Religions and since are major social constructions with fundamental effects on society. This essay focusses on comparable and distinctive attributes of religions and science. It highlights the ways in which irrational social factors in relation to these two social constructions influence everything. This essay discusses different aspects of religions and science including nature, authority, and implications. Although religions and science both are seeking truthful understanding, they are different in a variety of ways, science is neither a form of religion nor has the same implications.
As fundamental concepts of studying society, social constructions are those phenomena that constructed by the member of particular culture or society,[1] therefore, both religions and science are social constructions. In order to differentiate the nature of these two major social constructions, a brief description of intrinsic states of religions and science is required. However, epistemological explanations of religions and science are outside the preview of this essay, some essential explanation would be inevitable. According to Richards a straightforward definition of science ‘is the systematic description of phenomena’ [2]. A systematic approach to description may include various ways of observations and experimental activities. Despite having various methods of observations, scientific description almost ends with the same outcome. It means that a scientific description should be repeatable in everywhere and at any time. This is the main characteristic of science that allows its legacy not to be limited throughout time and place. Therefore, science has been considered as a unique and universal social construction. On the other hand, religions describe phenomena rather in some spiritual contexts. According to Durkheim religion ‘is a unified system of beliefs and practices related to sacred things’[3]. A unified system of beliefs and practices may vary and multiply itself along with the time and places because its obeisance to sacred does not follow the fundamental restrictions of empiricism. Consequently, unlike science, religions differ based on particular cultures and societies. In other words, religions are social constructions bounded on places and time. Therefore, by its very meaning, it is almost inconceivable for a religion to be universal. Despite being relatively inconsistent, religions and science, both have sufficient power by which societies are being impacted.
Although, the power of religions and science are legitimated through the influence of these social constructions of identities and agencies, their authorities are acting in different ways. This is because of the dissimilar means and approaches that science and religions develop and apply within society. Religions authority perform its power through ritual ceremonies, practicing worships and religious observance, while the power of science is mostly achieved through the illumination of those scientific manuscripts led to explore hidden facts during the ear of enlightenment, advanced inventions led to industrialization and improving the living standards. Furthermore, as Strassberg states ‘the power of religious sanction … to a large extent stems from the untestability of the sacred authority’[4], the authority of religions originates from divine revelation and based on faith in an omnipotent and omniscient being, which neither can be proved or disproved. Nevertheless, scientific authority is frequently questioned through the cumulative process of peer reviewing. Hence, the world’s most prominent scientist such as Stephen Hawking, may not principally undertake a major decision on behalf of his profession, unlike a local ‘leading Islamist cleric, Sayyid Mohsen Hujjat who has released a death fatwa based on his very own non-sceptical religious authority’[5]. The authority of religions and science has led to divergent implications throughout history.
Religions and science affect society in a very complex way because each of these social constructions frequently interacts with politics and social interests. The immense results of these interactions emerge as irrational social factors which could have an influence on everything. It means that, along with affecting on any other social constructions, religions, and science in many ways contradicting each other as well. In some arguments, a further gap between faith and prove has been asserted, which led to a complete denial of any sort of coherence between science and religion ‘[t]he purpose of the Templeton Foundation is…to reconcile the irreconcilable and give religion scholarly legitimacy’[6]. While some argue ‘[s]ometimes science must give way to religion’[7] others complain that ‘[t]he debate over religion in the United States is intense and profoundly affects the status of science’[8]. Although such a confrontation has been going on sometimes in some part of the world, it has not been the case for all the time. There is some particular period of history in which science was admitted by religion and vice versa ‘for the Christians of the seventeenth century, dogma had nothing disturbing for the reason; faith reconciled itself easily with science and philosophy, and the thinkers, such as Pascal’[9]. However, the debate between religion and science has been going on throughout the entire of the modern history, yet it is worth to mention that despite being two different social contractions, religions, and science, both have constructive and destructive implications.
