One frequently hears discussions on "science and religion" and people trying to compare between the two. However, the problem with all such attempts goes back to problematic terminology. Allow me to explain.

Any comparison between two entities necessitates examining parallel aspects between them. If I want to compare two computers, then I'll compare memory to memory and processor speed to processor speed. If I want to compare a treatment and a control group then I have to make sure that both groups are comparable in terms of their other relevant characteristics like health, age, gender, etc. If I don't compare parallel aspects in both groups the comparison would not be valid. Whenever we do a comparison, we need to always examine aspects of the two groups/entities that are parallel.

But are we talking about parallel aspects when we say, "Science & Religion"? I would say no, and here's why...

Science has an intrinsic mechanism of filtering out dubious theories that lack experimental validity by the process known as falsification. So, when we talk about science there is the implicit notion that we are speaking only of theories that have a valid basis in experimental evidence and have the requisite parsimony to be accepted amongst the scientific community. In other words, we look for the simplest explanation that goes with the facts. So we are not talking about flat earth theories or geocentric models of the solar system when we say 'Science', because - according to the agreed-upon methodology of researchers - such theories are no longer valid.

But when it comes to the religious community, there is no agreed upon criterion for falsification as there is within the scientific community (which is not to say that such a criterion does not exist!). So what that entails is that ALL theologies and belief systems are being included in the term 'religion' irrespective of their logical coherence and validity. We place all belief systems on the same level in terms of their validity. We're not questioning the validity of any belief system no matter how incoherent or illogical its precepts are.
And while in terms of ethics, that should certainly be our attitude towards adherents of other belief systems so that everyone is treated with respect, when it comes to logical inquiry and academic debate such an assumption does not hold. If I meet someone who holds a religious belief or a scientific opinion which is incoherent or contradictory, my respectful manner of interacting with them does not negate my understanding that they are incorrect in their views.

So we should either compare ALL scientific theories with ALL religious systems irrespective of their validity (which is not such a good idea), OR we should use terminology that does not necessitate the inclusion of erroneous beliefs/theories.


So let us rephrase the comparison by looking instead at the domain in which scientific theories and religious beliefs operate. If we do this, we can rephrase our terms so that we are comparing between the following two methodologies:

1. Trying to explain the nature of observable phenomena in our universe based on experimental evidence. This methodology is descriptive in that it seeks to describe the underlying mechanisms behind such phenomena. This is the "how" and this is the domain of questions that scientific theories seek to address.

2. Trying to account for our position in existence in order to delineate guiding values in our lives. This methodology is prescriptive in that it seeks to prescribe a meaningful way for us to construct our live with a source of moral guidance. This is the "why" and this is the domain of questions that belief systems seek to address.

I say "belief systems" and not simply "religion" because even individuals who do not accept a religion still must find answers to the second domain of questions and they do this by subscribing to a variety of secular philosophies. Both domains of questions are inescapable and confront every human being.

In conclusion, comparisons require looking at parallel aspects. And if we do that here we find that we can describe this as a comparison between two methodologies which seek to answer two different domains of questions. Now my wording for these two methodologies may not have been the most precise, but hopefully the main idea comes across.

However, just because we are dealing with two different domains of issues does not mean there isn't a common logical approach to both of them. I talked about the scientific method earlier. In science the accepted theory is the one that provides most parsimonious explanation for observable phenomena. Applying this standard to the realm of religion, Muslims maintain that not only does Islam provide the most parsimonious explanation for our position in the universe, but it stands above all other religious or secular ideologies in its logical coherence and comprehensive answers, beginning with the most fundamental question of the purpose of life. What's more, it provides an explanation that is in tune with the natural predisposition of human beings (see the post 'Islam in a nutshell' for the Islamic explanation).

Concerning the origin of the universe, the sudden sentience of a human being, the fundamental moral sense and natural disposition of human beings, the beliefs and ideas of other nations, the presence and purpose of suffering in the world, and many other issues, Islam provides definitive, logical and comprehensible answers. While many may be content to merely plead ignorance or fail to provide alternative theories on such issues, a scientific approach would require the acceptance of the logical answers provided by Islam.