First, this came about from the following Facebook comment:
“It is philosophically convenient to say ‘religion should be a science,’ whereas it is arrogant for a philosopher to explicitly say ‘religion is not a science.’ Even physics was not a science in the beginning; it was a ridiculous heap of nonsense filled with blind hypotheses and theories. Why should modern philosophers not allow religion followers to transform their blind faith into a science for philosophers to fathom?”
Answer: Religion, whether you know it or not, is a part of everyone’s worldview, a part of each person’s belief system. However, the claim that physics started not as a science is a misunderstanding. It’s true that all ideas start as speculative…all of them. They then go through a judgment period and are either validated, disproven, or classified as unknowable. The difference between physics and religion is that physics operates within the scientific realm, where speculative ideas are rigorously tested and either validated or discarded. Religion, on the other hand, resides in the realm of belief. In addition to framing our empirical world, it attempts to provide answers for the unknown and unknowable. While religion and other beliefs not based on observation rely on faith, science depends on evidence and experimentation.
A religion can contain empirical claims, rational arguments, moral systems, rituals, myths, history, metaphysics, and personal meaning. That is why religion can overlap with science at times, especially when it makes claims about the material world. But overlap is not identity. When a religious claim becomes testable, science can examine it. When it remains about meaning, faith, ultimate purpose, or the unknowable, it belongs to belief and worldview rather than science.
