One's personal religious or spiritual beliefs are just that, personal. There is no way to objectively confirm or deny them. In other words, they are not testable, and therefore not universal. To believe is “to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so” (dictionary.com)
I used to get asked all the time when I worked at the planetarium if I "believed" in the big bang or evolution. I tried to explain that it wasn't a matter of belief. Given the observable facts, some variant of the big bang model is the best way to explain what the universe was like at it's start (or damn close to it) and how it has changed since then (cosmology). Evolution is the best model to explain the processes of how life has developed and changed (biology).
Science is a process by which we understand the natural world. One of the assumptions of science is that the universe is understandable, and that it follows "laws" that are also understandable. In order for a scientific theory to be accepted, it must pass repeatable and verifiable testing. A scientific theory should also make predictions about the natural world: how will an object move in response to a given force, under what conditions are lightning strikes likely, how will a virus spread through a population, how much energy will be released from a nuclear explosion, etc etc etc. If the theory (or model) is shown to be in disagreement with what is observed, then the theory needs to be modified or scrapped.
In other words, the findings of science (given the observable evidence) should be universal. A scientist in the U.S. should have the same findings as one in Mecca, as well as on from a planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse.
That said, of course science is messy, as are most human endeavors. It takes some time for enough data to be gathered, verified, and interpreted. Scientists are a skeptical lot. They want to know what methods were used, what are the biases in the measuring devices AND of the measurer, is the math correct, etc etc etc. Scientific findings are always tentative. Over time, scientist either gain great confidence in models of nature due to their repeatably passing the tests of observation, or the models go by the wayside. Very robust models of nature may get tweaked over time, or even superseded, but are not often proven to be entirely wrong. (For example, take Newton's “laws” of gravity: At normal, every day experiences, they describe remarkably accurately how objects behave under the influence of gravity, but at extremely high speeds, or extremely strong gravity fields, Newton no longer makes sense. Einstein's general relativity is a much better model of gravity, it accurately predicts how objects will behave under a much wider set of circumstances than Newton's, but that doesn't mean Newton was overturned. In fact, under most circumstances, using Newton's formulas are just fine.)
Science is a very powerful tool in understanding the world we live in, where we've come from, and what our future may hold. Religion is another tool that attempts to do this. On a purely subjective level, we may like the answers that one religion or another gives us. We may find that such answers fill us with purpose and meaning, give us a sense of identity and community, and help to give us a feeling of wonder and awe.
Religion is very old, perhaps as old as cognition itself. But it is also very diverse. There have been thousands of religions throughout history. Many belief systems no longer exist, or are followed by only a small group. Some last for millenniums, others come and go in a generation or less. A select few have worldwide reach, but even these have many sects and schisms. Like science, religion is a human endeavor, and thus quite messy. How can anyone tell which, if any, are a (the?) correct path to truth? The one thing that all religions have in common is that we must take someone's word that what we are being told is the truth. There is no objective way to accept one over the other.
One thing that religion offers that science does not is an attempt to answer the question of meaning or intent. Various religions tell us that the universe was created by a god or gods for for a reason. We may not be able to understand that reason, as deities tend to be ineffable or capricious, but there was intent non-the-less. Science gives no such reasons, things just are. The universe is. Life is. Science can tell us how these things happened (to a point, anyway), and how these things behave, but science will not provide any “meaning” for these occurrences; it cannot give us a “purpose” for our existence.
This is a very unsettling thought for a lot of people. Many people feel that religion is what gives our lives meaning, a reason for being, and a moral code to guide our behaviors. Many of these same people fear that science is a threat to their belief systems, and therefore it must be rejected. But science is not the same as religion in this regard. It doesn't even try to answer the question of meaning. For that, one needs to enter the realm of philosophy, which I don't intend to get into here. I will just say there there are many humanistic, secular, and existential philosophies out there that do try to address these issues without religion.
A friend posted the following in a comments section of an unrelated link I posted on Facebook. I include it only because I will be referring to it. This post is not to be taken as a direct response to him or his beliefs. It was just the jumping off point that sparked me writing this essay.
