Peifu Zhang: On the Historical Entanglement of Science and Theology
Reviewing the history of human intellect, when the light of reason and the mists of faith intertwined in the long river of history, science and theology emerged like two great currents—sometimes parallel, sometimes converging—profoundly influencing humanity's cognition and understanding of the world. The entanglement between the two spans different stages and eras of human civilization; they have reshaped each other's boundaries through conflict and collision, while at other times influencing one another to present a complex and multifaceted state. As Engels pointed out:
"It is not a matter of simply declaring a religion that conquered the Roman World Empire and dominated the vast majority of civilized humanity for eighteen hundred years to be a collection of nonsense cobbled together by deceivers. To solve the problem, one must explain its origin and development based on the historical conditions under which it arose and attained dominance." From Galileo's astronomical observations to Newton's theological manuscripts, and from quantum superposition to theories of human origins, humanity has both used telescopes to observe the starry sky and myths to weave divine will—natural science discovers the warp and woof of the universe, while religious theology propagates the meaning of existence; together, they constitute our conceptual framework for understanding the world.
I. The Historical Trajectory of the Relationship Between Science and Theology
The American historian John Brooke [1] believes that science and theology moved "from an initial interdependence to an eventual independence where each possessed different fields of knowledge and authority, and finally evolved into a state of total hostility." In the European Middle Ages, science was entirely subordinate to theology. During the period of early modern science, science developed an independent consciousness separated from theology, beginning to stand as an equal and challenge theological authority. This marked the entry into what Engels called the era of moving from "the science of collecting materials" to "the science of arranging materials" [2], establishing various systems of scientific disciplines. The 20th century was an era where modern science underwent both high differentiation and high synthesis with rapid development; while humanity reflected on the grave threats to scientific civilization, theology seemed to find a renewed domain for expression.
1. The Ancient World: Common Origins and Symbiosis of Science and Theology
In ancient times, the unconquerable forces of nature instilled a sense of fear, leading ancient peoples to produce concepts of deities that worshipped supernatural powers. The dawns of scientific knowledge were closely linked with awe of the divine; ancient science and theology were co-originated cognitive attempts to explain mysterious natural phenomena. The ancient Egyptians formulated calendars by observing celestial phenomena to guide agricultural production and religious rituals. Mesopotamian astrology linked the movement of celestial bodies to human destiny, believing changes in the heavens were manifestations of divine will. The ancient Greek natural philosopher Thales proposed that water is the fundamental principle (arche) of all things, which was not unrelated to the localized veneration of the sea god Oceanus in Greek mythology.
"The isomorphic distinction between gods and humans, along with a complete genealogical system of gods, reflected the objectivity and logic of Greek thought, which were the basic prerequisites for the emergence of natural science." The development of ancient Chinese astronomy was intertwined with astrology, naming constellations "Heavenly Officials" (天官, tiānguān) while recording celestial regularities alongside the theory of "resonance between heaven and man" [3], forming a unique hybrid knowledge system. This concept of linking natural phenomena with divine providence was both an early form of scientific exploration and a major manifestation of theological thought, reflecting the symbiotic state of scientific inquiry and theological concepts in early civilizations.
2. The Middle Ages: The Glimmer of Science under the Shroud of Theology
The European Middle Ages was an era of "theological grand unity," where Christian theology became the value system by which all things were measured. It attracted almost all intellectual elites, dominated first by Patristic philosophy and later by Scholasticism. Patristic theologians were only concerned with the relationship between God and man; they disregarded nature and reality, believing the end of the world was near. Since the tangible natural world would soon perish, why bother studying it? Aquinas, who brought theological thought to its great synthesis, inherited the ideas of Greek natural philosophers. Aristotle’s doctrines were the primary source of his "rational elements," which reinforced the role of the Greek scientific tradition in a religious-theological form. He argued that understanding nature was a necessary path to knowing God, and that the ultimate goal of scientific research was to prove the existence and omnipotence of God. Ptolemy’s geocentric model coincided with Christian doctrines—that man was created in God’s image and that the place where man resides should rightfully be the center of the universe—and was thus incorporated into the Christian theological system. This state of science under the strict shroud of theology was vividly described by Roger Bacon: "One discipline is the mistress of all others—this discipline is theology, and all other disciplines are necessary for it; without them, it cannot achieve its purpose." Consequently, any scientific exploration inconsistent with theological concepts would be suppressed or even persecuted. Roger Bacon used experimental methods to engage in "research on physics and the laws of the world" and proposed "adhering to true reasoning and using mathematics as a tool for natural science." This challenged the authority of the Bible. As a result, his scientific exploration brought him not honor, but imprisonment; he was eighty years old by the time he was released. "The Middle Ages... was a dark valley through which humanity passed, descending from the heights of Greek thought and Roman rule, only to struggle back up the slopes of modern knowledge."
