"Can Religion Accept Modern Science"

Photo by Stephan Widua on Unsplash

One of the most famous examples of the conflict between religion and science was the situation with Galileo and the Catholic Church. In 1632, Galileo published a work that defended the heliocentric theory which said the earth revolves around the sun rather than the other way around. This was heresy according to the Church because in the Book of Joshua it says Joshua prayed to have the sun remain stationary in the sky to allow for more daylight so Israel could defeat its enemies and indeed, the sun did remain stationary. This would have required the sun to revolve around the earth. Also, believing the earth was the center of the universe indirectly meant that human beings were the center of God’s universe which is what the Church taught.

If this wasn’t enough, Galileo went further to suggest that the planet Venus has phases like the moon – which is does because it is inside the orbit of the earth. He also claimed to see four moons orbiting the planet Jupiter – the moons of Europa, Ganymede, Io and Callisto. The Pope claimed this was all nonsense, that Galileo was lying which was further proof that Galileo was a heretic. He was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.

The Age of Enlightenment in Europe from the 17^th century into the 18^th saw the rise of science with great thinkers such as Issac Newton, Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, even Benjamin Franklin and hundreds of others. This period generated new ways of considering the universe and human’s place within it.

Actually, the conflict between Galileo and the Church had an outsized role in establishing early conflicts between science and religion which some believe continues to this day. Indeed, there are some scientists and their followers today that promote the idea that there is inherently a conflict between science and religion. They proclaim that religion is just superstition, a way to control people, a psychological construct designed to ease the fears of people.

But there really needn’t be a conflict between religion and science. In fact, science can actually enhance religion. The Catholic Church during the time of Galileo could not see this and for a long time feared that the rise of science would destroy the Christian faith which had been based on a literal translation of the Bible, on Church traditions, and on centuries of Christian thinking which resulted in dogmas established by Church councils and writers such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine.

To be sure, the rise of science did challenge many long-held ideas but today, the Catholic Church embraces science and believes it actually supports the Church’s teachings. In recent centuries, Catholic priests have made great contributions to science: priests like Gregor Mendel and his work on genetics and Georges Lamaitre in his proof of the Big Bang Theory and the expansion of the universe. Today, the Vatican has an official astronomical observatory staffed by dozens of priests and brothers.

There are, of course, ongoing conflicts between science and ultra-conservative Christian denominations and particularly unaffiliated Christian churches that are very conservative. This would include those that believe the words contained in the Bible are the literal words of God. For example, even today, there are many groups who believe the Book of Genesis accurately depicts the creation of the universe even though the Book itself is riddled with conflicting accounts.

Just one example: In Genesis 6, referring to Noah’s Ark, it says Noah should take a pair of all animals onto the ark. Yet in Genesis 7 it says, “only seven pairs of clean animals are to be taken aboard the ark.” So, which is it? And I might add – the writing styles and linguistics between Genesis 6 and 7 are different indicating different authors.

This is but one of hundreds of examples of serious conflicts throughout the Bible. Conservative Christians merely say the two accounts of Noah complement each other and both are true? In fact, conservative Christians contend there are no conflicts in the Bible. There are only apparent conflicts because people cannot understand the absolute accuracy of the Bible or because the apparent conflicts are merely the devil confusing people. (There’s no way to argue with this point.)

More liberal Christians contend the Bible is the work of people, perhaps with some divine inspiration, but nevertheless, a product of the history and the environment of the time when the Biblical passages were written.

For over two centuries since the Enlightenment, science has proven itself over and over as the world changed and scientific theories were tested and confirmed. Accordingly, more liberal Christians have had to modify their stance on Biblical teachings. Evolution, for example, was a huge flashpoint in the conflict between religion and science. Over time, more liberal Christian churches have accepted the theory of Evolution. The Catholic Church today, for example, says that evolution was God’s way of creating life on earth.

Conservative Christian groups cannot accept this because it stands against what is said in the Book of Genesis. In the 19^th century, it was gradually accepted that dinosaurs existed. This ran in direct conflict with the Book of Genesis. Liberals Christians gradually acknowledged the Theory of Evolution while conservative Christians never did. For a long time, conservative Christians denied the existence of dinosaurs.

