of the government and major religious and educational establishments in Singapore to cultivate multi-racial harmony that civil discourse amongst different religious groups has been consistently achieved. The secular foundations of the state have also provided a basis of policy-making that privileges neither religious belief, nor any attendant moral judgments, of any one religious group.