Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Science vs religion debate essay
Similarities between science and Christianity
Science vs Religion- some of the debates
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Science vs religion debate essay
Religion versus science, the debates and conflicts have been on for centuries. For both religious and scientific ideals, the faith people have drives them. In this paper, I will examine the story of “The Eye of Apollo” by G.K. Chesterton, and the episode “House vs. God” of House, M.D., in order to question this conflict. The main character—Father Brown—in “The Eye of Apollo” combines his reasoning with his religious ideals and beliefs, or we can say his faith in God leads him to the truth of the crime. However, if we try to have a deeper look at the both the rational and religious sides of Father Brown, his perspectives on the immortality and justice are similar to Dr House, who interprets his rationality based on science. Thus both the beliefs and faith in religion and science in some way reflect the faith and way of thinking of people, and the two different ideals don’t necessarily conflict with each other.
In The Eye of Apollo, Father Brown solves the mystery of Pauline Stacey’s death. Father Brown is a Catholic priest and serves and a detective. The story begins with a debut of a new religion of Apollo and the New Priest of Apollo, Kalon. The new religion claims “it can cure all the physical diseases”. Pauline Stacey was blind who was heiress of great wealth and power and believed in the New Religion. When Father Brown and Flambeau were in the building, the tragedy happened—Pauline Stacey fell down onto the elevator and died. After a short investigation of the sisters’ office and observation, Father Brown starts questioning Kalon with doubts. But Kalon gives a long speech in defense of his religion and his innocence of the murder. He believes that Miss Stacey died of her faith in the new religion, which is not strong eno...
... middle of paper ...
...tionalism and makes Boyd blind over the truth. So either the Chesterton story or the episode emphasizes on the “real” faith people have, no matter what is the basis for their particular faiths. Similarly, when the way of thinking is considered in both stories, both Father Brown and Dr House can be concluded as reasoners who hold their doubts or distrusts and keep being skeptical of everything that is contradictory to their own beliefs.
Works Cited
Burns, Timothy. “The Rationalism of Father Brown”. Perspectives on Political Science 34.1 (2005): 37-46. Print.
Iannaccone Laurence R., Rodney Stark and Roger Finke. “Religion, Science and Rationality”. The American Economic Review 86.2 (1995): 433-37. Print.
Sappinton, A.A. “The Religion/Science Conflict”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30.1 (1991): 114-20. Print.
Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?" (Matthew 14:31) The manner in which Goodman Brown based his faith is a very good example of how not to base one’s faith. The strength of Goodman Browns faith was based on his wife’s faith, his trust in his neighbors, and his personal experiences. The strength of one’s faith is one of the most important aspects of any person, and it is especially important in the story Young Goodman Brown.
Smith and Bradford use religion as a literary tool to persuade the reader towards their own interests. There are similarities and differences in the motivation to use religion by these two authors, yet the use is still prevalent in their writings. The reasons for these similarities and differences are found in the greater interest of each individual author.
C. Stephen Evans is stating there is a problem with the philosophy of religion having a neutral stance. Evans rejects both fideism as well as neutralism, and believes that by trying to have a, “neutral, disinterested posture,” a person could, “cut themselves off from the possibility of even understanding what religion is all about,” (Evans, 1985 p. 115). Evans notes that the view of faith and reason, by some religious believers think it is an impossibility to have “rational reflection” on religion. After his arguments that disprove many ideas in both fideism and neutralism, he proposes an alternative solution which he has named, “critical dialog”, that he hopes will, “preserve the strengths and eliminate the weaknesses of the initial theories,” (p. 115). “Correct thinking about religion is rather a genuine faith, a personal commitment,” (p. 116).
Smart, Ninian. "Blackboard, Religion 100." 6 March 2014. Seven Dimensions of Religion. Electronic Document. 6 March 2014.
Plantinga, Alvin, "Religion and Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = .
Jones, W. T. Masters of Political Thought. Ed. Edward, McChesner, and Sait. Vol. 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947.
Oxtoby, Willard G., and Alan F. Segal. A Concise Introduction to World Religions. Oxford, Canada: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Oxtopy, W., & Segal, A. (2007). A concise introduction to world religions. (1st ed., p. 258). New York: Oxford University press.
Science and Religion dialogue has been a bitter-sweet topic for many people over the years. The controversy is not only common between one sole community, but affects a variety. The beliefs held about these topics has the potential to personally effect an individual, whether it be positively or negatively. In the United States, we draw only a fine line between religion and science, often failing to realize that the two benefit each other in copious ways but are not meant to interpreted in the same way. Due to this perspective, people seem to be influenced to pick one or the other, when in reality we should treat both science and religion with the same respect and recognize that they are completely separate from one another, along with having individual purposes. John F. Haught, a distinguished research professor at Georgetown University, published a book titled, “Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation”. In it he evaluates each side, persuading the reader that the truth is that both realms may benefit from each other despite the differences emphasized. John F. Haught introduces his audience with four approaches on Science and Religion. Haught’s third approach, contact, is of major significance to aid in the response of: “Does Science Rule out a Personal God?”
Throughout history, conflicts between faith and reason took the forms of religion and free thinking. In the times of the Old Regime, people like Copernicus and Galileo were often punished for having views that contradicted the beliefs of the church. The strict control of the church was severely weakened around the beginning of the nineteenth century when the Old Regime ended. As the church's control decreased, science and intellectual thinking seemed to advance. While the people in the world became more educated, the church worked harder to maintain its influential position in society and keep the Christian faith strong. In the mid-nineteenth century, the church's task to keep people's faith strong became much harder, due to theories published by free thinkers like Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, David Friedrich Strauss, and others. These men published controversial theories that hammered away at the foundation on which the Christian church was built. As the nineteenth century progressed, more doubts began to arise about the basic faiths of the Christian church.
“The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains—for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.”
Barbour, Ian G. Religion in an Age of Science. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990. Print. (BL 240.2 .B368 1990)
At first glance, many facets of science and religion seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Because of this, I have generally kept them confined to separate spheres in my life. I have always thought that science is based on reason and cold, hard facts and is, therefore, objective. New ideas have to be proven many times by different people to be accepted by the wider scientific community, data and observations are taken with extreme precision, and through journal publications and papers, scientists are held accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their work. All of these factors contributed to my view of science as objective and completely truthful. Religion, on the other hand, always seems fairly subjective. Each person has their own personal relationship with God, and even though people often worship as a larger community with common core beliefs, it is fine for one person’s understanding of the Bible and God to be different from another’s. Another reason that Christianity seems so subjective is that it is centered around God, but we cannot rationally prove that He actually exists (nor is obtaining this proof of great interest to most Christians). There are also more concrete clashes, such as Genesis versus the big bang theory, evolution versus creationism, and the finality of death versus the Resurrection that led me to separate science and religion in my life. Upon closer examination, though, many of these apparent differences between science and Christianity disappeared or could at least be reconciled. After studying them more in depth, science and Christianity both seem less rigid and inflexible. It is now clear that intertwined with the data, logic, and laws of scien...
When first looking at the relationship between philosophy and religion, I found it easier to explain the differences rather than the similarities. I began this paper the same way I do others. This generally involves a profound amount of research on the topic at hand. However, in contrast to the other papers I have done, the definitions of philosophy and religion only raised more questions for me. It was fascinating how the explanations differed dramatically from author to author.
Stenmark, Mickael. How to Relate Science and Religion. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.