Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary.

Martin Luther King Jr. made this science-and-religion distinction in the early phase of his public ministry, when he was frequently addressing educated church audiences about the intellectual credibility of Christian faith. In sermons and lectures from the mid-to-late 1950s, King argued against both scientism (treating science as the only source of truth) and anti-intellectual religion. The formulation reflects his seminary training and his effort to position the Black church as morally authoritative in a modern, technologically powerful America—especially as Cold War-era advances heightened fears that technical “power” without moral restraint could become destructive.

In this passage King argues for a division of labor—and a partnership—between two ways of knowing. Science, in his framing, excels at investigating the measurable world and producing technical power, while religion (or moral philosophy) addresses meaning, purpose, and the values that should govern how power is used. The contrast between “knowledge” and “wisdom” underscores his concern that technological advance without ethical restraint can become destructive. By insisting they are “complementary,” King rejects a zero-sum conflict narrative and instead calls for moral interpretation to guide scientific capability toward humane ends.