3. The Modern Era: The Scientific Revolution Breaking the Shackles of Theology
With the rise of the Renaissance, people began to refocus on human value and dignity. When Enlightenment thinkers attacked the "sacred" concepts of theologians, they often pitted scientific rationality against theological superstition. Science began its path toward liberation from theological constraints. The scientific revolution sparked by Copernicus’s heliocentric theory in the 16th century fundamentally altered the balance of power between science and theology. The tension between the two intensified for the first time; while conflict escalated, science also met an unprecedented opportunity for independent development.
By proposing the heliocentric theory, Copernicus overturned Ptolemy’s geocentric model and changed the Christian world-picture of "Earth at the center of the universe, with heaven above and hell below," causing a massive uproar. "The revolutionary act by which natural science declared its independence... was the publication of the immortal work by which Copernicus (though timidly and, so to speak, only on his deathbed) threw down the gauntlet to ecclesiastical authority in the affairs of nature. From then on, the liberation of natural science from theology began."
The effects of the scientific activities of many early modern religious scientists were often contrary to their original motives. Copernicus, caught in the conflict between science and theology, wrote in his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543)—the book that sparked the scientific revolution: Astronomy "can also provide extraordinary joy of the soul. When one is devoted to things they consider most properly arranged and governed by the divine, will not contemplation of them inspire one to pursue the best things and praise the Creator of all?" In 1543, Vesalius published De humani corporis fabrica, the first work of anatomy in scientific history. Through actual dissection, he discovered that men and women have the same number of ribs, which directly conflicted with the Book of Genesis. For this, Vesalius was sentenced to exile by the Inquisition and died on his journey.
The Italian scientist Galileo believed in Copernicus’s heliocentric theory early on, but only after discovering solid evidence through telescope observations did he explicitly support the Copernican system. The Inquisition warned Galileo, declaring the proposition that the Earth is not the center of the universe as philosophically foolish and absurd, and erroneous in faith. Nevertheless, Galileo continued his deep astronomical research and published his representative work Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632), which was met with a huge positive response in the scientific community but strong opposition in the theological world. Faced with high pressure from the Inquisition, and despite compromising his stance on heliocentrism, the elderly and nearly blind Galileo was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1633 by the "thought police" of that era—the Inquisition. This became a landmark event in the conflict between science and theology. A grave consequence of the Galileo affair was that an intolerant Italy surrendered its status as the world’s scientific center to Britain. Galileo’s conviction forced Descartes—who proposed the vortex theory that would have revolutionized traditional cosmology—to abandon his plans for scientific writing and led many to view theology as the mortal enemy of science.
The majesty of theology did not halt the march of science. Newton’s system of classical mechanics was born during this period, further diminishing the status of God in nature and reducing blind worship of the divine; the Earth was seen as a tiny satellite in the universe. However, "the pioneers of modern science were actually devoutly religious; in fact, they were faithful sons of Christianity." This manner of attributing scientific discovery to a divine order reveals the symbiotic relationship between science and theology in the European pre-Enlightenment era, such that "for a time, Newtonianism created a point of excitement for natural theology. In Newtonianism, the laws of the world were viewed as evidence of God’s design of nature... what we call 'Deism' today was influenced by Newtonianism."
Modern natural theology attempted to find a balance between faith in the theological deity and respect for scientific rationality, acknowledging God as the creator of the world while emphasizing the autonomy of natural science. However, when the French Emperor Napoleon asked Laplace why his Traité de mécanique céleste made no mention of God, Laplace replied: "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis!" The progress of modern science completely separated the world of value from the world of fact.
