Science Is Just Religion With Extra Steps

Like most other science fanboys, at some point I went through an aggressive atheist phase. It is easy to become caught up in the allure of science and reject all which is not grounded in empirical evidence, and in the past I have looked down on religion for this very reason. As of somewhat recently, however, my views on this subject have drastically changed. 

Out of the countless exotic, earth-shattering phenomena within the world of physics, it is ironic that my mind always gravitates towards one of the most trivial of principles. Newton’s second law frequently dumbfounds me–specifically, why exactly does force equal mass times acceleration?

The simple, albeit rather unsatisfying, answer is that Newton’s laws are axiomatic–they are mere assumptions drawn from intuition that just so happen to model our perception of reality. The rest of the theory is then logically deduced from such postulates, and then, following the scientific method, we must test the theory against reality to verify that our postulates and conclusions make sense. All of physics is conducted in this manner.

It is first important to realize that science and religion are both axiomatic. In physics, we posit certain mathematical relationships, such as Newton’s second law or the Schrodinger equation, and then derive the rest of the theory; in religion, we posit the existence of God and derive ethics and religious doctrines. Obviously, there is contention surrounding texts such as the bible and what exactly follows from God’s command and what was arbitrarily imposed by humans, but these are irrelevant details–I am discussing religion in the most general sense and comparing faith in science to faith in some higher power. Fundamentally, science and religion stem from the same presumptuous thinking. 

However, the distinction for many lies in the fact that science relies on hard, empirical data, whereas religion simply has no evidence. It is natural to trust our senses and observation as incontrovertibly true, and thus the predictive power of science seems utterly profound and almost magical in comparison to the imprecision and hand-waviness of religion. But, as beautiful and tidy as physics is, this is an overly zealous way of thinking and neglects one important fact: science has a remarkable track record for deception.

Newton’s second law is highly intuitive and fits our perception of reality almost perfectly, and yet is completely wrong. This isn’t to downplay the power of classical mechanics; Newton’s laws are an excellent approximation which accurately describe human experience, however, they are fundamentally incorrect in describing our relativity-dominated universe. But what of relativity itself? Is Newtonian mechanics simply a shallow facade and relativity is what truly underpins the universe? Well, this obviously is not the case–currently, the deepest mystery in physics is reconciling gravity with the standard model, so relativity is also incorrect to some extent. So what then? How can science possibly scrape the bottom of the barrel?

This is why physics will likely never be “solved.” It is not logically plausible to develop a theory of everything because we simply have no way of knowing what everything entails. Even with the advent of string theory, who is to say that there isn't some higher dimensionality tucked away or some deeper generalization outside the realm of human comprehension? Empiricism is a valuable construct for human inquisition and designing predictive models, but that is all that it is good for–designing theories to describe human perception. And, as shown during the last century with our countless paradigm shifts and quantum revolutions, our understanding is nothing but a drop in the ocean, and human perception is a worthless tool in trying to deduce the fundamental nature of the universe. To claim that the scientific method can answer all questions is akin to a stranded man on an island claiming he can see the entirety of the ocean; just because our paradigms work in the vicinity of our theoretical understanding, does not guarantee that we can extrapolate these scientific frameworks to higher dimensions.

The aforementioned island metaphor can be expanded in a neat way. Imagine if you were to stick a priest and a physicist together on a remote island–the scenario would play out as follows: the priest tranquilly slumbers on the sand and is content with all he can see, while the physicist continuously scavenges his surroundings and explores all means of escape. The scientist’s pursuit is undoubtedly a noble one, for, in his inquisition, he will inevitably develop new knowledge that, while not so useful in the grand scheme of escaping, will undoubtedly assist in surviving and finding comfort in the environment. But, there is a rather morose truth lurking here: the sea is an infinitely large space and the scientist has no hope of ever finding true escape. Ultimately, both the scientist and priest are permanently bound by the chasm of ignorance, and just as the seafaring scientist is equally as stranded as the complacent priest, science, however advanced it may get, will never penetrate any deeper level of truth than religion.

Lastly, many also attribute science to be more truthful due to its logical and mathematical foundations. To this, I say you are giving logic too much credit. I do not wish to come off as some eccentric postmodernist, but it is important to understand that logic is not some all-encompassing metaphysical law. In order to use logic efficiently, we must have indisputable premises to base our inferences off of. But, as mentioned before, the premises of science can often be traced back to arbitrary axioms and educated guesses, so in this context does being logically coherent even mean anything when the foundations themselves are not logically sound? One can take this argument to an extreme and look to Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems, which proves that every axiomatic system is either incomplete or contradictory in some form. We needn’t get into the details of such a theorem here, but the point is that logic, like any other formalism, has its limitations, and to assert that science is more fundamental than religion due to it appearing logical is pure dogma.

Science is undoubtedly more beneficial for civilization, and I should add that religion has no place in commenting on any real-world, physical phenomena such as evolution. But, in terms of delving into deeper, ontological questions, science understandably falls short in such regards. Physics and religion are both manifestations of abstract human inquisition, and neither inherently holds any more veracity than the other as empiricism, logical deduction, and faith are all plagued by the issues that I have explained. It is not accurate to say that I have become more faithful or devoted to religion, rather, I have become acutely aware of the limitations of science and now acknowledge how truly bizarre the universe is.

Amir Ibrahim