Science and Religion - Why are they mutually exclusive?

Some people say that Religion and Science are not excludent, that both can be practiced without prejudice to either. Unless someone develops a schizophrenic personality, I do not believe that's possible.

Science is an ideological structure, which encourages inconformism, critical thinking and throughly observation of the world around us. When practicing science we cannot take subjective phenomena at face value without first veryfing their existence through experimentation and being sure the results can be replicated under the same circunstances.

Religion, on the other hand, is an ideological structure that do not leave room for questioning, since it uses faith as it's central tenet. Also religion has no self-correction mechanism as science, and is virtually unchangeable (unless it sprouts a new one).

Without fearing to be too reducionistic, I use to shorten these thoughs in two sentences:

Science is to think of questions and then find out the answers. Religion is to think of answers and then find out the questions.

Once the illustrious Paul Kurtz stated in an CSICOP article that a religious mindset gives room for fantasy and fiction, and that aspect of religion should be encouraged while fighting the segregationism in it. I don't agree. Practicing science doesn't mean we are not allowed to wander through wildly paradoxical universes and write about them, even live them through. Only that we are supposed to know they are not real. That's the diference from religion, where fantasy and fiction are taken at face value.

The most important thing, therefore, is not the content, but the structure of reasoning on both cases. You can embrace science without neglecting the wondrous, while not falling prey to the dangers of a subservient religious mindset.

Some think a separation between Science and Religion in matters as Research, Ethics and State Affairs is enough, and that in the individual perspective religion is, if not desirable, at least harmless. I think that is dangerous enough, because it prepares the minds of individuals to become mere pawns in the hands of mass media and less than honest governments. Although I recognize the benefit of the optimism religion may imbue on mankind in face of the apparent cruelty and senselessness of nature and the universe in general, I believe that religion is still a poor replacement for true reasoning.

Let me propose a metaphor, where mankind is a man with broken legs, who is rightfully so afraid of taking his first steps without the crutches. The crutches evidently were necessary for that man to be able to walk while his legs were not strong enough. But there comes a time where mankind will have to learn to walk on its own legs, or face the prospect of having them atrophyed forever. No matter how painfull it may be to forsake religion in favor of science for the average person, I believe its already past the time to get rid of the crutches. They now are a burden.

It is in that light I state that religion and science are absolutely not compatible. And that religion is not necessary even for that kind of emotional comfort some mention, nor to maintain the hope for a better future.

Voltar