In the 18th-century Enlightenment, the tide of rationalism swept across Europe, and the demarcation between science and theology became increasingly distinct. Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Rousseau championed scientific knowledge, while the mysticism in traditional theology became a target of attack. Hume and Kant used different methods to expose the limitations of the theological arguments used to defend Christianity, arguing that theological arguments from design and those based on miracles were circular; the universe followed only natural laws, rendering divine providence redundant. Dalton’s atomic theory posed a genuine threat to religious theology "because atomic theory does not consider the world to be a designed or purposeful expression of reason—it is anti-teleological and therefore potentially atheistic—though one could indeed create a Christian form of atomism. Yet, a specific and fundamental tension exists between atomism and Catholicism." The most intense and lasting impact of modern science on theology was the proposal of the theory of biological evolution; prior to this, biology had been a stronghold of natural theology.
Upon entering Cambridge University, Darwin read the theologian Paley’s Natural Theology; he could even recite the book by heart. Yet, once his global travels and research led him to the theory of evolution—which conflicted with the view that God created all things—he remarked: "The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered." The geologist Lyell described the scene at the time: "Darwin’s work is stirring up heated discussion in scientific, literary, and theological circles."
At the 1860 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Oxford, Bishop Wilberforce of the Oxford Diocese fiercely attacked Darwin’s theory and his friends, while biologists like Huxley and Hooker launched a resolute counterattack. One could say that Darwin’s theory of evolution had a direct impact on the historical dichotomy that arose in 19th-century Western thought—it was precisely because of Darwin’s evolution that people began to see Western history as a history of "warfare" between religious theology and science. Theologians had intended to use their attacks on science to drive people away from it, but the result was the opposite: more people accepted science.
It was not until the 19th century that modern Western science spread to China, primarily through missionary groups. Starting in 1873, the missionary Alexander Williamson published a series of articles in the Church News (教会新报, Jiàohuì Xīnbào) and The Globe Magazine (万国公报, Wànguó Gōngbào) titled Gewu Tanyuan (Tracing the Origins of the Investigation of Things). While the title suggested natural science, its English name remained Natural Theology; the goal was to spread scientific knowledge while simultaneously bringing the concept of "God’s" natural order to China. Zhang Taiyan [4], however, severely criticized Tan Sitong [5] for attempting to equate the Confucian "ghosts and spirits" theory with the Christian "soul" theory, asking pointedly, "What exactly is this 'God'?" Clearly, the Chinese people were more willing to accept natural science and medical knowledge than theological doctrines. Quantis Tongkao (A Comprehensive Study of the Whole Body), the first Chinese anatomical work published in 1886, was devoid of any theological content.
The British philosopher Bertrand Russell summarized the relationship between modern science and theology as follows:
"The modern era differs from the Medieval period in the decline of ecclesiastical authority and the rise of scientific authority... The authority of science, recognized by most modern philosophers, differs from religious authority in the following ways: it is an intellectual rather than a governing authority; people face no secular punishment whether they accept it or not; it relies on rational judgment; and its conclusions are characterized by probability rather than claiming absolute truth." Even Western missionaries in 19th-century China had to admit that "science is gradually breaking away from religion." Considering the impact of science on national wealth and power, "even men like Alexander Williamson [6] came to approve, to some extent, the development of science detached from religion."
4. The Modern Era: Pluralistic Interaction and the Reshaping of Boundaries
Entering the 20th century, science achieved unprecedented and monumental successes. From the subversion of our cognition of the micro- and macro-worlds by quantum mechanics and relativity to the exploration of genetic mysteries in the life sciences, science has permeated almost every corner of human life and cognition. Against this backdrop, the relationship between science and theology has exhibited a more complex and pluralistic trend.
First, incidents of conflict and polemics between science and theology have continued unabated. Regarding several frontier scientific issues, scientific theories and theological dogmas still clash significantly; for instance, the Big Bang theory’s explanation of cosmic origins is diametrically opposed to the doctrine of Divine Creation.
