Are religion and science really so different?

The Religion vs. Science debate is one which has been present in our lives since the period of Enlightenment in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Up until now I had approached the debate with a defined two sided view. On the one hand a person may believe in the literature and scriptures of religion. On the other hand, an individual may have faith in the existence of science. Take the question of how the world began for instance…those who take religion as their faith may look towards God as their creator of human life. But…those take the scientific view may look at the collection of ‘matter’ or particles as the reason for our existence, therefore making these two ‘truths’ polar opposites.

The main point in the debate is that a person will believe in only one of the two. Furthermore, as a child of the modern, enlightened world I have grown up around scientific developments which has caused to me to become an Atheist. Religion is somewhat a confusing subject for me, simply because I find it difficult to believe in one religion when so many exist. When each religion differs in their practices and beliefs it becomes hard to erase the view that they contradict one another. Having said this, my view changed when I stumbled across this quote…

“Religion is like a language. We gravitate towards the practices with which we were raised. In the end, though, we are all proclaiming the same thing…that life has meaning”

Some of you may recognise this quote from the Dan Brown book ‘Angels and Demons’ (said by Vittoria Vetra). To put it in context, in saying this the character wishes to portray the point that whether it is God, Buddha or science which we believe in it is the power which created us which we are grateful for. Basically, the character is explaining that, although religions do differ in their literature and practices, they all make the same point.

She also saw that we can actually believe in both science and religion at the same time. Explaining how science and religion support the same truth, she states that “pure energy is the Father of creation”. The difference between the two comes from how this energy is interpreted. In religion the energy is a viewed as a figure (as a God) but in science the energy is seen to be particles or atoms. So could it be that believers in science and believers in religion actually look towards the same thing?

Even though the book is fictional this really is an interesting point and definitely caused me to be more open-minded about the debate. So if you’re looking for a summer read or you are interesting in the religion/science debate then I highly recommend Dan Brown.