There is an ongoing debate about the relationship between science and faith. Many believe that they are incompatible, that they are at “war” with each other. Others contend that they have nothing to do with each other, an idea sometimes expressed by describing them as “non-overlapping magisteria” — the idea that they only apply to unrelated aspects of reality and human experience.

However, an underlying assumption with both views is that we understand the universe well enough to be certain about our assessments. However, what if this isn’t true? What if it’s better to take a more humble position and admit that we cannot make a clear enough assessment, and therefore need to continue exploring the issues?

Consider, for example, these commonly cited examples of science-faith conflict:

The age of the Earth seems to be a conflict, with a simple reading of the Bible that indicates something like 6000 years, while science indicates a much older age. However, it turns out that there is some uncertainty about the proper interpretation of the Biblical texts and that multiple perspectives have always existed. In addition, the idea that the creation narratives are figurative is gaining credence as scholars improve their understanding of how best to interpret the ancient texts. As a result, many different educated Christians have different opinions.

Thus, the existence of a conflict is far from certain, and exists only in certain interpretations of the ancient texts.

Alternatively, the occurrence of miracles are sometimes given as an example of conflict. However, various scholars have pointed out that some interpretations of quantum physics allow for the possibility of miracles through certain quantum behaviors and their relationship to the mind. As studies of these relationships have developed, new ideas about the nature of the mind have come up that increase the range of possibilities for miracles to happen. As a result, different secular experts are developing different opinions that continue to expand the possibilities of quantum events.

Thus, the existence of a conflict is not certain here, either, and exists only in certain interpretations of quantum theory.

Perhaps there are other examples that have more certainty, but I’ve not found them. Instead, there seems to be an increasing belief that the “war” between science and faith is a fabricated conflict driven by extremists on both sides.

Instead, a better approach would be for both sides to learn from the other, test their own views, and work collaboratively to have a more complete understanding of reality. If conflicts seem to arise, then they can be seen as opportunities to refine our views, on either side, rather than as reasons for wholesale rejection of them.