This question is often raised by those involved with the two kinds of scholars: the scholar of science and the scholar of religion. It is just natural to experience a diversity of replies to this question based on the diversity of people and their backgrounds. When we talk about religion we must expect that the immense contradictions which are present in peoples' minds regarding its definition makes it difficult for us to imagine that the answer to this question is uniform to everybody. Add to that, peoples' definition of that which is scientific and of that which is not is also a matter of debate. Also, the role of science and the type of knowledge it provides humanity with is a point of debate and dispute amongst scientists and philosophers. The next question which is raised after asking about religion's stance towards science and science's stance towards religion is to which religion are we referring and to which science are we referring as well? As it is undoubted that the disagreement over the definition of religion is much larger and wider than that over the definition of science, we shall temporarily bypass the matter of disagreement over the amount of knowledge which is science presents, to raise the question once again; What is the nature of this relation between religion and science, knowing that they are two of the sources of human knowledge? Is it a relation of cooperation or of conflict?

Last June around thirty scientists attended a conference at Berkeley University in the US, with an audience from the media, press and other institutions which exceeded three hundred people. Amongst the participating scientists were specialists who were experts in various fields, such as physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, IT and other fields, and who had won Nobel prizes in a number of scientific fields. They gathered to attempt to give an answer about the reality of this relationship between religion and science, while numerous international news agencies gave coverage about this big event, such as Newsweek and The New York Times and tens of other media and press agencies. The most outstanding presentation which was written about this conference is that prepared by Margaret Wertheim for the science magazine published by New York Academy for Science, in the April 1999 edition. We shall review the most important points mentioned therein throughout this article.

Which religion is being referred to?
The author talked about a key point which she repeated three times in her article, based on that which was raised at the previously mentioned conference, which is: which religion are we referring to when we make a comparison between religion and science? This is a matter which deserves attention, for this key point is often ignored in discussions about religion and science in western writings, knowing that most of those interested in this topic are scholars of science and not experts of theology, yet they are still based on a Christian or Jewish background, therefore they generally discuss the matter of religion considering that it is only represented in the Jewish-Christian heritage, or considering that this heritage is a specimen which generally represents religion. Having said that, Margaret Wertheim strongly blames this on its propagators, and requests that when one looks into the matter one ought to take all religions and creeds into consideration, even if those creeds are only upheld by a minority.

She emphasizes this point at the end of her article, pointing to the ancient struggle between religion and science which was caused by Christian intolerance. She said, "The shadow of Christian tradition still engulfs the world. It is part of the 'religion and science' movement not to commit the mistakes of the past. The question which cannot be ignored is: when conducting reconciliation between religion and science, which 'god' and which explanation of the universe should be standardized in this process?"

This is open invitation for us, fellow Muslims, to offer a helping hand to a myriad of confused minds, against which global media plots day and night, discreetly and openly, through propagating the idea that harmony between religion and science is totally impossible. Reality is growing extremely close to that which the propagators claim, once we look at the Jewish-Christian altered version of religion, in which it claims that God came down to Earth and battled with prophet Jacob, may peace be upon him, and which upholds the dogma of trinity and others which conflict with the built-in conscience which alerts the human being when he thinks about the nature of God. I recall that once the prominent scholar of physics Steven Hu King was asked just after a lecture he conducted about the forthcoming theory which is expected to explain all of the known scientific theories. He was asked, "Is there any role for God in this universe?"
He answered, "If my answer were 'No' then I would be categorized with the atheists who deny the existence of God, and if it were 'Yes' then the questioner would imagine that my concept of God's nature is like his."
Therefore, the crisis lies in the Jewish-Christian concept of religion and of the nature of God, not in the nature of religion itself. We could just imagine the embarrassment which befalls unto scientists or even unto pedestrians when they are limited to either choosing to deny the existence of God, The most High, or choosing to believe in Him according to the altered Jewish-Christian concept, the best of which is, with no doubt, absurd.

The dilemma of science according to the Jewish-Christian perspective:

Considering that the mass majority of scientists are those who have a background based on the Jewish-Christian concept, the questions which were raised at the conference regarding the relation between religion and science are:

1. Could the universe known to modern science have been created by God (or a god) according to the Jewish-Christian concept?
2. Does that god have the ability to affect the universe through his laws? And how is that?
3. Is Christianity still acceptable according to modern science, especially the claim that God incarnated into Jesus of Nazareth and the promise of resurrection?

