Gaurav KumarAIR 34 · CSE 2017 · 317 wordsTheir whole copy
Opening
Religion and science are often seen as mutually exclusive by many scholars whereas concordant by some others.
Early scholars who rejected religion saying that science will replace it are:
Body · points
(1) Auguste Comte talked about three types of society and their mode of orientation: (i) Theosophical - religion (ii) Metaphysical - abstract philosophy (iii) modern - rationality Thus modernity will drive out religion from minds of people infusing rationality.
(2) Rousseau said that "religion is a body of foolies and tyrannies present in man's mind" induced by church to serve the interest of priestly class. ∴ Science should replace religion.
(3) According to Marx, religion is opiating the masses, it is hope of the hopeless and soul of soulless individuals.
But some scholars gave epistemological and scientific explanation of religion: (1) Tocqueville advocated that religion is more than creed and faith and is giving this worldly experience to man.
(2) Fustel de Coulange advocated that man earns this experience of religion from out of family hearth and it drives man towards quest for meaning. Thus science and religion are concordant. (3) Robertson Smith talks about regulatory and stimulative role of religion. He says that religion gives wisdom and controls egoism. It stimulates man to go for collective moralism. (4) Weber also speaks about religious values being crucial in drive towards rationality and capitalism in his work protestant ethics and spirit of capitalism. (5) Similarly Durkheim speaks about religion having collective role to promote solidarity and controls deviance by conforming people to collective conscience & collective representations.
Close · a summary
Thus religion is complementary to science. Science uses empirical facts to understand and generalise reality while religion interprets that reality to add meaning to social life. Science give valuable knowledge but religion goes for its further advancement to promote social order and control normlessness.
Hence though views are divergent about the interface between two but they are largely complementary domains of knowledge.