Religion and Science from a Postsecular Perspective
outcome. This kind of seriousness belies the relegation of both to mere discourses in a culture that does the same with religion and sports, for example, or market forces and religious institutions. Because religion and science claim to possess the ability to understand reality (either in toto or in part), the gravity that attends their interaction should not surprise us. It is for this reason that we find it critical to engage “religion” and “science” as broadtermed discourses at the level of culture even though we admit that there is nothing essentialist about our approach, nor do we endorse a particular view of these discourses over others. Religion and science will stay at the discursive level for us throughout this paper. Hence we concern ourselves with the meaning that each discourse generates and holds for its advocates when they are put into a relationship – a meaning that more often than not attempts to include the “Real” or provide an “Order” to the universe we inhabit.
For purposes of this paper, we define religion in broad terms as a set of beliefs and
practices oriented towards a transcendence that guides a way of life and structures a
worldview. More specifically, we refer primarily to a monotheistic-religious worldview that
still pervades the West, as the lion’s share of work done on the relationship between religion
and science has assumed a single divine creator. This choice is, of course, somewhat
superficial and arbitrary but instrumental for our purposes. Similarly, we define science in the
broadest terms as a set of ideas and theories whose legitimation depends on agreed-upon
methods of inquiry, empirical testing, and problem solving that similarly structure a singular
worldview. We are concerned with the discourse of science as it relates to the discourse of
religion. Therefore, less important is the legitimacy of the findings of scientists over the
centuries than the capacity of science to continue to approximate and order nature.
Specifically, we begin by examining and disposing of the view that religion and science
have nothing to do with each other (understood in terms of separate silos or as the
separation view). We next examine variants of the interaction view, from competition to
complementarity to foundation, that describe the different practices of this relationship. We
end by arguing how postsecular thinking does not seek to eliminate views that may betray
secularism or even modernism because it can critically apprise them without needing to
replace them. As such, the postsecular turn may not change the discursive animosity or
pettiness displayed at times in contemporary culture, yet it may provide a more useful way
with which to highlight the respective strengths both religious and scientific discourses bring
to a culture thirsty for an ordered universe without having to necessarily favor one over the
other.
The Untenable Separation View
A separation account of the relation between religion and science views both as distinct and possessing equally legitimate methods of inquiry into understanding nature and humanity. Traced back to Francis Bacon’s original articulation of the scientific method and later rooted in modern views of knowledge based on reason, science employs an empirical method in its investigation of the natural world. Whether studying celestial bodies, atoms, heart function, breast cancer, or the environment, science offers the means of understanding physical reality, descriptions, and explanations of it that are open to confirmation (in the tradition of induction) or falsification (Popper). If descriptions and explanations are accepted