The prominent English scientist of physics John Polkinghorne who is specialized in particle physics and is a priest of the Anglican church stood up to defend the Jewish-Christian concept using what is called the anthropic principle which was suggested by two other scientists of physics: Frank Tipler and John Barrow. The principle is summarized into the following: the universe has especially been designed and tailored so that life may form. Regarding this principle, its patriots say that one must imagine all the imaginable theories and constants of physics which could have possibly been those bringing order to the structure of the universe, for example if one imagines the mass of the proton (Planck's Constant), then from amongst the myriad of possible choices only the theories and consonants which actually control the universe are practically the only ones which could let intelligent life form. The law of gravity states that the gravitational force between bodies is inversely proportional to the square power of the distance (Force  1÷Distance2), whereas if we imagined another law which makes this force less than what it is now then that would have caused the distance between planets to increase throughout the solar system, and would have released them from their courses, in fact such a structure would not be possible in the first place. Likewise, if the gravitational force increased a little bit more than what it is now then the solar system would have caved into itself, in fact such would not have existed in the first place, therefore in both cases of defying the present law of gravity the chances for life to form on Earth become nil.
In his reply of the second question regarding the ability of God to affect the matters of the universe, Polkinghorne says, "That is possible through the possibilities which are offered by quantum physics and from the disability to predict which is derived from the theory of chaos which was recently discovered."
As for explaining the Christian creed which is represented by the trinity and the birth of prophet Jesus, may peace be upon him, without a father and the story of creation, Polkinghorne says, "All of these matters should be treated metaphorically, else it would be understood in a literal manner."

Despite the large compromises which Priest Polkinghorne offered in regard to his creed, a lot of modern scientists do not agree with what he said, protesting that there is a difference between imagining the existence of things and the actual existence of them. Therefore, saying that this universe could possibly be ruled by another set of theories and concepts different than those present does not prove that the existence of another practical form of this universe which is different than the present form is possible. You could imagine the existence of a mermaid, for example, but that does not make its existence something possible.

Another perspective:

While Polkinghorne was offering his explanation which defends religion and which is less popular amongst scientists, Keith Ward, professor of theology at Oxford University follows another route in defending the existence of a Creator of this universe. Ward says, "The laws of physics which have been discovered, in reality, do not justify the existence of the astronomical phenomena. It only serves as a medium of describing the functions of such phenomena. For example, the law of physics related to gravity cannot be that which causes the phenomenon of gravitation. In other words, we may ask ourselves this question: Who causes the heavenly bodies to function according to the law of gravity? Truly it is not the law itself, because the law describes the relations and does not cause them."
The author Margaret Wertheim thinks that this explanation is sounder and more acceptable amongst scientists than the previous one supported by Polkinghorne.

In reality, this explanation is of the most strongest evidence that God, The most High, totally maintains the universe, and that He is not distracted from doing so for even a fraction of a moment or lesser than that, knowing that this whole universe is in need of His presence and His maintenance of it, otherwise it would perished and came to an end. The theories do not protect it from perishing nor does it force it to behave in the manner which we, but the universe, just as God The most High said, is standing because of his command:

{And among His Signs is that the heaven and the earth stand by His Command} 30:25

If He were to leave it unattended it would dismantled and came to an instant end:

{Verily! Allah grasps the heavens and the earth lest they should move away from their places, and if they were to move away from their places, there is not one that could grasp them after Him. Truly, He is Ever Most Forbearing, Oft-Forgiving} 35:41

Therefore, the range of God's affect on the universe is not limited to the variants of quantity nor to the predictions of the chaos theory, which Polkinghorne claims, instead it is present in all times, all places and from behind the laws. He provides them with their reason of existence just as He commands the beings to behave according to them. When he wishes to terminate them he can do so, just like He did when he commanded the fire to be cool and gentle to prophet Abraham (Ibrahim).

Christianity and the new alteration:

We may notice from the preceding that the Christian scientist of physics (Polkinghorne) denounced the belief in many of the dogmas mentioned in the Holy Book, or he interpreted them as being metaphors, which does not agree with the semantics of the words. Of his interpretation is the explanation of miracles, such as the birth of prophet Jesus, may peace be upon him, without a father, the explanation of which was considered to be act of courtesy towards the modern western mind which looks at the belief in such matters as a sign of backwardness and ignorance. On the other hand, what halts the mind from accepting miracles once we know that the Creator exists and He has the ability to terminate the laws and to produce others if He wishes to? Other than that, his interpretation must have been to please the audience, who has been engulfed by the wicked theory of materialism. It is the same method used by the people of the book from before to alter the Holy Books according to their desires. As it was said before, when the Roman emperor embraced Christianity and altered the religion to a great extent, that science has not been Christianized but Christianity has been romanized. Now we may say that science has not been Christianized but Christianity has been secularized!

Knowing that the author Margaret Wertheim ended her article by calling for taking into account other perspectives towards religion when looking into the matter of reconciliation between religion and science, I end my article by encouraging Muslim scientists and specialists to react positively towards this call. Firstly, they ought to become thoroughly specialized in their fields of science, after that, they ought to put forward a new view towards the role of science and its importance, and towards the role of religion and its importance, according to the Islamic perspective. Islam is the only candidate to mend the growing rift between these two sources of knowledge, because it is the only sent-down religion which has been free of any alteration or corruption. It is no surprise then that the contradiction between religion and science would disappear once it is known that the two come from the same source.

This article has been translated with slight modifications to the original text. Quotations are not accurate. Translations of Qur'anic verses were quoted from the King Fahd Complex translation by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan.

Original text: http://www.nooran.org/O/4/4O7.htm