Then conservative Christians proposed (and some still do) that dinosaur bones were put on earth by the devil to confuse people. More “progressive” conservative Christians contend that dinosaurs once coexisted on earth with people and pairs of dinosaurs were taken on Noah’s ark but then later went extinct. (It must have been a pretty big ark) In fact you can visit a theme park in Kentucky which has dioramas depicting humans and dinosaurs living together. (BTW- the theme park also has a 510’ supposed replica of Noah’s ark.

The apparent conflict between science and religion has mostly been a conflict with Christianity – not a conflict in other religions. In both Judaism and Islam, except perhaps in some very extreme groups, there is no conflict between religion and science. In fact, science is seen as a way to study the magnificence of God and creation.

During the Middle Ages, Muslim thinkers deserve a lot of credit in re-educating Europe on scientific ideas advanced in the ancient world – particularly scientific ideas proposed by the Greeks and Romans. They further educated Europeans in medicine, mathematics, astronomy and other scientific areas. Up to the 13^th century in Europe – the numbering system utilized Roman numerals. There is no zero in Roman numerals. It was the Arabs who introduced the numbering system that eventually became our numeral system, and this included the zero. Muslim Arabs borrowed the concept of zero from Hindu India and introduced it to the west in the 13^th century.

Hindus see no conflict between religion and science. In fact, Hindus note some of the similarities in Hindu thought with modern theories of cosmology. Ancient Hindus saw the universe as billions of years old – an idea proposed by science today. And Hindus suggest the universe is created and destroyed in endless cycles, a concept suggested by some cosmologists today.

Buddhists see no conflict between religion and science and see the two as separate parallel endeavors. Buddhism focuses inward, particularly on the mind while science, they say, discusses the outward world. Buddhists further suggest that the world is an illusion and curiously, modern physics suggests the very same thing.

So – is there a conflict between religion and science. I think it depends upon your perspective. If someone believes in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible, then yes – there is a conflict. But those who believe this are in a small minority of the world’s population and actually, the number of scientists who see a conflict are also in the minority.

Most atheists suggest there is an inherent conflict between religion and science particularly since they contend that science is based on empirical evidence while religion is based on faith. But this is not true.

Yes – those who promote ancient religious doctrines such as beliefs in the Book of Genesis are basing this on faith – not empirical evidence. But so too do scientists base some theories on faith and not empirical evidence. Noted atheist Richard Dawkins once said, "If children understand that beliefs should be substantiated with evidence... they will automatically work out for themselves that they are atheists."

The problem with this is that there are actually many scientific theories that are based on faith, without any evidence. For example, “the uniformity of nature” which suggests that physical laws are the same everywhere in the universe and have always been so since the universe was created. There is no empirical proof for this. It is based on faith.

Then there is the “Multiverse Theory” which hold that our universe is but one of many universes that have been created and destroyed eternally. There is zero empirical proof of this. Even theories on what existed before “The Big Bang” are based on pure speculation.

There is no proof of how life was created on earth and perhaps everywhere in the universe. There are suggested models but again, no proof – just faith-based theories.

In other words, science and religion both rely on faith for many beliefs. It’s hard for some scientists to realize and accept this.

Let me also note the idea of spirituality once again. Religions include a set of beliefs, rituals, rules, dogmas and creeds. Spirituality is something much deeper. It is a profound connection with “other” often described by a religion but also a feeling of awe, an overwhelming sense of wonder in nature and creation, an inner peace and a realization that there is ultimately meaning and purpose in the universe. Can religious people be spiritual? This answer is, of course, yes. But many are not. Some just go through the motions of conforming to the beliefs and practices of a religion without any sense of spirituality just as some scientists accept various theories without acknowledging there is no proof in many cases.

Often times when I talk to someone who is an atheist, I ask them, “tell me about the God you don’t believe in – because I probably don’t believe in that God either.” In almost all cases, the God described by an atheist is the ancient Hebrew God who is “supernatural” – a being not of nature but which exists outside the realm of the natural universe. This is the God of ultra conservative Christians and I, for one, cannot believe in this God either.

What I find with many atheists who talk about God and religion, is they are talking about an ancient belief system. I find they often think about and describe the conflict between the Catholic Church and Galileo. I have to agree with them.

