Both science and religion are sources of knowledge for human beings. Religion is described as the beliefs and forms of worship that are mostly followed or pursued with great interest and devotion. It involves the worshipping of a power that is superhuman and that controls the cognitive abilities of human beings, the worship in most cases involves God. On the other hand, science is described as the interest and efforts of human beings directed towards understanding the natural world and the way different things in the natural world work. The basis of scientific understanding is based on the physical evidence that is present in the natural world. Hume provides an evaluation of religion through the theory of empiricism and finds it lacking. He develops a skeptical criticism of the theological systems and their foundations based on philosophy, through the empiricism concepts, he argues that all knowledge is attained or originates through experience. He adds that all the propositions and beliefs that are acceptable need to be knowable or justifiable through physical evidence or experience. On the other hand, according to Galileo, science and religion provide different forms of knowledge to human beings, this means that they do not compete in any way. He argues that it was God who created human beings and endowed them with reasons, senses, and intellect, this means that there is no way he will give us knowledge that we can be able to attain through them (Freire 1). Science and religion offer us the different kinds of knowledge and they function in different and in complementary areas. The knowledge obtained through science is based on different physiological foundations as compared to the knowledge that is obtained through religion, science and religion also function in different ways and they complement each other.
Human beings are able to attain knowledge through the intellect, senses, and reason that they possess. Since these are provided by God, Galileo argues that he would not want human beings to deny reason and sense on the matters that are physical and that can be witnessed by eyes or reasoned by the mind through the required demonstrations. In some cases, knowledge attained through science and that which has been attained through religion conflict. For instance, Galileo drafts an open letter to differentiate knowledge that was obtained through science and knowledge that individuals had obtained through religion. Knowledge attained through religion is obtained through tradition and the faith that human beings have on revelations and information that is contained in the scriptures, while knowledge that is attained through science is based on the observations and reason of human beings (Polkinghorne 29). The contention, in this case, was the debate surrounding geocentric and heliocentric models. Both the renaissance philosophers who had attained their knowledge through observation and reason and the theologians who had their knowledge passed down through tradition presented different viewpoints on this matter.
According to theologians and traditionalists who promoted religion, relying on knowledge that was obtained through reason and observation was not right, this is because it conflicts with the information that is contained in the scriptures and also traditions. Such knowledge was considered as heresy and was not allowed in the society. However, Galileo argues that it was God who wrote the scriptures and at the same time he created nature. This means that scriptures and nature contain the truth. Both nature and the scripture contain knowledge that is presented by God although it is attained in different ways. It should also be noted that God created organs, senses, and intellect on human beings, this means that human beings can be able to attain knowledge from the scriptures in a rational manner and also be able to understand the truths that are important in the scripture just like the theologians. Similarly, human beings can be able to study nature rationally and through observation, they are able to attain knowledge about the important truths of nature, this is similar to the ways that scientific knowledge is attained. The theory presented by Galileo, in this case, shows that knowledge that is attained through science and the knowledge that is attained through religion comes from God. Knowledge from the same source needs to complement each other and not to compete in any way.
McFague also compliments this argument in her essay, she states that human beings need to be part of nature and living in the society. This means that they need to understand the natural systems and the various forms of knowledge that they need to offer to human beings. Similarly, they need to understand the living, the beliefs, and faith that has been passed down through tradition and information that is contained in the scriptures (Harwood 111). McFague draws a distinction between imagination and theology so as to better present the differences that exist between the science and religion. The distinction also allows her to describe how knowledge attained through science and religion compliments each other. She proposes a form of theology that focuses on the imaginative construal of God and the relationship that he has with the world. Through this focus, she is able to eliminate any form of myths that exist regarding the models and metaphors of religion in the contemporary society. The nature of science which is the natural world and religion are clearly distinguished and the way that they complement each other is developed. It can be seen that by having proper knowledge on science and religion, one is able to understand the contemporary society more effectively. This is because scientific knowledge compliments religious knowledge and religious knowledge compliments scientific knowledge.
However, Hume presents a different viewpoint, on the basis of the empiricist grounds, he evaluates religion and discredits knowledge attained in this manner. In his argument, he believes that knowledge that has not been gained through experience is not the truth and that such knowledge needs to be ignored. For human beings to certain about some happenings or have knowledge about a particular thing, they need empirical prove about the thing. Through this argument, Hume discredits any form of knowledge that is gained through senses or reason. In this case, he discredits the knowledge which is attained through religion. At the same time, he credits the knowledge which is gained through experience or knowledge which has been attained in the natural systems with physical evidence present. According to the theory of empiricism which is promoted by Hume, unless there is observational evidence that something exists, then that thing does not exist (Bergman 3). Only things that have observational evidence can exist, just as seen in the natural world. If there is no observational evidence, then the thing does not exist. He argues that there is no observational evidence about the existence of God. This means that the religion is lacking. From this context, it can be seen that Hume promotes the scientific knowledge and denies the existence of religion meaning that there is no any form of knowledge that is obtained through religion.
As seen from the above discussion, science and religion give us different forms of knowledge. Through religion, we are able to attain knowledge that is contained in the scriptures and knowledge through tradition and faith. On the other hand, scientific knowledge is attained through the experience or reason, this means that one has to experience a natural phenomenon in the natural world to have knowledge of something. Unlike knowledge obtained from religion, scientific knowledge has physical evidence. It can also be seen that religion and science are different. This means that they function in different ways, according to theologians and traditionalists, religion involves a supreme being who controls other human beings and offers them knowledge through the scriptures. The knowledge that is contained in the scriptures is considered to be the truth. On the other hand, scientists believe in knowledge which is obtained in the natural world. This means that they have to experience something for them to attain knowledge. Although Hume presents an argument which discredits knowledge obtained through religion as false, Galileo argues about the sense and reason of human beings and that God is the one who created humans and hence both scientific and religious health are true. The difference between the truths of science and religion are presented. According to McFague, if an individual understands both science and religion, he or she is able to lead a more comfortable life. This means that religion and science complement each other.
Works Cited
Bergman, Mats. "Empiricism." The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy (2016): 1-9.
Freire, Olival. "Is a Dialogue Between Science and Religion Possible?" (2018): 1-2.
Harwood, John T. "Theologizing the World: A Reflection on the Theology of Sallie McFague." Anglican Theological Review 97.1 (2015): 111.
Polkinghorne, John. "Integrating Science and Religion." Science, Religion and Society. Routledge, 2015. 27-37.
