Is it possible for a person to be both religious and accept science at the same time? The debate between science and religion has occurred for centuries. Ever since the Classical antiquity, these two different views of acquiring knowledge have been a hot topic with many different views and opinions. Science generally acquires knowledge by using reason, empiricism, and evidence, whereas religion relies on revelation, faith, and belief in the unseen. In The Eye of Allah, the Abbot’s faith is tested when he discovers pathogens under a microscope. He finds himself in a situation where science interrupts his life and causes him to pick whether he wants to keep his faith or turn to science and reason.
In early 1200s AD, religion dominated life. Religion was the main answer to why things happened because technology had not evolved yet, but mainly because scientific reasoning was not conventional. The conflict between church and science was created because scientific thoughts were sins and were not accepted in society. The church often ruthlessly persecuted many scientists or people who spoke out against the church, causing narrow-mindedness.
Rudyard Kipling in The Eye of Allah introduces science in a time when society is not ready for it. When the Abbot is faced with the challenge of keeping the microscope or destroying it, he says, “’it would seem’, he said, ‘the choice lies between two sins. To deny the world a Light which is under our hand, or to enlighten the world before her time” (170). It is true that the Abbot does not know what to do, but in the end he chooses to pick his religion over science. The reason is unknown, but it can be assumed that he wanted to censor the world from this new technology or simply because he wanted to save his position in religion. In the end, was he right to choose religion over science? Was the Abbot really helping society? And is it indeed possible to believe in both religion and science?