In this blog post, we will examine why religion continues to maintain its influence in modern society, despite the dazzling advances in science, and what this means.
Science and religion have been in constant conflict throughout modern history. In the past, Galileo was put on trial for supporting Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, which stated that the Earth revolves around the Sun, rather than the geocentric theory, which stated that the universe revolves around the Earth. This was not merely a clash between two theories, but a clash between the paradigms of belief and perception held by humanity. At that time, religion was the sole authority explaining the world and the place of humanity, and the heliocentric theory challenged that authority. Galileo’s case symbolically illustrates the inevitable conflict between science and religion. However, as time passed, science developed and society underwent rapid changes, and science gradually began to break free from the influence of religion. In fact, in modern times, science has become a threat to religion, and this has expanded into a philosophical issue.
Those who believe that science can explain everything, known as scientism, expected that science would be able to clarify the essence and ultimate purpose of human existence. Amidst this trend, new atheists emerged, claiming that religion was merely opium for the ignorant and that science would soon replace religion completely. However, no matter how many scientific discoveries are made, religion still maintains its vitality, and the number of people who practice religion around the world is actually increasing. Why has science failed to completely replace religion, contrary to their expectations? Could there be a fundamental flaw in their argument?
Among the atheists who emerged in this era proclaiming scientism, the most famous is undoubtedly Richard Dawkins. In his books, The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, he harshly criticizes religion. In particular, he argues that Darwinism is a universal theory that transcends biology and that religion can also be explained through Darwinism. However, can religion, which is composed of metaphysical beliefs, be explained through scientific methods that exclude metaphysics? To address this issue, Dawkins attempts to add a subtle metaphysical interpretation to science. In his book, he argues that genes are within us and control the world through remote control. Furthermore, his claim that protecting genes is the ultimate cause of human existence is close to a philosophical argument. Many of the concepts Dawkins seeks to explain through science are not facts confirmed through scientific verification, but rather his personal interpretations.
Dawkins expands this logic further to propose the concept of meme theory. He argues that just as organisms evolve through genes, religious beliefs also evolve through the existence of memes. According to meme theory, just as genes transmit biological information through self-replication, memes transmit thoughts and beliefs from one brain to another through imitation. Dawkins uses the meme theory to explain the spread and development of religious beliefs and attempts to present this as scientific fact, but this is nothing more than Dawkins’ metaphysical interpretation, which has not been verified by scientific methods. He mentions that memes are tangible entities that parasitize the brain and presents his own logic without any scientific basis as to how memes are specifically transmitted.
In fact, such claims are far from the objectivity that science strives for. Science is an effort to explain the world based on strictly observed and verified facts. However, Dawkins adds his own philosophical interpretations to scientific facts in an attempt to include his beliefs within the framework of science. This can be seen as no different from the error of religion in the past, which sought to suppress scientific discoveries. Times have changed, and now atheists are using science as a tool to emphasize their anti-religious beliefs. Just as Galileo was tried by the Inquisition in the past, today’s scientism advocates are packaging science as a new ‘religion’ and attempting to suppress opposing opinions. When science is used not as a tool for seeking truth but as a means to solidify specific beliefs, its essence is inevitably compromised.
When used correctly, science maintains neutrality toward both religious and anti-religious beliefs. The role of science is to explore factual issues; it cannot provide answers to questions about the ultimate value or meaning of human existence. For example, science can explain that humans die, but it cannot answer questions about the value or meaning of death. If we use science not as a tool of religion or anti-religion, but in accordance with its essence, science will lead us to questions of meaning and value that science cannot address. Science must go as far as it can as a means of seeking truth, and its role must stop there.