Anti-evolutionary forces initiated new operations in the 20th century, most representatively in the United States, the most technologically advanced nation. In 1925, the State of Tennessee passed the "Anti-Evolution" Act [7]. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, was brought to court for violating this act. Scientists and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) expressed support for the defendant through speeches and articles in newspapers and periodicals. However, the defendant ultimately lost the case, largely because the general populace remained firm in their belief in the authoritative status of theological culture, and most American biologists at the time were theistic evolutionists. In 1965, Susan Epperson successfully sued against state anti-evolution laws on the grounds of unconstitutionality. Nevertheless, theologians defending classical creationism proposed various so-called "scientific creationism" bills in the 1970s and 80s to counter evolution. This led two state legislatures to pass acts in 1981 granting "scientific creationism" and evolution equal status in biology education—known as the "Balanced Treatment" Acts. Sustained appeals by 72 Nobel laureates and other scientific organizations fully exposed "scientific creationism" as nothing more than disguised religious theology rather than science. It was not until 1982 and 1987 that federal courts finally struck down these two "Balanced Treatment" acts. Forty-four percent of Americans advocate giving creationism or "scientific creationism" equal status, and the proportion of those denying evolution is the highest among developed nations. Even in 2005, then-U.S. President Bush expressed approval for introducing the theological concept of "Intelligent Design" into classrooms. American scholars have remarked: "Looking at the rough proportions, the American public's attitude toward evolution is disappointing. Distrust of evolution is almost an American phenomenon; we have placed ourselves in an embarrassing situation."
Second, scholars have re-examined the actual history of the relationship between science and theology. A study of Galileo’s 20-volume works and correspondence leads to the startling discovery that previous conclusions identifying Galileo as a devout Christian are unreliable. No evidence has been found of him praying, listening to sermons, or reading the Bible and the works of the Church Fathers. "Galileo was in fact a heretic; but worse (for his heretical words and deeds were far more numerous than historians knew), he was unfaithful and ungrateful to religion." Through an examination of Newton's scientific writings and his vast body of theological work, it is easy to find that Newton struggled to break free from the influence of religious theology on his scientific theories. For example, in the first editions of his two most representative scientific works, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica and Opticks, there is not a single mention of God. It was only later, under pressure from the Church and other quarters, that he was forced to add discussions concerning God in subsequent editions. In an era where religious theology still exerted powerful control over all aspects of society, it became an expedient tactic for scientists to achieve greater social recognition by emphasizing the theological functions of science.
Third, some scientists and theologians have attempted to examine issues in their own fields from the other’s perspective, seeking a new construction of human knowledge and value systems, and pursuing dialogue and communication between science and theology.
"The ecological crisis has made it clear that theology, science, and many other disciplines share a common fate." "Under the pressure of the ecological crisis and the search for new directions for which both theology and science must strive, theology and science have become partners in distress." One change in American seminaries is that ecology has become a productive level for entering discussions on the relationship between science and theology, proposing an eco-theological outlook to reflect on human destruction of nature. Theologians have suggested that the Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics provides a basis for the existence of "free will"; that genetic engineering and "cloning" technologies are the continuation of God’s creation of humanity; and that Superstring theory, due to its non-observability, increasingly approaches the realm of metaphysical speculation. Some theologians believe this bears a certain resemblance to the mystical experiences and supernatural entities in theological dogma, and it is even identified by some as a "new theology." The Templeton Foundation in the United States, through multi-million dollar awards, incentivizes research into "cooperation between science and religion," establishing the "Global Perspective on Science and Spirituality" program.
Renowned scientists with a strong interest in theology have strengthened the dialogue between the two fields. American biologist Palewitz [8] argues: "Scientists themselves often dissolve the boundaries between science and religion... in an effort to bridge the differences, some claim that science supports religious scripture and can even summon evidence for the existence of God." Some domestic [9] scientists even believe that "the end of science is Buddhism." They argue that in the process of understanding the ontological nature of the universe, modern science and Buddhism coincide, both concluding that the essence of the universe is a void—non-material and non-energetic. "Science has not yet answered what the essence of the universe is without matter; Buddhism has answered: it is the 'oneness of mind and matter' (心物一元)."
Einstein’s views represent the inner thoughts of a segment of Western scientists: "I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Heisenberg, a key founder of quantum mechanics, believed that while scientific truth is indisputable, reflecting on the relationship between science and theology is a necessary choice for scientists. Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), stated: "Science is not the only way of knowing; a religious worldview provides us with another way of discovering truth."