“I have walked miles of Lake Superior coastline examining and picking up rocks. I always keep an eye out for a spherical rock. I have found them that were round-ish but never anything approaching perfect. If I were to find an 8 ball, polished like a mirror and perfectly marked, I would look around for an indication of where it came from, then look to see if there were any others nearby. At no time would it occur to me to consider whether it may be a natural occurrence. No matter how deserted the beach or how far from the beaten path or how unlikely the chance that an 8 ball could have washed up from the depths of the lake onto the rock shore unblemished, you would have a difficult time convincing me to accept that it was anything but a made thing.
On that same beach lie millions of rocks of equal or greater beauty to the 8 ball. Agates, inclusions, crystals- all have formed according to some natural laws. I would be equally hard to convince that the beauty found in them and the perfect synergy that has caused them to exist could be coincidental.”
Okay, let's say you did find a perfect 8 ball along the shoreline. Of course you would know how it came to be... a machine made it. But, that doesn't mean it wasn't a “natural” occurrence. A human, or group of humans, designed and created the machine that created the 8 ball. Humans are quite capable of doing this, of course, but humans are also part of nature, so nature is capable of doing this.
Nature is full of “made” things. If a thing exists, then it was made. The question really is, who or what “designed” it. Nature itself is the designer. In the case of humans, we are a result of a long line of natural selection of the various forms of life. Not the final result, nor the pinnacle of design, but the result of random mutation resulting in non-random selection. Darwin didn't know what mechanism caused the mutations, (today we know that DNA is the “blueprint” of living organisms) but he knew that these mutations could be passed on to the next generation. If a mutation helped (or at least didn't hinder) the lifeforms ability to procreate, then that mutation survived. If enough ensuing generations kept the mutation, and became biologically isolated, then eventually a new species would exist. It's through this selection process that various lifeforms are designed. (Yes, it's a bit more complicated than that, but I'm not writing a textbook here.)
In geology, we know that the various minerals have certain properties. Many minerals have a molecular structure that forces them to form crystalline shapes under certain conditions, salt and diamonds are prime examples. Like with life forms, we don't “need” a creator to explain or understand them.
Now, just because no "creator" is needed to explain how these things came to be, it doesn't mean we have dis-proven such a creator exists. The very idea of a supernatural creator of the universe, or other powers any deity may possess, is outside the realm of science.
Belief in a creator is not compulsory. By that I mean there is no compelling reason to have to accept such a creator. Science, nature, objective reality, cannot rule out the possibility of a divine creator, they just don't demand it. If there were such a demand – lines of evidence that pointed to a creator – that would be proof of a god, and it wouldn't be faith; it would no longer be a matter of belief. If that were the case, then “God” would be part of the natural world, subject to experiment, and thus, in the realm of science.
There are many people of science who hold very deep spiritual or religious beliefs as well, just as there are many atheists out there that are clueless about science. As I said at the start of this, religious beliefs are personal and subjective. Science, however, is not.
So, why does any of this matter?
I feel that it is imperative to have a population that is at the very least "scientifically literate”, that have a basic understanding of what science tells us about our world, and what it can't. Citizens need to be able to make informed decisions about public policy and their own lives, of which science plays an increasing role: Just how much damage are we causing to our environment when we burn fossil fuels? What are the alternatives? What are the benefits to allowing research on embryonic stem-cells? What are the costs? Should I get my child immunized? How safe is it to live next to a nuclear power plant? Should I use anti-bacterial soap? Are genetically modified foods safe? Should I switch to organic foods only? Is there a middle ground?
A person that has a basic knowledge of science, and some critical thinking skills, is better able to keep from being swindled by those with an agenda. He or she is better able to tell when a marketer or politicization is full of hooey, is able to recognize false arguments and scare tactics.
It is my belief (yes, I used that word) that a society filled with educated people that are scientifically literate will be a happier, more prosperous, better society, independent of religious beliefs.
So, believe in a god or don't. Tell your children the biblical story of creation, or don't. But please, don't prevent them or anybody else from learning about science and it's various disciplines, from having the chance to appreciate a deeper understanding of the natural world, and from being well informed and able to make their own choices free from ignorance.
