Four Model of Relationship between Religion and Science According to Ian G. Barbour

Ian G. Barbour is a scientist who specializes in science and religion. Barbour was born in Beijing in 1923. His father was a geologist from Scotland, while his mother was from America. At the age of 20, Barbor graduated from a bachelor's degree at Swartmore College, then a master's degree at Duke University, and a Ph.D at the University of Chicago in 1949.

Starting in 1955 Barbour taught at Carleton College, Minnesota. Barbour teaches physics, as well as helping to establish a religion department at the institute. His theological activities began to stand out since 1966, especially since his first book was published entitled Issue in Science and Religion which was translated by Spokesperson for God: Between Science and Religion. Bandung; Mizan, 2002.

Four Relationships between Religion and Science

Departing from the phenomenon that the relationship between science and religion is never harmonious, Barbour, a physicist and theology scientist, makes a theory of the relationship between science and religion. Barbour (2002: 55-56) classifies the relationship between science and religion into four things, namely conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration.

First, conflict. This view views science and religion as opposing poles. Barbour explained that this paradigm holds that a scientist will not simply believe in the truth of science. Religion is considered unable to explain and prove its beliefs empirically and rationally.

Thus scientists assume that truth can only be obtained through science, not by religion. On the other hand, the religious think that science does not have the authority to explain everything because of the limitations of reason as a scientific instrument owned by humans (Barbour, 2002: 75). In essence, religion and science cannot meet and be reconciled in explaining life.

Second, independence. This view assumes that religion and science have separate and independent areas, so there is no need for dialogue between the two. This view is the way used to separate the conflict between science and religion, the solution is separate, but there is no dialogue.

According to this paradigm, science asks “how” questions, while religion asks “why” questions. The basis for the authority of science is logical coherence and experimental conformity, while in religion it comes from Revelation. Science is predictive, while religion tends to use symbolic and analogical language that is transcendental.

Third, dialogue. This view understands that there is a link between science and religion, so that both of them can be seated together to support, discuss, strengthen and influence each other to discuss life's problems. This view offers a constructive communicative relationship between science and religion. Science and religion have similarities that can be discussed and can even support one another.

In the dialogue between science and religion proposes an alternative to cooperation with the limitation of questions and methodological parallels. In connecting religion and science this view was represented by Albert Einstein who said "Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame".

Fourth, Integration. This view states that religion and science can unite and combine to solve life's problems. This model takes dialogue and conversation further and argues that the truths of science and religion can be integrated into a more complete or full and holistic "whole".

According to Barbour, in the effort to integrate science and religion, there are three versions, namely: 1. natural theology, 2. theology of nature, and 3. systematic synthesis. In natural theology according to Barbour the existence of God is manifested from the form and design of nature. The form and natural design that are so beautiful, neat and amazing will make you more aware of God's existence.

Hasan Baharun (2002: 93) quotes Thomas Aquinas in his book Barbour that the nature of God can be known only from revelation, while God's true existence can only be known from reason. In natural theology, everything in nature, be it form, order / natural law, and the beauty and complexity of nature, supports the grand design behind it all.

Meanwhile, the theology of nature of religious doctrine is formulated for an established scientific understanding. In this version it is assumed that there are still religious doctrines that are contrary to science, so there is a need for reformulation based on existing theories. Such as the doctrine of the origin of man must pay attention to the current scientific formulations. Aligning the understanding of science with religion requires greater adjustment and modification than before (Barbour, 2002: 84).

Whereas systematic synthesis is a more systematic integration that can be done if science and religion provide new directions for a more coherent world that is combined in a more comprehensive metaphysical framework. Simply put, this version formulates a new framework in an effort to contribute more to science and religion. In this way, science and religion can contribute views that can provide alternatives.

Based on the four relations between science and religion, according to Barbour's perspective, it can be concluded that science and religion can still meet at one point. Where the relationship is dialogue and integration. This view is more acceptable, because religion and science can mutually reinforce the two. Because to understand and instill a strong belief in the existence of God, it also requires critical reasoning about the existence and the village of this nature.