I agree with Mark Friesel’s contention that the Templeton Prize has the potential to corrupt the motives of otherwise well-meaning individuals. Neither scientists nor religious leaders can afford to have their work vitiated by avarice or hunger for fame.

However, Friesel’s letter also underscores a deeper issue: Since the time of Galileo’s excommunication from the Roman Catholic church, religious organizations and scientific leaders have been divided regarding how to understand the universe. This rift often manifests itself through ongoing animosity between science and religion. I believe this is primarily due to misunderstanding. Both disciplines seek truth, but with fundamentally different purposes. Science tries to reveal the physical laws that govern our world. Religion seeks to elucidate why we live and who we are. Scientists, and students like myself, understand a great deal about what governs the universe, but why does it exist?

Trouble comes when people make religion their science or science their religion.

Because much of the world’s population is religious, scientific progress depends on our ability to create harmony between these two viewpoints. I do not suggest that we seek experimental evidence for the existence of God—that is incompatible with the basic assumptions of both science and religion. The two disciplines are immiscible, but they are also compatible. As parallel avenues for the investigation of truth, each has its place and fulfills specific needs of humanity. I see no contradiction between the notion of a God who was responsible for the creation of the universe, and scientific understanding of the Big Bang and evolution.

The difficulty is in bringing individuals with different worldviews to a common understanding. We must be willing to open and maintain lines of communication that have been closed due to fear and mistrust. Religious leaders should recognize that study of the physical universe need not undermine faith. Scientists should reject the idea that objective scientific observation is incompatible with religious belief and acknowledge that there are things that physical observation will never illuminate. Perhaps future Templeton Prizes will promote this kind of understanding without compromising anyone’s integrity.