In the first day, light and darkness (day and night) were mad... ... middle of paper ... ...do not totally agree with it because the possibilities of an accidental origin are tiny. Although I am considered Catholic, I do not believe in its theory of the creation because science provides explications, contrary to religion, which is based on believing what the bible and the church says. The scientific theories of creationism have a rational explanation step by step not including philosophical part, but the chemical coordination of the formation of the universe and life since its most minimum expression. Religion explains the origin of life in its own way by forcing people to believe in its principles without any discussion, therefore, humans’ logic rejects its impositions and to my point of view, what may be called their fantasies. On the other hand, both theories could be either real or false by the very fact that they are theories and are not ascertained.
Krauss also claims that we can prove from the laws of physics that all matter was created and we can’t do that through religious studies. Lastly Krauss makes the point that we as a society need to bury God in order to produce a better moral and ethical world. During the first debate Krauss spends a lot of time attacking Craig’s points and explaining why he was wrong. Craig, who is on the religious studies side, says that God is not buried and does not need to be buried. Craig even points out that God has made his way into the pages of astrophysics science book.
Hitchens explains how all religion has no true evidence of its actual existence but rather their followers must follow blindly through “faith”, which is induced from stories written by other humans. With science and reason in the modern age, Hitchens feels that the need for a strong belief in religion is no longer needed for individuals to live a quality and moral life. Hitchens starts his book off by telling the story about when he himself started to question what he has learned from his bible teacher. With out any prior knowledge to human existence Hitchens question the very religion he was being taught at school. “I had not even a conception of the argument from design, or a Darwinian evolution as its rival, or of the relationship between photosynthesis and chlorophyll.”(Hitchens 3).
In conclusion, McCloskey attempted to defeat the cosmological and teleological argument and tried to persuade the readers to embrace the view of atheism. That there is no God and that this life is the only one a person can have. He tried influencing people by asking why a perfect God make an imperfect world. Or why did God not make humans to choose the right decision automatically, so that they can avoid suffering? However, in the end, although his arguments are sound and he made very reasonable points.
In an atheist world science would be the element on which everything is based on. Theology would be absent, so instead of using stories and myths to research the origin of the universe, human beings would use nature surrounding them and search for touchable clues. As such there would be no place for doubt and only one truth would exist. For we know that in our current religious world many stories exist for the sequence of events that led to the creation of the universe and Human beings as well. In many religious countries, church or mosque leaders are considered as scientists by the believers.
Because of the governments failure numerous religious sects demanded the freedom to educate their children in their own way. The desire for greater religious freedom was contributed to the separation of church and state. This argument of the separation of church and state has been going on for quite some time. Early efforts to reform the church started in the 1300's at Oxford University. John Wycliff stirred up controversy in teaching the freedom of religious conscience of the individual believer, who stood in faith directly before God in 1370.
Dawkins (4), like many other proponents of science, simply believes that religion is obsolete. Learning and knowledge, he argues, will clear the cobwebs in our minds that gave rise to religion in the first place. Others have proposed science as a new agnostic religion (5) and moral system (6), praising its commitment to evidence and philosophy of deduction. Those in agreement have raised their own Big Questions (7) from within the ranks of the natural and social sciences, as well as the humanities. Discussions in the World Question Centre (8), for example, range from democracy and complexity to sustainability and fear.
No one really and truly knows the answer so both science and religion collide as to what might have cause this beautiful universe we live in today. As science develops we will find more answers and more question with arise form these new discoveries, but that is the nature or the human being to ask questions and to find answers. just know that sometimes science and religion contradict each other so it might be had to find answer but at the end of the day it’s all about what you believe is true not what any one else tells u is true it’s your choice.
In school, I was taught that mankind was evolving and getting better, but it didnt appear that way to me. It SEEMED as though modern science had proven that God didnt exist. As I did more research on my own, I found out that this just isnt the case. I learned that the Universe and ALL matter have a DEFINITE beginning. Most atheists and re-incarnationists believe that the Universe has ALWAYS existed, but this contradicts the fact.
Though beliefs are still held regarding religion and science to be separate fields of inquiry, the youth of today’s 21st century believe that there are connections between religion and science regarding the creation of earth, with the gap between both academically challenging concepts is becoming smaller through time. Scientist Albert Einstein once said, A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”