Some debates are not won by arguments

Both science and religion are in search of truth — one discovers it, the other reveals it. We are standing in-between two unpredictable. Many eminent practitioners of science say that there is no logical contradiction between faith and belief, if these are clothed appropriately. The belief gaining ground is that religion must not ignore scientific reasons, and at the same time, science too should listen to religion. Conflict between science and religion can be resolved provided both sides understand the merits inherent in each. The real culprits are impure expectations from both the sides. It is important to recognise that “there are no 10 commandments in thermodynamics or molecular biology, no path to righteousness and charity and love in Euclidean geometry.” Impure expectations clash, because both seem threatened by diversity each side offers. It is quite acceptable if a scientist doesn’t accept faith straight away, and vice-versa. If someone says that “earthquake is a divine chastisement sent by gods for our sins”, one may not necessarily support the argument of equating calamity with ethical failure. One may like to put a counter argument that says “our sins and errors, however, enormous have not enough force to drag down the structure of creation to ruin”. We need to demarcate the expectations. Mutual incomprehension is not good for either. Faith and fact have always been a matter of debate. Some debates are not won by arguments.