LEGASPI, LOUIE ANDRO B.

Humans have always been in search of what is true through the years, finding evidence or

relying on what they have been taught. Nature, Science, and Religion: each term carries with its

truth claims. Nature shows the belief of how things naturally are and should be, Science in and

through its systematic methods and evident results, and religion depicts the faith and

commitments that they teach among believers. The relations between the three terms are not

balanced. In a sense, Science and religion have conflicted with each other, while nature has been

the base of their conflict in telling the truth.

For years, people have been debating the relationship between science and religion, on

which is true and concise to their claim. With their beliefs and opinions, it has been shown that

there is still no progress in resolving this issue. But there are claims that these two subjects do

not have any conflict thus they complement because they have the same goal, to know the truth.

People of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all

between science and religion. Many simply acknowledge that the two subjects deal with different

realms of human experience. (Collins, 2018) Owing to their statements, should science and

religion take opposite paths in making sense of nature? Yes, but in a sense that they cannot be in

contradiction since they concern different matters. It is like two different mirrors looking at the

world. Religion deals with the meaning and purpose of life and the world and the morals that

govern people’s lives while Science concerns the process and origin of living organisms. The

contradiction takes place only if one invades or trespasses its boundaries and misinterprets the

approach of the other.

methods and field of expertise. One example I can give is stated in the Gospel of John when

Thomas doubted the resurrection of Jesus and said that he would not believe that Jesus has been

resurrected unless he has seen it with his own eyes. Until Jesus appeared to him. (John 20:24-29)

Another example is when holding two balls and the goal is to shoot the ball into the bin. One ball

is thrown directly into the bin while the other one was thrown in a different direction, causing it

to bounce from the wall and shoots into the bin.

To further emphasize my claim that they should be on the opposite path but not

contradictory, let us define the subjects and their methods: Faith or the notion of believing

through unseen entities, when looking up dictionaries we normal encounter the terms such as

“confidence” or “trust”. We can find that there are two aspects of faith: faith as an act of faith

and as a belief. As stated by St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, that faith as an act

defines the truth of the command given to the will – while on the other hand – faith is as

described the right to adopt a believing attitude regards on religious matters, as said by Willian

James. Faith as a belief, on the other hand, focuses on a particular set or system of doctrines and

principles. (Aquinas, 1945) Whilst Science (reason) is the intellectual and practical activity

encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural

world through observation and experiment using logic and reason.

Both use different methods to unveil the truths of nature, Science deals with what is

known. It is potential knowledge based on sensory evidence. Religious beliefs refer to the world

beyond the senses. If they cannot be proved by the methods of science, they cannot be disproved

also, says Pranav Dua. (Dua, n.d.)

understanding. Science deals with man’s effort to understand how the world operates

scientifically. Religion deals with how the world operates supernaturally. The two should not be

mixed. Science attempts to define the laws of nature and how they affect events. There always

will be certain things that science cannot explain or understand. The effects of God on nature are

some of these things. Much of this discussion has occurred over the arguments between

evolution and creation. These arguments never should occur since they are talking about two

different things. (Berkley, 2018)

The belief in Christianity is in itself better than unbelief; that faith, though an intellectual

action, is ethical in its origin; that it is safer to believe; that we must begin with believing; that as

for the reasons of believing, they are for the most part implicit, and need be but slightly

recognized by the mind that is under their influence; that they consist moreover rather of

presumptions and ventures after the truth than of accurate and complete proofs; and that probable

arguments, under the scrutiny and sanction of a prudent judgment, are sufficient for conclusions

which we even embrace as most certain, and turn to the most important uses. Antagonistic to this

is the principle that doctrines are only so far to be considered true as they are logically

demonstrated. This is the assertion of Locke, who says in defense of it,—"Whatever God hath

revealed is certainly true; no doubt can be made of it. This is the proper object of Faith; but,

