Debates about Fact and Faith
From the times of Galileo and Humes, there have always been debates concerning fact and faith. Philosophy borrows some of its tenets from science. Some of the philosophers like Galileo believed that religion and science could exist together as all of them were from the same source, God. Thus, by studying both nature and scripture rationally, we would be able to appreciate the different occurrences and contrasting views of science and religion. According to him, science was the key accorded to human beings by God to enable them to understand him better. On the other hand, Hume's refuted different claims advanced by religious scholars on his Treatise and Enquires publications. In this paper just like Thomas Kuhn, we attempt to show that only the scientific method is objective and universal. The contrasting arguments basing on Galileo's and Hume's beliefs are explored in detail.
The Truths of Nature and Scripture
The scripture was written by God, and so was nature created by God. Scientists argue that the truth can only be found in nature whereas religious philosophers say that the truth can only be derived from the scriptures. Both the scripture and nature are traceable to the same source, and thus both are true and equal (none is more significant than the other). Through learning the scripture rationally, we can discover essential truths. Similarly, by studying the nature rationally, we can also find other vital truths. As such since the two sets of truths trace their origin to a similar source, they ought to be compatible. Galileo asserted that God's work (nature and scripture) is miraculous. Miracles form a vital part of the present-day religions. They are used to signify Gods supernatural power and build people's belief in God. To doubt the existence of miracles is just like refuting the existence of God. How then would you explain incidences such as the biblical resurrection story? Arguably daily there arise new occurrences which cannot be defined by human reason and experiences. The pieces of evidence do not conform to the laws of nature (miracles). They are only traceable to an immaterial being with the capability to produce actions which cannot be explained by reason.
The Principle of Causation
The principle of causation argues that whatever exists on earth must have been triggered by another thing. Additionally, it is impossible to find a cause or reason that leads to a perfect or excellent situation that is not possessed by the cause. As such if we are to trace back the causes and effects, should we find an infinite succession of causes and effects, then this infinite succession of causes and effects must have been caused by an ultimate cause. Violation of this argument would necessitate us to explain the reasons why that particular infinite succession originated from eternity and not any other succession. As such the existence of the infinite series of causes and effects is attributable to an intelligent and immaterial being (God). Any violation of the argument leads to a contradiction.
The Human Understanding of God
A man has no affirmative idea of a God with infinite qualities. The imaginations of human beings are finite. It is impossible for any human being to have an image of infinite power on his mind. Equally, it is impractical to conceive a state of infinite time, power, and force. Thus, in this realm, the concept of God is not used for us to conceive him but rather for us to accord him honor. The argument advanced by different religions is that God is incomprehensible and the human mind cannot conceive God's greatness and power. Usually whatever is conceived by human beings must have first been perceived by his senses, either in entirety or parts; and thus, no human being can have an idea or concept that has not been first subjected to sense. It is then apparent that the religion's view of God is analogous to a blind man's concept of fire. A blind man does not demonstrate any positive idea of fire. According to a blind man, fire is anything that warms him. Similarly, religions' attempts to assign infinite qualities to God passes as anthropomorphism. In the events where we find a particular concept to be ambiguous, we always revert to the parts that perceived the idea. If no evidence can be found for the perceived idea, then this means that the idea is insignificant. Therefore, the concept of a God with infinite characters as portrayed by religion only serves to show the limited nature of human understanding.
The Existence of God
The principle of causation used by various religion philosophers' states that nothing can come from nothing. Therefore, the existence of a particular thing, idea or object must have been triggered by another thing. Thus, in this regard whatever exists must have been caused by a particular thing, and therefore when we track back, we find an infinite series of causes and effects which derive their existence from a cause that is necessarily existent. Religions argue that thus the universe must have originated from the necessarily existent being; God. Therefore, supposing the non-existence of God as portrayed by religion is a contradiction. However, it is still possible for human beings to conceive the existence of a specific thing without a primary cause. It is not contradictory denying this argument which shows it is not intuitive. Therefore, having shown the possibility of having something that is conceivable and non-contradictory. Therefore, it is equally possible for the existence of a cause and effect series that came into existence uncreated by a supernatural being and has always existed without any extra cause or reason for its existence. Again, just like as nothing comes from nothing, also anything can cause anything. Our idea of the causes and effects is restricted to our imaginations and experiences. As a result, the argument that the earth in itself could not have caused the existence of present-day features, ideas and consciousness is only restricted to our past experiences and imaginations. As such the argument that there must have existed a supernatural being that is both immaterial and intelligent lacks any basis.
The Imperfect Nature of God
Following on the principle of causation reasoning, religious philosophers argue that a particular thing must have triggered all that exists on the earth, in this case, God. Further, God is ascribed desirable qualities and put forward as the embodiment of perfection. However, perfection is relative. As earlier shown it is impossible for human beings to imagine the qualities of God, assign desirable attributes to God and make analogous comparisons to the perfection of human nature since human's understanding of God is limited. Human's idea cannot exist beyond the individual experiences. It is also clear that humans lack the experience of God's perfect nature and adorability, and thus their concept of a perfect and adorable God is flawed since the nature of God is both incomprehensible and eerie. Further, the argument used by religious philosophers that there exists some form of likeness between the earth and human-made machinery as evidenced by a similar structure, order, and harmony is flawed. Although the argument can be considered to be logically sound because it is based on experience instead of a priori reasoning, its weakness stems from whatever the argument tries to prove. However, we can only infer a similar cause when there exists a close similarity between different cases. In the event you move away from the same case, the evidence likewise diminishes proportionately making the argument susceptible to errors and design. There exists a huge difference between the universe and human-made objects, and therefore it is illogical to infer similar causes based on the reduced similarity between human-made objects and the universe. Again, the perfect nature of the world is usually used to describe the perfect nature of the God. However, based on our experiences we know that the earth is not entirely perfect as it has been shown by its numerous flaws. Hence it can be argued that the imperfect nature of the earth is a reflection of the imperfect nature of God (an apparent contradiction since we earlier showed that human beings could not conceive the nature of God, due to limitations on their understanding of God).
Science vs Religion
We have observed that although both science and religion may try to use philosophy to explain various conflicting concepts, religion is restricted to the use of faith and science is restricted to the use of empirical evidence. In this regard, science seems to have the edge over religion as it is the only one that is based on actual experiences.
