The ongoing dialog in the Letters section regarding science and religion has been most interesting (see, for example, Physics Today, Physics Today 0031-9228 61 1 2008 10 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2835135 January 2008, page 10 , and Physics Today 0031-9228 60 2 2007 10 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2711622 February 2007, page 10 ). However, I think the writers are missing the point. The two disciplines start with different and incompatible perspectives. What I would call true science is totally objective. Whatever a scientific investigation turns up, even if it overthrows previous work, must be accepted as long as the findings pass all tests. Religion starts with truths that cannot be falsified and must be accepted. Any scientific evidence to the contrary is therefore false.
In the multiplicity of religions and sects, there is room for people to believe in various aspects of science. For example, the Big Bang can be seen as an act of divine creation billions of years ago, with no later divine interference in the evolution of the universe. Or everything humans see can be taken as having been created in six days a few thousand years ago. Regardless, religious people accept divine intervention and reject any attempt to refute whatever degree of intervention they believe in. True science holds that religious beliefs must be subject to testing and that they so far have not been proven.
Religious people, whether lay or clergy, can and do make contributions to science. But in the larger sense, the religious cannot claim to be true scientists. As long as belief can trump scientific findings, religion and science can never be compatible. Therefore, I recommend that scientists and religious people work together wherever possible, but that scientists continue to vigorously promote their findings and to expose what we believe to be false or misleading information. On the other hand, scientists should recognize that religion, with its matters of life, death, and morality, is grounded in individual and collective belief and not subject to scientific argument.
I would also like to say a word about “theory.” I think it is time we dropped the word; it carries too many interpretations. We should speak of “models” instead. Implicit in the word is the notion that models are snapshots of current knowledge, are subject to change, and must be constantly tested. Even evolution can be considered a model. In this way we may separate science from the immutabilities of religion.
