Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of science on religion
Effects of science on religion
Influence of religion on science
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of science on religion
The debate between religions and science has taken a long time and consumed scientific and religious efforts. Each side has its own evidences and they are all strong. But if you look at them with your attention, you will find that there is no clash between them! I mean science supports religion and, on the other side, religion supports science.
It is clear in my religion – Islam – that whatever is mentioned in Qur’an (The Holy Book) must be correct. Even if it is unbelievable these days, it will be a fact in the future. That because we – Muslims – believe that Qur’an was written by Allah (God), and he, undoubtedly, knows everything in the universe because he created it. At the current moment, you may be thinking about some facts that are mentioned in Qur’an, don’t hie. I will go through some facts that might make you think about them for the whole year. Let’s start from the moon. It is written in Qur’an 1400 years ago that the moon was bisected into two parts and they were joined together again. Believe it or not, recently, NASA discovered that miraculous fact and they called it The Lunar Rill. In the moon also, Qur’an tells us that the moon was converted many times until it became like the old died trunk, which means there is no water on it. As scientists says, no life without water. So, we can infer that there is no life on the moon, as astronomy stated last century. It deserves an hour of thinking about it, doesn’t it?
Moving from the moon to the sea, as Allah said in Qur’an: “He has let free the two bodies of the flowing water meeting together, Between them is a barrier which they don’t transgress.” I want you to recall those beautiful sea pictures from the sky with the amazing colored parts. Can you see the barriers between the different colored water parts? In 1876, Geologists discovered that those colors refer to different water temperatures and salt proportions, and as a result, different water characteristics. The miracle is that even though two or more of the different water parts meet, they never mix! It deserves a day of thinking about it, doesn’t it?
The fetus, the complicated start of the human beings, was mentioned in a scientific way in Qur’an. It mentioned that the creation of a human being is accomplished through many stages, starting with the sperm as Allah said: “Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay), then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm, in a place of rest, firmly fixed.
First, I will demonstrate Stephen Jay Gould’s argument against the overlapping between science and religion, which is as follows:
First I will prove premise 1, “Every fetus is a person,” true. The definition of person according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "a human being." Now surely no one would regard a fetus as anything other than human such as a primate or dog. But some still might say, "Well, it isn't aliv...
There are many who say that the preborn child is just a mass of tissue, a part of the woman's body. If this were the case, then no one would have any reason to o...
There are some theories that science cannot prove. Science explains all of the logical and natural things in life through observation and experimentation. Religion explains all of the spiritual and mystical things in life. Religion is the belief and worshipping of a supernatural force like God. Jane Goodall is an outlier in the science industry. She believes in God and is also a scientist. Most scientists are only agnostic or atheists. Scientists only have one viewpoint. They only think logically and try to prove the existence of things. Religious people believe in a higher power that created everything and control everything. Jane Goodall has the perfect philosophy. When science is the only “window” someone bases their life on, there are drawbacks because there are a lot of things science cannot explain, logically. When religion is the only “window” someone bases their life on, there are drawbacks because there are a lot of things religion cannot explain, spiritually. When a person bases their life on both science and religion, more mysteries are answered. When both science and religion is part of a person’s philosophy, there are no drawbacks because they either support each other’s claims, do not explain each other, or supports one but not the
As said by Yale professor of psychology and cognitive science, "Religion and science will always clash." Science and religion are both avenues to explain how life came into existence. However, science uses evidence collected by people to explain the phenomenon while religion is usually based off a belief in a greater power which is responsible for the creation of life. The characters Arthur Dimmesdale and Roger Chillingworth in Nathaniel Hawthorne 's novel, The Scarlet Letter, represent religion and science, respectively, compared to the real world debate between science and religion. Roger Chillingworth is a physician who is associated with science. (ch. 9; page 107) "...made [Roger Chillingworth] extensively acquainted with the medical science of the day... Skillful men, of the medical and chirurgical profession, were of rare occurrence in the colony...They seldom... partook of the religious zeal that brought other emigrants across the Atlantic." The people of the Puritan community traveled across the Atlantic for religious reasons, and because men affiliated with medical science did not tend to practice religion, they rarely inhabited this community. Chillingworth, falling under the category of "skillful men of the medical and chirurgical profession," would not be expected to reside in this community. The narrator through emphasizes this with his rhetorical questioning, "Why, with such a rank in the learned world, had he come hither? What could he, whose sphere was in great cities, be seeking in the wilderness?" These questions demonstrate that it was so strange for Chillingworth to appear in this community because of his association with science. Perhaps, the phrase "with such rank in the learned world" could yield the narra...
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.
* Fetus as Living Entity - They look at the fetus and see a tiny human, who quickly develops feet, hands, and other human appendages, as well as rudimentary forms of all the systems that you find in a fully developed human. Not to mention the fact that the fetus is capable of movement. Clearly, this small being must be "alive". Perhaps the most compelling testaments to this theory are the rare ca...
Religion and science are complementary elements to our society. The notion that religion and science should not be merged together, does not mean neglecting to understand the parallel relation between these two concepts and will result in a better understanding of our surroundings. This will put an end to our scientific research and advancement because we will be relying on answers provided by religious books to answer our questions. If we don’t argue whether these answers are right or wrong, we would never have studied space stars or the universe or even our environment and earthly animals. These studies have always provided us with breakthroughs, inventions and discoveries that made our lives better.
Christianity and science are seen to conflict with each other because people approach both views the same way; instead, they should be taken differently. There are certain things that can be explained with science and other things with Christianity. There are incidents that science cannot explain and people believe that those things are still true without evidence. Christianity is not opposed to science unless it contradicts the word of God written in the Bible. Scientific method is not the only way to find the absolute truth. The scientific and Christian view of the world will always have some conflict and misunderstanding because they attempt to explain in essence two different things.
Clearly, the scientific argument on the creation issue is backed by more concrete evidence than the writings of the Bible. Still, the presentation of scientific data does not necessarily imply truth; the Bible, although backed by the belief in its divine origin, can very well be the true account of creation. Human nature, however, tends to believe more in concrete and visible objects. Science makes its explanation of creation more believable by supplying those objects, especially more recently with pictures taken by spacecraft of distant planets and galaxies. In the end, since nobody actually witnessed the creation of the universe (obviously), the true story can never be found, and the battle between religion and science will remain for future generations.
Many people do not realize that at the moment of conception life begins, it is a medical fact, once conceived; the structure of life is beginning to take place (Medical Testimony). Whether it is a mammal, sea creature, or even insects, they all start life as humans do. Directly following conception, there is an unreplaceable genetic code made that is unique and made to thrive but is destroyed without ever getting the chance to reach full potential.
Understanding science and religion historically most individuals would assume that the two differ more than they relate. For decades, there has been the overwhelming debate about the differences between science and religion, and the issues that have set them apart from each other. However, personally, when it comes to the views, and goals of the two they share very similar ideologies and attributes.
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...
The relationship between science and religion has been debated for many years. With strong personal opinions and beliefs, it is not surprising that no progress has been made in this argument. In my opinion, I feel as though religion and science have to be related in some way. There is no possible way people can separate two things that attempt to prove the same facts. My belief is that a metaphorical bridge has to be formed to connect the two. Personally, I feel as though science can be a compliment to religion, and that the scientific discoveries can and should be used to prove that God exists, not disprove it. If science did this, then the relationship between science and religion could be a friendly one. If that happened, people could stop debating and fighting over the two, allowing priests and scientists to talk and work together peacefully.