II. A Contemporary Examination of the Relationship Between Science and Theology
In the galleries of the Vatican Museums, Michelangelo’s Genesis ceiling frescoes resonate with the fragments of Galileo’s telescope at the end of the corridor. The moment God’s finger touches Adam and the scientist’s lens captures the trajectory of the stars constitute the most profound metaphors of human civilization.
"After all, if science is too weak to coexist with religion, religion will indeed incorporate things currently considered to be within the realm of natural science into its sphere of influence... If certain questions find no answers at the scientific level, they inevitably fall into the religious domain (though this makes people feel uncomfortable and inappropriate). No one voluntarily yields their own territory. Later, as science began to develop and grow stronger, it gradually began to reclaim the territories temporarily taken over by religion, and at that time, conflicts and struggles indeed broke out. The tension between science and religion has certainly intensified during certain historical periods."
A longitudinal view of the evolution of the relationship between science and theology in human history reveals a developmental trajectory from simple to complex, linear to non-linear, unitary to pluralistic, stable to dynamic, and from conflictual competition to dialogic coexistence. Scientists with religious beliefs often find themselves wavering and torn between science and theology. Galileo once lamented: "I beg these wise and learned Fathers to consider with all care the difference that exists between matters of mere opinion and matters of faith... for there is a danger that one day you may condemn as heretics those who claim the Earth moves and the Sun is stationary, when it is proven—as surely one day it will be in physics or logic—that the Earth moves and the Sun is still." In 1979, the Holy See publicly admitted that the 1633 trial of Galileo was unjust. In 1980, the Galileo case was reopened, investigated by an interfaith committee of scientists including Nobel laureates Chen-Ning Yang and Samuel C.C. Ting. In 1992, the "heresy" charges against Galileo were officially revoked, and he was finally exonerated.
As social institutions and cultural phenomena, the relationship between science and theology—particularly their disputes—is often influenced by social factors such as politics, economy, philosophy, education, and culture. To a certain extent, the continuous progress of science may damage the credibility and economic interests of theologians, thereby incurring their resentment. Galileo's persecution by the Inquisition reflected that science was no longer willing to be subordinate to theology and instead demanded autonomy—a prospect the Holy See was most unwilling to see. Some argue that secular historians and writers bear responsibility for the formation of the early 20th-century American public perception that Christians and evolutionists were hostile antagonists.
The relationship between science and theology has been explored through various approaches, including comparative, historiographical, biographical, textual, functional, and linguistic methods, as well as through disciplines such as the sociology of religion, the sociology of science, cultural studies, and anthropology. A large volume of research has been published, with the most typical perspectives being Conflict Theory, Integration Theory, and Independence Theory.
The first perspective is Conflict Theory, which holds that science is grounded in objective facts and aims to explore the objective laws reflecting nature through observation, experiment, and reasoning, seeking weapons of freedom from the natural world. Theology, conversely, proceeds from illusory concepts and focuses on attaining eternal truth and spiritual consolation through faith, viewing pious prayer as the sole method to move the divine and obtain knowledge—a rope that enslaves the human soul. Maintaining the authority of theological classics and suppressing or attempting to extinguish knowledge that conflicts with them is a necessary condition for theology to preserve its existence and prestige; this is also the fundamental cause of the conflict between theology and science.
Theology proposes many subtle and universally appealing arguments, such as "science and theology should respect each other," "theology and science must join hands to explore the foundations of the real world," "theology and science share common ground," or "theology and science must together seek better conditions for human life." However, when linking theology—with its supernatural forces—to science at an epistemological level, theology rejects science because scientific methods harbor skepticism toward divine design and planning. Scientific authority is naturally formed, relative, limited in scope, and non-cultic; theological authority is self-proclaimed, absolute, unlimited in scope, and worshiped by believers.
The Austrian philosopher-scientist Ernst Mach described the popular view of his era: "The only suppression of intellectual development comes from the clergy; if they did not interfere, the growing sciences would flourish with astonishing speed." The American anthropologist Pandian [10] argued that there is no relationship between supernaturalist theology and science; one is "the god-making movement of all humanity," while the other is "the analytical activity of all humanity, which produces models of precision to approach, interpret, and utilize nature." American scientist Goran [11] concluded: "Whether in a monarchy or a democracy, an autocratic or a free state, science is needed; only religion does not need science. The conflict between science and religion affects the overall progress of science more severely than the conflict between science and government."
