Science and religion are similar in that they both seek to answer questions about natural phenomenon. They both try to come up with plausible explanations for how observable phenomenon appear. Whereas science tells us how inheritance and natural selection causes genetic variance in populations over time (evolution), religion tells us that a divine being (God) guides the development of species to a predetermined goal. Scientists firmly believe that their answer is the most correct model of evolution to date, whereas religious people believe creationism to be an equally compelling theory.

Where science and religion differ greatly is in how they go about answering questions about our world, and more specifically, how they go about evaluating and improving their theories for how the world works. Both theorize as to possible causes for natural events. Science explains natural phenomenon by way of many tiny interactions of universal forces that act upon each other to create complex systems, and religion usually explains natural phenomenon by way of one, or many, gods (usually omnipotent and omniscient beings that are both creators and designers of the universe). However, this is where the two processes differ. Once a theory has been arrived at, science goes on to ask whether it is the only possible theory, and if so, if it is the best possible theory. Scientific theory is constantly under evaluation, and the instant something with more predictive power comes along, the new theory is integrated into the body of scientific knowledge. Religion lacks this constant drive for self-improvement. It comes up with one answer, and sticks to it.

Now, some might argue that religious theory is perfect, because it was handed down by a god/gods in its present form, and therefore requires no improvement. There are two problems with this argument, though. The first, and most obvious, problem with this argument is that our interpretation of religious laws changes over time. Religious teachings now are not what they were 1000 years ago. And in some cases (like Judaism), a great deal of emphasis is placed on studying our interpretation of the holy texts and laws contained therein. Regardless of whether or not the laws are perfect, if we acknowledge that our interpretation can be flawed, then this leaves room for improvement.

If it is the case that religious teachings have always been right, and that we are capable of improving our interpretation of them (i.e. by studying them we can gain a greater understanding of what they mean), then it begs the question of why scientific findings (also a method of human learning and understanding) are diverging, rather than converging, on religious theory. Either there is something deeply flawed with the scientific method (which is always a possibility, but not something that has been shown yet), or the two types of knowledge should be growing closer over time. The fact that they aren’t seems troublesome, and given that both branches acknowledge the fallibility of human knowledge, science seems to be the only one correcting for this, by constantly questioning its own assumptions, and improving as a result.

I recognize that this probably won’t convince anybody who’s deeply religious (and let’s face it, if you’re deeply religious you probably aren’t reading this blog anyways), and some people are comfortable with not questioning their beliefs too deeply, but it’s such a small step that can have such a large impact on how you view the world. Never stop questioning your beliefs.