Show the difference between the scientific and religious world view as the two ways of perceiving the world

Many people, both religious and non-religious, hold not only that traditional religious beliefs and the claims of modern science are in direct conflict but also that the respective presuppositions of religion and science are fundamentally opposed. One critic of Islam, claims that science directly conflicts with Muslim religious beliefs on a number of issues. But the more fundamental.difference is a question of methodology—Islam relies on blind faith and the uncritical acceptance of texts on which the religion is based, whereas science depends on critical thought, observation, deduction, and results that are internally coherent and correspond to reality. Clearly, according to this position, scientific theories will not be viewed as alternative accounts of reality that rival religious ones. The claim is not, therefore, that scientific theories are substitutes for religious theories, or vice versa. Rather, scientific and religious theories are regarded as leaving room for (and even requiring) one another. It is no surprise, then, that proponents of this view characteristically focus on what have been called ‘boundary questions’: religious questions that purportedly arise at the boundaries of science the hope of those adopting this particular approach is that the claims of modern science and those of traditional religion can be rendered mutually coherent. Thus, the ambition of those endorsing this position is subtler than that of earlier thinkers who sought to demonstrate that religious doctrines directly support the findings of modern science, or vice versa. Their position is also in sharp contrast to the two positions we have reviewed above. Consider, for example, the religious doctrine that God created the universe and the scientific theory that the universe originated in a Big Bang. Those holding the antagonistic relationship view would regard the religious doctrine and the scientific theory as in deep conflict. In contrast, those holding the non-antagonistic incommensurability view might claim that the religious doctrine concerns the value and meaning of the universe, while the scientific theory explains the objective facts about it. According to the complementarity view, however, one might interpret the religious doctrine not as a theory of cosmogenesis but as a claim about the world’s ultimate dependence on God. God might then be envisaged as providing the conditions under which the Big Bang took place. In such a manner, the claims of scientists and those of religious believers might be rendered mutually coherent. As Ernan McMullin, an advocate of the complementarity view, puts it, the religious person cannot separate his science from his theology as though they were in principle incapable of interrelation. On the other hand, he has learned to distrust the simpler pathways from one to the other. He has to aim at some sort of coherence of world-view, a coherence to which science and theology…must contribute. He may, indeed must, strive to make his theology and his cosmology consonant in the contributions they make to his world-view.

In conclusion, then, there are three basic ways in which the relationship between religion and modern science can plausibly be construed: as fundamentally antagonistic; as nonantagonistically incommensurable; and as complementary. And while each construal offers benefits to the religious believer, none is without its costs. Nevertheless, it does seem that the third construal—complementarity—offers the best prospect for ongoing, creative religious thought.