The second perspective is Integration Theory, which argues that theology and science can neither replace nor conflict with each other, but rather can supplement one another to jointly solve various problems faced in human social life. "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."
The American sociologist Robert K. Merton argued that—
In the 17th century, Puritanism played a massive role in promoting England’s development into a global center of science. In the view of the American educator [Andrew Dickson] White, "a very large portion of the honor for the victory of science belongs to men who were trained as theologians." The scientist-theologian Polkinghorne argued that science and theology are friends rather than enemies, as they focus on different levels of truth: science concerns impersonal truth, while theology concerns the truth of a transpersonal reality.
During the process of "Western learning spreading to the East" (西学东渐) [12], a group of Western missionaries, represented by Matteo Ricci, disseminated a vast amount of modern scientific knowledge to China. "Between 1600 and 1773, approximately 1,600 different Jesuits contributed about 6,000 scientific works." Ferdinand Verbiest, a Belgian Jesuit who served in the Qing Dynasty's Directorate of Astronomy (钦天监) between 1679 and 1680, believed that "more missionaries entered China simultaneously under the pretext of astronomy." He noted, "What benevolence and joy the Emperors displayed when accepting the gifts we presented to them—geometry, arithmetic, cosmology, and geodesy."
Post-foundationalism holds that the boundary between science and theology is constantly shifting, and the two overlap in the realm of epistemology. Neo-theologians emphasize the need for both science and theology: "Theological theory can serve as a source of inspiration for the 'context of discovery' in science. One example is the influence of religious ideas on the pioneers of quantum theory, such as Planck, Einstein, Bohr, and Schrödinger." Einstein opposed pitting science against theology, believing that the emotional source for the pursuit of scientific truth comes from religion: "I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith." Planck believed that moral and religious experience harmonize with the physicist’s view of the world. Feynman argued that "science is the art of uncertainty, while faith is the psalm of certainty; humanity needs to listen to both voices simultaneously." Davies said, "Science has actually progressed to the point where it can seriously address problems that previously belonged to religion." Yang Chen-Ning [13] believes that "the structure of nature possesses such incredible mysteries that the feeling at such moments is, I think, very close to the most sincere religious belief." Smoot described the cosmic microwave background radiation as the "handwriting of God," and Lederman titled a book on the Higgs boson The God Particle.
A third perspective is Independence, which holds that as different domains of human spiritual life, science and theology are neither in conflict nor mutually dependent. As long as both stick to their own territories and do not interfere with one another, they can coexist independently and peacefully. Science explores natural laws while theology pursues the aspirations of the Good; like two parallel lines that never intersect, there is a discontinuity between scientific cognition and theological cognition. "Kant and Schleiermacher, through their efforts at demarcation, rendered unto science what is science's and unto religion what is religion's. Hegel, on the other hand, saw science and religion as different manifestations of the same thing. Thus, the study of science is not influenced by the Bible, but when asking about the ultimate grounds of humanity, God becomes necessary."
The historian of science Sarton argued that science and theology are separate; setting them in opposition or conflating them causes equal confusion. Duhem believed that science is not influenced by religious theology, and religious theology is not influenced by science in the slightest. Brooke explicitly stated: "Many works discussing science and religion are constructed according to preconceived notions of conflict or harmony. If one wishes to understand the richness and fascination of the interaction between religion and science, it is necessary to move beyond these constraints." Whitehead argued that the nature of events handled by theology and science are entirely different: science is engaged in observing certain general conditions that control physical phenomena, while religious theology is entirely immersed in speculation regarding moral and aesthetic values.
Critical Realism argues that the conclusions of both theology and science are partial and temporary, both situated within a background where context and history are interwoven; this is what they have in common. However, theological experience and scientific data types are different, and particularly, the formation of the two is vastly different.
The relationship between modern science and theology exhibits a clear trend of institutional separation. The separation of scientific and theological education within the educational system, the formation of professional scientific communities, and the development of the self-consistency of scientific methodology have all enabled science to increasingly escape the influence of theological discourse. In explaining natural phenomena, the refusal to appeal to supernatural causes has become a fundamental norm of the scientific profession. Mainstream theology has also undergone a "liberal turn," no longer insisting on the literal inerrancy of theological scriptures but instead emphasizing the ethical and spiritual dimensions of the divine, effectively ceding the realm of nature to science.
