In this blog post, we will examine the history of the relationship between religion and science and explore how this relationship can be viewed from three perspectives: conflict, integration, and independence.
Science refers to the systematic and theoretical knowledge resulting from human theoretical cognitive activities that explore the structure, properties, and laws of things. Ever since modern humans first appeared, even though it was not called “science” at the time, humans have continued to observe and seek to understand nature. In early human history, people came to understand certain natural phenomena in order to survive, while phenomena that were difficult to comprehend were often regarded as the will of a deity. Through this process, religious practices—which can be considered the origins of religion—naturally emerged, and figures such as shamans wielded significant influence in ancient societies. Thus, religion and the systematic exploration of nature have developed in an intertwined manner throughout human history. However, science has continued to evolve over time, and as it began to offer explanations for areas previously covered by religious explanations—most notably, the conflict between creationism and the theory of evolution—conflicts began to emerge. What stance should we take regarding science and religion, which offer different explanations for the same phenomena? Even today, perspectives on the relationship between science and religion can be broadly categorized into several types. Regarding evolution, it is important to clarify that biological evolution is strongly supported by a variety of independent evidence, and that scientific explanations are based on observations and verifiable evidence.
First, there is an argument based on Conflict Theory that science and religion are bound to clash. This argument is further divided into two main positions: an active stance, which holds that over time only one of the two will remain, and a passive stance, which holds that one side will eventually be gradually phased out. Some atheists or anti-religious individuals, as well as some people who accept religious dogma absolutely, adopt this position. They maintain that science and religion are incompatible, and some supporters of science argue that, as science advances, religion will disappear into history, just like astrology or alchemy. One professor who holds this view stated, “If one maintains intellectual honesty, religion appears to be a meme that humanity no longer needs. It feels as though people keep circling around it, expecting to find something more there, even though it’s a meme whose expiration date has long passed. If that is the case, shouldn’t religion be a relic that is either replaced by science or disappears entirely into the annals of history?” However, today, science and religion are not necessarily viewed as being in a relationship where one must replace the other; in fact, there are people who accept the theory of evolution as scientific fact while maintaining their religious faith. Given this, it is difficult to explain the entire relationship between the two domains solely through the theory of conflict.
The second argument regarding the relationship between science and religion is known as “integration theory,” which posits that science and religion are complementary and will continue to coexist in harmony. Just as we do not say that science itself has failed simply because an outdated scientific theory has been discarded, this view explains that in religion, the revision or abandonment of a specific interpretation or theory should not be seen merely as a failure of religion, but rather as a change and development in theological thought. This perspective is supported not only by a significant number of creationists but also by those who are wary of scientism. Of course, even within this camp, opinions vary: some believe that religion and science mutually support each other, while others believe that religion alone supports science. Overall, this view is widely accepted because it does not view the two domains as completely antagonistic. Furthermore, modern scientific research and religious faith are not necessarily incompatible, and there are perspectives that accept both the scientific explanation of evolution and religious faith.
The final argument regarding the relationship between science and religion is the view that the two must be kept strictly separate. It is argued that attempting to explain myths and religion in the same way as science is inappropriate for all three—myth, religion, and science. A prominent proponent of this view is the scientist Stephen Jay Gould. Gould introduced the term NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) in an effort to prevent conflict between science and religion. He explained that while science investigates the factual characteristics of the natural world and seeks to develop theories that integrate and explain these facts, religion deals with the realms of human purpose, meaning, and values; therefore, the two domains should not be judged by the same standards. NOMA is known as a representative perspective that seeks to understand science and religion as distinct domains, and it continues to serve as an important reference point in discussions about how science and religion can address different questions and employ different methods. However, this perspective has also faced criticism regarding its specific details. In particular, it is difficult to view religion as having exclusive jurisdiction over all questions concerning human meaning and values; furthermore, given examples such as creation science or intelligent design—which seek to combine religious beliefs with empirical claims about the natural world—there are limitations to describing these as entirely unrelated domains.
Thus, there are numerous arguments and perspectives surrounding the relationship between religion and science, and it is difficult to definitively assert that any one of them is absolutely correct. Clearly, regarding the points of contention between creationism and the theory of evolution, when synthesizing the evidence accumulated to date from various fields—such as the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetics, and molecular biology—I believe one must side with biological evolution. In particular, scientific evidence regarding the occurrence of evolution itself has been accumulated on a very broad scale, and modern evolutionary biology has evolved to incorporate Darwin’s theory of natural selection while also reflecting research from various fields that have developed since then, such as genetics and molecular biology. However, this does not mean that religion is a completely meaningless concept. This is because the areas where science and religion are in direct conflict represent only a part of religion as a whole, and the positive effects that can arise from their coexistence cannot be ignored.
In a sense, it can be argued that because creationism—which occupies a significant position in the conflict between religion and science—has persisted to this day, the theory of evolution has also developed meticulously to counter creationist claims and explain natural phenomena with greater precision. At the same time, it can be said that religious believers have also revised or gained new insights into their interpretations of nature and humanity as they have encountered scientific advancements and new discoveries. In fact, the relationship between science and religion has not simply consisted of one side driving out the other; rather, it has evolved through a complex interplay of conflict and dialogue, separation and interaction, depending on the era and society.
For this reason, rather than taking extreme positions—such as claiming that science and religion are entirely unrelated or that one will inevitably be eliminated—I believe the view that the two domains, while addressing different questions and employing different methods, can influence one another when necessary is a far more persuasive argument. Science excels at observing how the natural world works and explaining it through evidence, while religion has raised questions about how humans should understand the meaning, value, and purpose of life. Of course, conflicts can arise when religion makes empirical claims about the natural world or asserts, as if they were scientific facts, matters that science cannot verify. However, such conflicts do not necessarily imply an inevitable opposition between science and religion as a whole. Rather, if both fields recognize their respective limitations and continue to strive to understand humanity and the world in different ways, science and religion can coexist in a manner that enriches human knowledge and thought, rather than negating each other’s existence.
