Science and religion are not necessarily in conflict
True.
Science is concerned with
secondary causes (i.e. physical causes). Religion is concerned with the
primary cause (i.e. God). Science is concerned with
efficient causality. Religion is concerned with
final causality.
Not true in a variety of ways. First, it doesn't exhaust even a simple list of classes of causality:
"-
Material cause. Material cause stems from the presence of some physical substance that is needed for a particular outcome. Aristotle suggested that bronze is an essential factor in the making of a bronze statue, but the concept is more general. Obesity in the United States, for example, is materially caused by the overproduction of corn (maize), just as Russian alcoholism is materially caused by the abundance of vodka.
–
Formal cause. The material necessary for some particular outcome must be available in the appropriate form. The blueprints of a house are necessary for its construction, the DNA sequence of a particular gene is required for synthesis of the corresponding protein, and a pianist needs the score to play a concerto.
–
Efficient cause. For something to happen, according to Aristotle, there must be an “agent that produces the effect and starts the material on its way.” Thus, a golf ball moves through the air in a certain trajectory because it was struck at a particular instant of time by the head of a club. Similarly, a radio wave is emitted into the ether in response to the current that is forced to flow through an antenna. Following Galileo, this is the standard sense in which physical scientists use the term causality
-
Final cause. Events may come about because they are desired by some intentional organism. Thus a house is built – involving the assembly of materials, reading of plans, sawing of wood, and pounding of nails – because someone wishes to have shelter from the elements. Such purposive answers to the question “why?” are problematic in the biological sciences, and they emerge as central issues at upper levels of the cognitive hierarchy."
Scott, A. (2006). Physicalism, Chaos, and Reductionism. In J. Tuszynski (Ed.)
The Emerging Physics of Consciousness. Springer.
Second, as can be seen by the same example, the sciences most definitely involve inquiry & investigation of final causes.
Third, not all religions even include gods, let alone god as a primary cause.
Fourth, for those that do, this is a valid area of inquiry for theology, philosophy, even metaphysics, but it is not a given by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore one might say that some religious individuals argue that god is the primary cause, not that god is the primary cause. Scientists do look into questions like the nature of the universe (including its origins), but even when this becomes more metaphysics than physics this is but one example of a final cause.
Fifth, not only does this presume that god exists but also that god intended the universe to be as it is (as designer), but it is not necessarily true that the universe has a final cause.
There are other objections but that should suffice for now.