III. The Boundaries and Distinctions Between Science and Theology
The scalpel of science and the rosary of theology represent two completely different cognitive paths. This divergence has become even more apparent in the era of quantum mechanics: while scientists debate whether "Schrödinger's cat" is in a superposition of life and death, theologians ponder whether the soul exists within fluctuations of consciousness at the quantum level. Science takes factual judgment as primary, while theology takes value judgment as primary; the two belong to incommensurable paradigms, making it difficult to reach a consensus at the "hard core" of their research programs. Science is defined within the scope of human rationalism and the civilizational framework that sustains continuous social progress, while theology is relegated to the cultural framework of fideism and the systems of social norms of specific periods. "Aristotle's ideas about the eternity of the world set him in opposition to monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam... Among all questions involving natural philosophy and theology, the question of whether the world is eternal posed the greatest threat to faith and was the most difficult to resolve." Fundamentally, science and theology are fundamentally different paradigms in terms of worldview, values, epistemology, and the conception of truth, with clear boundaries distinguishing them.
In terms of worldview, science, as a system of knowledge for understanding the objective world, regards all objects of study as objective realities that exist independently of any human spirit or divine will. It holds that the creation of the objective world is based on natural causes rather than divine creation, embodying the basic standpoint of materialism. Theology, built upon supernatural forces, attributes the creation of the universe and all natural phenomena to the transcendent will and manifestation of God; an omnipotent deity rules the world, embodying a thoroughgoing idealist position.
In terms of values, science possesses a rich spiritual connotation, harboring the spirit of rationality, skepticism, and critique. It manifests value norms such as simplicity, unity, and rationality. Transcending class, nationality, and geography, it is a unified knowledge system for all humanity. "Science plays an important role in decision-making... Many people mistakenly believe that without religious belief as a foundation, humans are immoral. This is a false assumption, because since the Renaissance, the secularization of morality and the realization of naturalistic values have continued to exist and develop independently of religious commandments." Bohr, a founder of quantum mechanics, stated clearly: "Science and religion take fundamentally different starting points; the goal of science is to develop a universal method to organize human experience, while the roots of religion lie in the effort to promote the harmony of views and behavior within society."
In terms of epistemology and methodology, science adheres to empiricism and relies on experiments to explore the mysteries of nature. The scientific explanation of nature is a developing, open, and progressive cognitive system. Scientific thinking has no forbidden zones or fixed frames; it is thinking based on the premises of the law-governed nature and intelligibility of the environment. Theology understands the world through prayer and confession, establishing a spiritual exchange and communication between the believer and the deity. It employs methods that are speculative, symbolic, metaphorical, and "miraculous"; it is a self-closed and non-critical cognitive system. Heisenberg argued: "Science tries to give its words an objective meaning. Religious language, however, must avoid this very distinction between the objective and subjective aspects of the world."
In terms of the conception of truth, "there exist two claims to truth: one is scientific truth, which is verified by the accumulation of experience and logical reasoning; the other is religion, which is established by transcending experience and reasoning." The standard of truth for scientific theory lies in whether it accords with experimental data and possesses logical self-consistency; the standard of truth for theological theory derives from divine revelation and scriptural dogma. "The methods used by science and religion to seek truth are completely different, such as the opposition between reason and faith. Moreover, science is based on facts, while religion is based on values. Science is objective, religion is subjective. Science can be falsified, while religion cannot. Scientific language describes the way things exist in the world, while religion uses language to describe our feelings, hopes, and beliefs."
