The debate between science and religion has created a huge chasm between the two disciplines. But maybe these theories aren't as incompatible as first thought.
When looking at the natural world there is plenty of evidence of the perfection of nature: the delicate spider’s web glistening with dew, the rotation of the four seasons and the efficiency of the food chain to name but a few. The idea of Mother Nature is sometimes used to explain the caring and loving natural surroundings we live in and the beauty and warmth that it provides.
But opponents of this view point to the fact that nature is also a source of great destruction: earthquakes, hurricanes and devastating tsunami of 2004 all indicate that nature has a flip side.
The question is how to reconcile the two ideas of God and science.
Let’s take the traditional religious view first of all. God created the world and sustains everything in it, including ourselves. We can communicate with God and God can communicate with us. God is loving, caring and supportive and offers a shoulder to cry on in times of need, as well as being a source of great inspiration and encouragement. Much of the suffering that occurs is caused by nature and could be just a by-product of a complex universe. Other suffering – and arguably the greater amount – is caused by humans and is needless suffering in what should be a near perfect world, tainted by the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
The Devil is also a cause of misery and suffering as people turn away from God and towards their temptations, ultimately creating disharmony in the world.
But science too has a lot to offer. Scientists will argue that evidence proves the existence of the Big Bang and that the fossil record goes some way to proving the theory of evolution. There is our close genetic link to apes giving rise to our ancestral life on the savannah. And isn’t physical proof for something more concrete than the whimsical notion of talking to a God we can’t see or hear? Miracles could be coincidences or misreported events which can now be explained by advances in science rather than relying on the oral tradition of passing down stories of what appeared to have happened.
All seems well and good. But the problem comes when these two theories clash. Some religions take a fundamentalist view of their creation story, in that everything their holy book says is exactly true; others take a more liberal position, saying that it is the meaning behind the stories rather than the stories themselves which are true. Meanwhile, scientists like the physical proof of something in front of them, or a testable theory which looks more likely than unlikely.
Yet between these opposite ideas of the beginnings of the universe there lies a thin line. For those who want to sit on the fence or are unable to commit either way, for those who want to believe in God but also want some sort of evidence, it’s just possible that these theories are entirely compatible - put quite simply, an all-powerful God could have started the Big Bang process.
Although not likely to appease all religious believers and scientists alike, this idea might help those in the middle to understand that God is involved but evolution is also possible. The next problem comes when trying to explain how the stories from holy books fit into this theory.
