Topic: Religion and Science Cannot Mix (Read 255 times)

Dogmatic religious axioms have existed for aeons, with each and every one of them being indifferent to science: they attempt to answer the "why" behind the workings of the universe. I would like to put forth an argument that one of my old bosses presented to me around twenty years ago: "Religion is not man-made, or 'God-inspired,' it's the qualitative way of answering questions; formal science is the quantitative way."

If we consider this argument, then by definition, "qualitative analyses," no matter how they're conducted, are relative to someone; they have a "benchmark." Let us consider an age-old question: "Why are we here?" To a scientist, his answer would be to make progression in science. To an environmentalist, his answer would be to achieve harmony with the environment. To a monk, his answer would be to liberate one's self from hedonism. In any case, one is not in any position of authority to argue against these "qualitative analyses," since, by definition, they relate to a person's own values, shaped by his life, his experiences, and his knowledge. There is no "right" or "wrong." Religion, therefore, cannot be accurately evaluated.

"Quantitative analyses," on the other hand, are objective. Objective analyses are, in comparison with subjective analyses, devoid of any relativity to human emotion; therefore, we are able to accurately evaluate science. For instance, one cannot argue against 2+2 being 4. Such an argument would be illogical. Or, for instance, when Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, he did so by providing mountains of evidence showing the relations between the beaks of different finches being different from each other. That is objective data; it cannot be argued against, unless evidence proves it false.

Evidence-based argumentative frameworks are not present in religion, or philosophy. It's impossible. Everything is based on "relativity." Therefore, when one claims that science cannot exist with religion, it is very much a corollary of the following statement: subjective and objective are polar opposites.

An object that is relative is not the same as an object that is absolute. One's perception of time is relative; however, time itself is not relative. It is absolute.

In the same way, we cannot mix two polar opposite studies together. Though both may have the same goal - of answering humanity's most dying questions - the approaches used contradict each other.