Since the 20th century, the emerging discipline of the philosophy of science has developed rapidly, focusing on in-depth explorations of the essence of science, the validity of scientific methods, and the boundaries between science and non-science. Among these, logical positivism proposed the principle of verification, emphasizing that scientific facts and laws should be capable of being universally and repeatedly proven. Any language failing to meet the verification principle set for science was dismissed as meaningless; thus, theological language was undoubtedly meaningless, thereby separating science and theology. These theories of the philosophy of science enriched and strengthened scientific demarcation theory, providing more persuasive standards for distinguishing science from non-science. Simultaneously, they prompted people to rethink the relationship between science and theology, further clarifying their boundaries. The distinctions between science and theology can thus be summarized as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Distinctions Between Science and Theology
| Dimension | Science | Theology |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophical Position | Scientific materialism | Theological idealism |
| Cognitive Direction | Objectivity and the objective world | Subjectivity and the subjective world |
| Cognitive Method | Experiment, observation, and rational thinking | Meditation, epiphany, and revelation |
| Mode of Engagement | Secular concern for real society; involves "I-It" relationships arising in an impersonal objective kingdom | Otherworldly concern for the hereafter; involves "I-Thou" relationships arising in a personal kingdom of the self |
| Basis of Explanation | Natural factors and natural forces | Divine revelation and supernatural power |
| Explanatory Scope | Laws of the physical world | Interpretation of meaning, morality, and ultimate concern |
| Truth Status | Theories are relative truths; opposes the "exhaustion of knowledge" | Divine Way is eternal truth; advocates the absolute nature of knowledge |
| Criteria for Truth | Observation and experimental facts as the yardstick | Theological classics and authoritative divine doctrine as final basis |
| Cognitive Basis | Repeatable verification, falsifiability, logical self-consistency | Emphasizes consistency of faith; believes "sincerity brings results" and transcendent existence; unfalsifiable |
| Cognitive Path | Iterative updates via paradigm shifts; boundaries expand with technology | Contextual interpretation while maintaining the eternity of the divine core |
| Language Use | "Spectator language": factual statements containing scientific terms, logical inference, rational discourse, and mathematics | "Actor language": proverbs, poetic language, mythic language, and theological language with strong emotional and metaphorical color |
| System Attributes | Open and progressive knowledge system | Closed and dogmatic belief system |
| Loyalty to Icons | Does not require idolatry or loyalty | Requires worship and loyalty to the deity |
| Criticality | Accepts rational criticism | Rejects all criticism |
| Value Orientation | Transcends class, ethnicity, and geography | Driven by interests of class, ethnicity, culture, and region |
| Social Function | Function is conditional; experiences areas of powerlessness | Divine power is infinite and omnipotent |
| Social Role | Promotes productive forces and human longevity | Provides spiritual order and ethical frameworks |
By virtue of its rigorous empirical methods and significant technological achievements, science has increasingly become an important force driving social development and civilizational progress. Although a massive global population remains deeply influenced by theological beliefs, theology has not exerted a substantial influence on the mainstream direction or methods of scientific research. Instead, the enormous achievements of science have greatly improved the quality of human life and existence. It is in this sense that Engels profoundly pointed out: "God is treated no worse by anywhere than by the natural scientists who believe in Him."
As people are [struggling] for the so-called...
When people smugly sigh that "the end of science is theology," they forget that as early as 80 years ago, Bertrand Russell provided a penetrating summary of human cognition: philosophy is a no-man's land situated between science and theology. He asserted, "all definite knowledge—so I should contend—belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology." Some have summarized this as: "The end of theology is science, while the starting point of science lies in theology." Furthermore, Auguste Comte, the founder of positivist philosophy, proposed as early as 1844 that the development of human understanding progresses through the theological stage, the metaphysical stage, and the positive stage. These three stages represent an evolutionary trend; while theological and philosophical thinking were necessary for the infancy of humanity, they must inevitably be replaced by experimental science.
Even Einstein, who possessed religious sentiments, viewed the opposition between science and theology by stating: "The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me nothing but a symptom of weakness and confusion." Following his return to Earth, the Soviet cosmonaut Gagarin [14] remarked, "I didn't see any heaven there"—implying that the foundation of religious theology cannot exist within nature or science; at most, it can only seek a foundation in the depths of morality. The physicist Stephen Hawking argued that science is increasingly capable of answering questions that once belonged to the realm of religion; the scientific account is complete, making theology unnecessary.
Regarding why scientists who adhere to materialism within the scientific field might lapse into religious theological superstition in the world outside of science, Engels profoundly pointed out: "The surest path from natural science to mysticism... is the shallowest empiricism [15] which scorns all theory and distrusts all processes of thought... Even some of the most level-headed empiricists have fallen into the most ridiculous superstitions, into modern spiritualism."