The rising trend of religious fundamentalism has brought a radical, new perspective into the public discourse ranging from topics such as individual ethics and private faith to sociopolitical policymaking, economic practices, and the very structure of institutional society. The implications of religious fundamentalism are vast, and are worth studying in their own right, but will not constitute the topic of this particular discussion. Rather, my interest—for the time being—is centered upon the apparent collision of fundamentalism and science, and the continued battle being waged between these expansive distinctions.

Over the past decade, there has been a definitive separation between faith and reason: these two camps have developed unique systems of thought and discourse, garnering members and producing various sects and groups loosely or fully affiliated with each broad ideology. On the one side stands logic, science, and the history of Western metaphysical and philosophical dissertation; on the other stands faith and the long precedent of faith-related dialogue and institutionalized doctrine and dogma. The perceived problem is this: both positions are contending for the fundamental claim to social control; science wants to reign supreme through the medium of reason and logic, and faith wants to reign supreme through the medium of indoctrination and divinity. The tension between the two ideologies continues to rise at an unprecedented rate, and small skirmishes—legal, social, economic, etc.—play out on a daily basis. As faith threatens the sanctity of science—and as science threatens the sanctity of faith—both positions have assumed increasingly-antagonistic policies. The doctrines of faith and science have now incorporated into their foundation unilateral incompatibility; as long as the other exists, says the one position, there will be no justice/truth/peace/understanding throughout our society.

But this is not the real problem—only the excess, the byproduct of a more subtle, though nonetheless greater, dilemma. The true predicament lies in the inability of mutual discourse; in fact, the two processes—faith and reason—do not even utilize the same fundamental understandings to deliberate. They approach each other from two radically different and distinct perspectives—perspectives that cannot grasp why the opposing position is one of such relative ignorance and single-mindedness. Thus, the only conceivable outcome is one of antagonism, discord, mistrust, resentment and animosity: the previous and ongoing debates between the scientific and religious communities have not even been able to establish a common venue of rhetoric, but rely specifically on unique sets of knowledge that clash over fundamental differences. Where one places inherent value on the rigidity of logic, empirical data, observation, and discernable methods, the other concludes that the intrinsic value of a principle, object, etc. is in fact the divinity associated with that principle, object, etc., and thus supersedes the synthetic apparatuses of thought due to its transcendental nature.

It is important to draw a broad distinction here: faith is not reason, and reason is not faith. This statement should be obvious and intuitive, yet it holds tremendous weight in dictating the current discourses regarding science and religion. We can extrapolate from this distinction an even broader separation: there are two specific and divergent forms of faith. There is faith in reason, and there is faith in religion. In either situation, the individual places inherent faith into a particular method of knowledge or epistemological discourse. The two systems of belief, however, are innately dissimilar in their methods of approaching the concept of knowledge and the illustration of reality. The fundamental flaw is that each discourse attempts to disprove the other through an application of its own epistemological understanding; these attempts are futile, however, due to the distinct nature of the modes of thought.

Now, there should be two obvious questions that at this point enter into the equation: firstly, are these two discourses permanently incompatible? and secondly, why can’t these two discourses create a ground of mutual understanding to better debate their respective positions?

As to the first question, I submit that these discourses are in fact inherently compatible; one attempts to answer the “how” of the universe, and one attempts to answer the “why.” It seems that irrational emotion, distrust and resentment (in the political and social sense) has taken the place of any attempt to reconcile the two positions; the members of both sides have developed dogmatic and inflexible narratives to describe their systems of thought—narratives that leave little to no room for challenge or improvement. This seems problematic, and can certainly be seen throughout contemporary society. Regardless, it seems that the holes present in one argument can neatly be filled by the extension of the opposing view—to suggest that either perspective is perfect in their design or construction seems to fall well short of an adequate philosophy.

For the second question, I am not the first to suggest that the most effective and humanistic method of reconciliation would be a simple extension of mutual respect and dialogue. Yet, this commonsensical approach seems to fall on death ears; previous attempts on behalf of both sides to open up respectful channels of communication have gone unaided and unrequited, forcing instead greater mistrust and misunderstanding between the two encampments. Nevertheless, I do not see any possible alternative: if there is to be any progress between the two conditions, then both must relinquish their relative hubris and instead develop methods of common bonding. This is not to suggest that both sides continue flinging facts, figures and ideals at one another. On the contrary, this nonsensical approach has only caused strife and conflict where there should otherwise be a common interest to preserve the sanctity of social relations and provide the opportunity for both science and faith to flourish inclusively. Though I certainly may take issue with a fundamentalist approach—just as I may take issue with the extent to which science professes its omnipotence—the general basis of a democratic state is the equal discourse of all members; without this discourse, and without the relative dissent of opposing parties, the effectiveness of a democracy wanes and eventually collapses. To suppress one side exclusively is more reminiscent of a totalitarian state than it is of a utopian model.

What more can be said? This short musing is simply that—a short musing. I have declared my general position in regards to these matters—as many have done before me—in the hopes of opening up the potential for new lines of communication to replace the current bitterness associated with both sects. As always, I would encourage those that agree with my position to further pursue this objective through activity: talk to others. Attempt to actually implement these policies of respectful dialogue. Even if that dialogue may seem incompatible at first, understand that it is through the inclusive understanding of mutual exclusivity that agreements can be met. Read more. Examine these positions in a critical light. Do whatever it takes to improve the current condition of faith and reason-based rhetoric. Be tolerant of others and do not be afraid to expect the same level of tolerance. If we, as a society deeply connected through various social, economic and political bonds, are to progress, then we have no other choice than to accept the differences of others and work together to celebrate and respect those differences while also developing methods to reconcile antipodal perspectives in the hopes of constructing a more peaceful, accessible social condition. Otherwise, we shall be caught in a purgatorial liminality while neither party progresses; a state that I am confident both sides would like to avoid.