But this does not at all prelude me from seeing something magnificent that lies embedded in the fabric of this incredible universe. I do NOT see this as “supernatural.” I see it as entirely natural – something beyond description but something written in the apparent scientific laws of the universe. To see this, to acknowledge this, to endeavor to understand it, I see science as a most important tool of discovery. The search for this can be religious or it can just be spiritual, which would be a search without the constraints of a particular religious belief system.

I find it curious that many of the great mystics of all religions arrived at this same conclusion. The root of Hinduism – the oldest living religion and some 4000 years old holds the belief that the universe and everything in it, including the laws of science are all Brahman – or God which manifests itself in all things in the universe, including you and me. There is no “supernatural.”

In one passage in the sacred Hindu scripture, The Bhagavad Gita it says, “"He who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, he does not become separated from Me, nor do I become separated from him".

The 13^th century German Catholic priest and theologian Meister Eckhard once said, “God is an unknowable, the ineffable "Ground of Being" beyond all human concepts, and names…. God is found within the soul's deepest, detached ground.

The 9^th century Iranian Muslim Sufi Al Halaj said, “I am the Truth” meaning God and I are one. This was similar to the 13^th century Muslim Sufi, Jalal al-Din Rumi who said, “Let me remember I am one with God, at one with all my brothers and my Self, in everlasting holiness and peace."

All of these mystics saw the workings of the sacred in nature and in every human being, therefore, there need not be any conflicts between religion and science. Or, perhaps, a better way of looking at it is to say there is no conflict between spirituality and science and a spirituality that goes beyond the realm of purely scientific explanations for the universe we see all around us.

This is precisely why I am fascinated by science and wholeheartedly believe that by embracing science and studying it, we can all greatly enhance our spiritual life.

There are so many great scientists who shared these same thoughts of the mystics. Just two examples are Sir Issac Newton who lived from 1643 to 1727 and Max Planck who lived from 1858 to 1947. Newton was one of the most brilliant human beings who ever lived. He wrote extensively on theology and philosophy in addition to science, but he kept his theological ideas mostly to himself. Through his study of science, Newton developed the laws of motion. He discovered the physical nature of light. He invented Calculus.

But Issac Newton considered himself, as he said, “a devout unorthodox Christian” His passion in studying science was, he said, “to understand the mind of the Creator whose infinite genius had etched into the cosmos the very logic of the laws of nature.” Newton did not believe in Trinity. He said Jesus was created by God to be a mediator between God and humans. Ironically, this was the position Unitarians would take less than a century after Issac Newton’s death.

Max Planck became a doctoral student at the University of Munich in 1875. His advisor told him there was really no point in studying physics because everything that could be understood about physics had already been discovered. Planck was a modest man and told his advisor he just wanted to understand physics as much as possible. But he went on to make profound discoveries and additions to physics. He is the father of quantum physics.

During his work, Max Planck began to perceive that the laws of nature and the constraints of nature had their source in what he called, “the Transcendent Consciousness of the Creator. These laws of nature he said, “cut into the bedrock of physical reality but also ascended to a Mind beyond material reality.”

Scientists, including Max Planck, over the past century have recognized that there are 26 physical constants that are the same everywhere in the universe. These include such constants as the speed of light, the mass of protons and neutrons and the charge of elections. And, using supercomputers, scientists have discovered that changing just one of these constants a tiny, tiny bit would mean the universe as we know it could not exist. Indeed, the Universe is fine-tuned to exist. To me this is a powerful reality, and it is understanding science that makes this possible.

I do occasionally read scriptures from all the world’s religions, and I find value in them because they point to human thought over thousands of years. Yet if I want to really delve into the spiritual world and enable myself to experience an awe, a wonder, a feeling of overwhelming oneness and sense of being, I look to science and the marvels of nature. I have to say I am more captivated by a PBS science documentary than I am from reading most scriptures.

In my view science can definitely enhance religion and spirituality.

Einstein once said that “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” He also said, “all religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.” I couldn’t agree more.

There is a joke among theologians and philosophers. On one side of a mountain there was a group of theologians who decided to climb a mountain to find ultimate truth. On the other side of the mountain was a group of scientists who decided to climb the same mountain to find ultimate truth. When both groups reached the top of the mountain, they found themselves staring at each other.

Reverend Christopher McMahon

UU Chatham

March 8, 2026