Science and religion

This article by Robert Winston talks about his book The Story of God, which apparently addresses the conflict between science and God, and attempts to explain why many scientists believe in God.

I submitted the following response to his article (in blue text, copied below).

Religion and science do contradict each other. The fundamental contradiction is epistemological - between a methodology which seeks to discover natural explanations for phenomena through observation, theorization, falsification (the scientific method), and one which requires the believer to take on faith certain revealed truths. This contradiction may stay hidden until the conclusions of one system flat-out contradict the conclusions of the other (such as evolution versus creationism), but it exists nevertheless at all levels, for every single premise that we hold. Even if science and religion come to the same conclusion on some particular issue, the significance of the conclusion is different. Science will accept it as working knowledge but continually question it, test it, refine it; while religion has no choice but to accept revealed "truth" as dogma. There is no questioning the authority of God.

For these reasons, many scientists are atheists. They see the contradiction between the two approaches to knowledge, and make their choice. Not all scientists are atheists, because humans have a built in mechanism for living with contradictions -- compartmentalization. It is possible for us to be scientists and to continue to look for natural explanations in our field of study, but to compartmentalize away our religious beliefs by holding them as a thing apart, not subject to scientific scrutiny. This is promoted by the common belief (even among many scientists) that morality is the exclusive domain of religion, thus forcing a compartmentalization at that level. Those who do see a connection between science and morality often see it in a negative way, such as by translating biological half-truths like "survival of the fittest" to a social context.

This reflects largely a failure of modern philosophy, since it is the domain of philosophy, not science, to deal with questions of morality. Philosophy has failed to come up with a system that takes into account the epistemology of science and the immense body of knowledge it has produced, and to build from this a credible system which addresses all the needs of man, including the need for a moral code. At least, it has failed to come up with a system that convinces any large number of people. The best we have is a mish mash of (often self-contradictory) beliefs we call secular humanism.

Many scientists who see a clear contradiction between their work and any religious belief opt for atheism, and look for secular sources to guide them on questions of morality. Others separate the two contexts and follow different sets of rules in their work and personal lives. In other words, they compartmentalize.