There has been a long history of atrocity in the name of religion, likewise, contemporary society has been suffered a lot due to the incorrect utilization of scientific achievements. Although religion has provided many people with solidarity, confidence, humanity and morality, but for many others, it has been a source of torment, segregation, and discriminations. Various religions preach different sort of belief and ways of worship, which may lead to fundamental divisions among societies and people. According to Burke religious ideology has sufficient prospective for committing crime ‘it is clear that religious teachings hold the potential for atrocity when religious traditions specify distinctions between believers and unbelievers’[10]. On the other hand, although, science has a great contribution to improving living standard, and increasing the cultural capital of almost every human being, it has also lead to some accomplishment which is not worthwhile at all. For instance, science has caused the invention of weapons of mass destruction. In many cases, the conventional medical experiments have lead to severe adverse reactions. Science has also paved the ways of unbridled dominance on natural resources and above all scientific traditions have affected immensely on the precious balance of the global environment. Nevertheless, with its very fundamental effects, science and religions are going to shape social facts which bind together and create modern societies. However, the level of involvement of science is substantial in modern societies, but it seems quite difficult to claim that science is another form of religion. In conclusion, the long-term confrontation of religions and science proves that these two social constructions are fundamentally different, and, neither science is a religion nor religion has some things to do with science.
Bibliography
Arvanitakis, James. Sociologic: Analysing Everyday Life and Culture. Victoria, Australia: Oxford University Press (2016) 14.
Burke, Deirdre. "Religion and Atrocity: The Influence of Religion on Perpetrators, Bystanders and Victims during the Holocaust." Journal of Beliefs & Values 28, no. 2 (2007): 151-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13617670701485755.
Daniel Sarewitz. "Sometimes Science Must Give Way to Religion." Nature 488, no. 7412 (2012): 431. http://www.nature.com/news/sometimes-science-must-give-way-to-religion-1.11244
Durkheim, Emile. Translated by Joseph Ward Swain. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York, United States of America: The Free Press (1965) 62.
Richards, William T. "A Definition of Science." Journal of Chemical Education 5, no. 7 (1928): 874. http://pubs.acs.org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1021/ed005p874
Ruse, Michael. "A Natural History of Religion." Nature 439, no. 7076 (Feb 02, 2006): 535. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/439535a. http://search.proquest.com/docview/204546239?accountid=36155.
Strassberg, Barbara Ann. "Religion and Science: The Embodiment of the Conversation: A Postmodern Sociological Perspective." Zygon 36, no. 3 (2001): 521-39.
Waldrop, M. Mitchell. "Faith in Science: The Templeton Foundation Claims to Be a Friend of Science. so Why Does It Make so Many Researchers Uneasy?(NEWS: FEATURE)(John Templeton Foundation)." Nature 470, no. 7334 (2011): 323.
Waldrop, M. Mitchell. "Faith in Science: The Templeton Foundation Claims to Be a Friend of Science. so Why Does It Make so Many Researchers Uneasy?(NEWS: FEATURE)(John Templeton Foundation)." Nature 470, no. 7334 (2011): 323.
“Pen International” AFGHANISTAN: Mounting concern for the safety of writers. Accessed March 21, 2016. http://www.pen-international.org/newsitems/afganistan-mounting-concern-for-the-safety-of-writers/
[1] Arvanitakis, Sociologic: Analysing everyday life and culture, 14.
[2] Richards, “A Definition of Science”, 874.
[3] Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, 62.
[4] Strassberg, “Religion and Science: The Embodiment of the Conversation: A Postmodern Sociological Perspective”.
[5] Pen International, “AFGHANISTAN: Mounting concern for the safety of writers”.
[6] Waldrop, “Faith and Science,” 323.
[7] Sarewitz, “Sometimes Science Must Give Way to Religion”.
[8] Ruse, “A natural history of religion,” 535.
[9] Durkheim, “The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life,” 39.
[10] Burke, “Religion and Atrocity: The Influence of Religion on Perpetrators, Bystanders and Victims during the Holocaust”.