In the book, Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible by Coyne, he explains how religion and science do not go hand in hand at all. He explains that there are many differences between the two fields but holds science as the upper hand between the two. In chapter two of the book, he explains how religion mostly believes all of their doctrines and faith-driven information to be true and all other types of information false. He claims that science is much more focused on the “truth about the universe.” As a scientist himself, he has experienced first hand as to how science is nowhere compatible with religion and that science and religion have different goals, which can never intertwine.
Jennifer Sexton and Laura Finley, from an Ebsco host article made an excellent point and stated, “Religious believers argue that the presumption of God's existence is based on reason, and that the proof of God's existence is in the unanswered questions about the universe, which remain unaddressed by science” (Sexton). As Christians our world views should strongly relat... ... middle of paper ... ... to my understanding that the reason why most scientists have turned atheistic and secular is because they are not strong believers in God to begin with. The powerful observations made in the science world are indeed believable but as Christians we underlie God’s power that exhibits the results we see. Secular scientists don’t believe that God has that much power and that is why this great controversy continues today and will continue throughout our life. However as a High school biology teacher I will be forced to keep my faith and beliefs to myself and teach what I am required to.
First off, it is important to realize that religion and science have to be related in some way, even if it is not the way I mentioned before. If religion and science were completely incompatible, as many people argue, then all combinations between them would be logically excluded. That would mean that no one would be able to take a religious approach to a scientific experiment or vice versa. Not only does that occur, but it occurs rather commonly. Scientists often describe their experiments and writings in religious terms, just as religious believers support combinations of belief and doubt that are “far more reminiscent of what we would generally call a scientific approach to hypotheses and uncertainty.” That just proves that even though they are not the same, religion and science have to be related somehow.
If religion and science were independent from each other it would be very difficult to explain a lot of things. For example, Langdon Gilkey in the Creationism on Trial he says, “Science asks objective how questions. Religion asks personal why questions.”. Therefore, science can explain how things can happen while religion can explain why something happens. They don’t have to be independent from each other.
The bunch of proofs that science has supplied, has put humanity in doubt and has unbalanced the belief of the origins of life. Religion and science have always been seen as two different fields. Some people are inclined towards religion while others opt for science. This essay will explain the differences between scientific and religious creationism. Both of the creationisms are theories.
There are different viewpoints on the question “what is the universe made of?” I think that both science and religion offer their own explanation to this topic and they sometimes overlap, which creates contradictions. Therefore, I do not agree with Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial, which claims that there is a fine line separating science from religion. That being said, I think the conflict between science and religion is only in the study of evolution. It is possible for a scientist to be religious if he is not studying evolution, because science is very broad and it has various studies. In this essay, I will talk about the conflict between religion and science by comparing the arguments from Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins.
He would have asked penetrating questions and obviously the religious answers he got did not satisfy his inquiring mind. However, if the Bible was inspired by the same person who created the universe, it should be able to answer this query to some satisfaction. But what if what we always thought we knew about the Bible was nothing like it really is? And though Christianity and the Bible have always been portrayed synonymously, what would happen if we discovered they are not the same??? Although depicted mostly as a 'religious' book, the Bible is really more a book of 'science'.
Why do so many otherwise good believers in God and otherwise good believers in science get caught up in the science versus religion debate? Science is science, and religion is religion. Creationism is neither. Using bad science to back up bad literal Biblical translations is not scientific and not religious. How religious or scientific are you really when you have to use crap science (lies) to back up your religion?
Up until the Enlightenment, mankind lived under the notion that religion, moreover intelligent design, was most likely the only explanation for the existence of life. However, people’s faith in the church’s ideals and teachings began to wither with the emergence of scientific ideas that were daringly presented to the world by great minds including Galileo and Darwin. The actuality that there was more to how and why we exist, besides just having an all-powerful creator, began to interest the curious minds in society. Thus, science began to emerge as an alternative and/or supplement to religion for some. Science provided a more analytical view of the world we see while religion was based more upon human tradition/faith and the more metaphysical world we don’t necessarily see.
Many philosophers, however, have different conclusions. In the article, "Science Finds God" (Newsweek 1998) it was recognized that although theologians and scientists differ sharply in their views and do not see any type of middle ground between the two fields, others feel that religion and science do not contradict each other, but compliment each other. Science discovers more of God's creations and the intricacy of which the world was created and God provides the explanation of the complexity and wonder of the natural world. He fills in where science leaves off. With Darwin's idea of evolution came the greatest controversy between science and religion.