[Part I in a series of articles exploring the ‘conflict’ between science and religion, particularly from a LDS perspective.  I do not have a pure scientific background, so this series will not be a deep analysis of scientific evidence in regards to religious beliefs or doctrines—you might try LDS Science Review or Clark’s site for that—but rather an exploration of the concepts of science and religion and how to relate and reconcile them together from a more abstract, philosophical perspective.]
 
A key question in modern society is how to judge the relationship between science and religion.  No one questions that they are different, but are they different in the sense that they fundamentally oppose and conflict with one another, like oil and water?  Or perhaps complement each other instead, like peanut butter and chocolate?

Or, wait…perhaps we’re starting with a flawed assumption from the very beginning.  ARE science and religion different?  Perhaps this is where a discussion of science and religion should start.

First, defining our terms:  “Science” is the body of knowledge about the physical world gained through human observation and experimentation, and includes the actual studies of the physical world where that knowledge is obtained.
 
Basically, “science” deals with discovering and recording facts, and we should note that ‘facts’ in this case refers to ALL facts—all things that are true in the universe--including not only those facts already discovered and recorded by humans past and present, but also all facts about ourselves and the universe yet to be discovered.

What’s ‘religion’, then?  Most people phrase ‘religion’ in terms of beliefs, and while this is a component, this does not mean ‘religion’ is divorced from ‘facts’ entirely.

“Religion” under its true definition is, in fact, the same as science—it is fundamentally about gaining knowledge of facts (or ‘truths’ as they are more commonly called) about God, the universe, and our place in it.  One of the first steps in understanding religion as it relates to science is to make sure we are applying the same definition of ‘fact’ or ‘truth’ to both sides.  (This is easier to do for science, but harder for many people to do for religion…)

Does God exist?  Did dinosaurs exist?  Does mankind possess a ‘spirit’ that continue to exist in some form after death?  Does mankind possess genetic markers that can indicate predisposition to certain diseases?  All four of these questions are similar—they can (and should) be treated in terms of ‘fact’ or ‘truth’, not ‘opinion’. 

God exists…or maybe He doesn’t.   Or maybe there’s a lot of Gods up there in Greek Pantheon fashion.  Regardless, the question “Is there a God?” has an objectively correct answer, just like asking “Were there dinosaurs on the Earth?”, or “Was there a Civil War in America?”  (Sometimes you hear, “God exists…if you believe He does.”  No one says, “The Civil War happened…if you believe it did!”)

When discussing ‘factual’ questions, it’s irrelevant if the answer is currently unknown, or even if there’s no particular scientific evidence for or against any of the possible answers, nor any reasonable hope to obtain such evidence.  A factual question has a factual answer, and religion—like science--can (and arguably should) still be viewed in terms of “answers”, not just “beliefs”.

If both science and religion are based around learning objective truths about the universe and our place in it, then from this perspective the difference between the two may not be as wide as originally thought.  We have two paradigms with the same goal—the search for truth—even if they largely approach that goal from different directions.

Understanding science and religion together involves understanding that the question, “How do we obtain our full eternal destiny in the afterlife” is closer to “How do stars form?” in purpose (i.e. a factual question) than “How do we redecorate our living room?” (a question based entirely on opinion and preference).

Is there a conflict between science and religion?  At the risk of spoiling the rest of the series, no: in my opinion, there is no fundamental conflict between science and religion such that one has to accept one and only one in lieu of the other.  Over the next few weeks, we’ll go over some of the details, and discuss why a believer in religion can accept science whole-heartedly, and vice versa…

Next: The definition of "theory"