The idea that there is a war between science and technology is very common and it’s easy to believe it from some of the very public conflicts that have occurred. Because of this perception, it’s often difficult to have relaxed, interesting conversations about science and religion. Many of us instead just assume that it’s not really that important or even worth talking about. After all, this is the realm of metaphysics, something that doesn’t really impact daily life, right?

However, it turns out that metaphysical considerations are the basis for most people’s ethics, even when we don’t think about that. In other words, our views on things typically considered religious, such as a formal code of ethics, life after death, a moral creator, and so on, really determine our moral views. The fact that most people in the west have ethics based on Judeo-Christian ideals, whether they are Christian or not, is not widely understood.

So if it’s important to have a considered opinion here, how do we deal with the issue of their apparent conflict? Perhaps we can start by looking at where some of the conflicts seem to come up.

First, we need to define our terms.

By “science”, I mean the domain of the natural, physical world, the discovery of what it is and how it works. The tools used are things like the scientific method, mathematics and modeling, peer review, replication, and so on. We see scientific principles expressed in technological developments in which our understanding of the world is used to solve problems and improve life (hopefully).

By “religion”, I mean the domain of the metaphysical, supernatural world, the understanding of why the world is the way it is and how it should be operating. This includes the purpose and meaning of all existence, and especially humanity. The tools used are things like human experiences, including mystical ones, religious texts and practices, and so on. We see religious principles expressed in moral guidelines and practices that grow human relationships in ways that promote peace and flourishing (hopefully).

So how do these come into conflict? There are many opinions about this, but here is one way of thinking about it.

Neither science nor religion are completely explored domains, so there are many unknowns and uncertainties in both. Both science and religion have many mysteries, and the tools of religion are especially subject to varying interpretation. In both cases, it’s possible to form incorrect perspectives, hold them dogmatically, and claim that the resulting belief is a truth that cannot be challenged even in other domains.

With religion, some famous examples include insistence on a flat Earth, that the sun travels around the Earth, the age of the Earth, and that evolution is false. Each of these beliefs were based on religious views that could have varying meaning but were given very specific interpretations. For some people, these beliefs became dogma that was asserted in the natural realm instead of the supernatural, resulting in conflict.

With the topics related to creation, for example, we’ve learned over time how better to understand texts from those time frames and cultures, and that understanding leads many to see the texts as figurative. However, it is easy to ignore that new understanding and focus instead on what one sees when reading the text directly. Our minds often operate such that, when we encounter a picture that seems to agree, we fixate on that as our reality and then often see the rest of the world, even new information that comes in, in ways that fit that picture. This often results in dogmatism.

While these steps are most commonly known with the examples of conflicts mentioned above, some less famous examples occur in science, too.

When a scientist first proposed that enormous floods swept across the eastern part of Washington state, he met a lot of resistance because the standard geological viewpoint was that changes only happened slowly and such catastrophes did not occur. In addition, there was some thought that the story sounded too much like the Biblical flood narrative, and so was more likely made up. These views were eventually corrected and the catastrophic flood model is now well accepted.

Another example is the Big Bang. When it was first proposed, it violated a similar astronomical viewpoint about the universe being in a steady state. In addition, it also was seen as promoting a religious model since a singular creation matched the Biblical narrative better than the standard steady state model. However, it also eventually became seen as the correct model.

The latter example is interesting because it starts to illustrate how dogmatism in science can cause it to make assertions about things beyond the realm of science, such as metaphysical topics, in this case the creation of the universe. This can happen even more clearly when science makes statements about things like the existence of God.

From all this, it seems that the fundamental problem causing serious disagreements is dogmatism – the unwarranted commitment to a particular viewpoint. When dogmatic beliefs are used to make statements about other domains, beyond the knowledge that originally informed the belief, then it’s easy to end up in conflict.

It seems, then, that the way to avoid conflict is to be humble and respectful in our assertions. One way to do this is to be careful with the language we use when talking about our beliefs. Typically, we use terms like “I believe”, or perhaps “I think”. Such statements imply a fairly fixed viewpoint, as if we’ve decided and there’s no room for discussion. If instead we used terms like “I hope”, it reminds us of the inherent uncertainty in our positions. Even if we really don’t think it’s likely that our perspective is going to change, we can remind ourselves to be humble in our discussions with other people, rather than arrogant.