whether it be a divine revelation or no, reason must judge." Now, if he merely means that proofs

can be given for Revelation and that Reason comes in a logical order before Faith, such a

doctrine is in no sense uncatholic; but he certainly holds that for an individual to act on Faith

without proof, or to make Faith a personal principle of conduct for themselves, without waiting

till they have got their reasons accurately drawn out and serviceable for controversy, is
enthusiastic and absurd. "How a man may know whether he be [a lover of truth for truth's sake]

is worth inquiry; and I think there is this one unerring mark of it, viz. the not entertaining any

proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is built upon, will warrant. Whoever goes

beyond this measure of assent, it is plain, receives not truth in the love of it; loves not the truth

for truth's sake, but some other by-end." (Charmley, 2018)

Stoicism is the most remarkable experiment on record in the surrender of life to reason at

the expense of feeling and desire. It was not a wholly new conception of the good life; like so

much else in western thought, it had its root in the teachings of the three great Greeks. The stress

of the great three was on the connection of goodness with intelligence, which they conceived as

the highest of human faculties. According to Aristotle, what was distinctive in man was not his

bodily processes of sensation, feeling, and impulse, for these, he shared with the animals, still

less such processes as growth and reproduction, for these he shared with all living things. It was

rather his reason, taken as the power to grasp concepts and their connections. The ability to live

and move in this region was what made the human mind. Plato had taught that the real world was

a framework of these concepts, intelligibly connected, and Socrates had taught that if we

achieved rational knowledge, virtue automatically followed. The Stoics put these teachings

together. The maxim of the good life, they held, was to follow nature, which meant: (1) to follow

the guidance of that which was distinctive and essential, namely, reason; (2) to conform to that

which was likewise essential in outward nature, namely, its intelligible law, conceived as

expressing a divine reason to which our own might respond. (Stoicism and the Supremacy of

Reason)
 Science and faith in one another should have been twin pillars of civilization though they

have their own set of methods of defining nature. However, today’s scientific and religious

community has been debating who is right or who is wrong. This is reasoned out from

Descartes's statement “I think, therefore I am” which constitutes a fundamental thinking of

rationalism, which was misinterpreted by scientists and as well as religious people.

As I have stated before, both can co-exist in searching for the truth. Science and religion

both exist only as processes in persons. Although science and religion alike are informed of the

subject— personal knowledge. Even if their respective theories and facts are to some degree

objective knowledge, representing the real world, they are inescapably also subjective

knowledge, information acquired, achieved, and processed by human subjects. This is not to

suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with

different realms, disagreements do arise about wherein each boundary between these realms lies

when dealing with questions at their interface. And conflicts do arise of mere human greed for

intellect.

Therefore I conclude they can be opposite in method in revealing nature since there are

both different dimensions of studies and both can have their strong claims. So they can pursue

different paths but still can attain the same ends. Thus, this argument is plausible.
 References

Aquinas, T. (1945). Summa Theologiae (Vols. II Qu. 4, Art. 5). New York: Random House.
Berkley, C. (2018). Is there a conflict between science and religion. Abilene: Abilene Reporter
New.
Charmley, J. (2018). Supremacy of Faith. New Lectures. Retrieved April 20, 2022, from
http://www.newmanlectures.co.uk/newman-blog/2014/5/26/supremacy-of-faith
Collins, F. (2018). Science and religion: Reconcilable differences. Understanding Science.
Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion
Dua, P. (n.d.). Essay on Relations between Religion and Science. Retrieved April 16, 2022, from
https://www.shareyouressays.com/essays/essay-on-relations-between-religion-and-
science/87021
Stoicism and the Supremacy of Reason. (n.d.). The Gifford Lectures. Retrieved April 20, 2022,
from https://www.giffordlectures.org/books/reason-and-goodness/chapter-ii-stoicism-
and-supremacy-reason
Tucker, C. (2017). Nature, Science and Religion. New York: SAR.