‘The end of science is the beginning of Religion’ is probably the most telling statement made by people that introduces the matter in question- that religion and science are polar opposites and cannot therefore co-exist. That one has to be completely independent of the other - one representing absolute rationality and the other representing perceptual belief. Ultimately then, following this line of reasoning, belief in Science means denying the existence of God or any religious deity. This, however, might not always be true as I shall expound in the course of this essay.
Ian G. Barbour (1998) agrees, in his book Religion and science- Historical and contemporary issues, that Science and religion are two of the most fascinating and significant domains around the world that have over time clashed and caused chaos along with change. Religion came first and set its roots in human history while Science emerged over time and became extremely controversial for religions and cultures (Nicole Annis, 2018).
It is important to take note of the timeframe of emergence. The fact that religion emerged first meant that religions like Christianity were the sole providers for answers to the origin of humanity and existence. The answer to why a certain area received no rainfall that led to famine would probably have been that the residents of the said area were sinners and that famine was some form of punishment from God. The way to correct this situation would probably have been said to be offering sacrifices along with repentance, prayer and fasting.
Then came the ‘age of enlightment’ around the 18th century that according to Barbour, made up of a wide range of loss in faith in religions, such as Christianity, since science proved different facts than what had been preached all those years. Barbour claims that people lost touch with some teachings of religion because they could trust what they believed to be true with backing and actual proof from science. Science began to answer previously supposed and unanswered questions, backed-up with evidence that was not provided tangibly by religion (Barbour 1998 introduction). So the same area that did not receive rain would now embark more on planting trees, soil improvement and selective agriculture to evade famine and see direct results of the said scientific solutions.
According to Alister McGrath in his book Science and Religion: a New Introduction, some scientists believe that religion and science will always challenge each other and this challenge might not stop until one of the two is eliminated. At the same time, some religious believers feel that science is a threat to their faith. Despite these two sides, historians do not feel the same way about science being in conflict with religion. McGrath maintains that historians feel that science has opened up religious questions as opposed to shutting them down forcing them to be insignificant (McGrath, P. 1). The same view was held by Barbour to some extent when he described as illogical, the view that was proposed by Edward O. Wilson, a socio-biologist, that religion will be replaced by science and become ancient history. In Edward’s argument, science will eventually prove all religions to be false because they will lack backing in tangible evidence. Barbour argues t