The relationship between science and religion is a difficult one and the two sides have tested each other and debated each other in many forums. Some believe there are major differences in science and religion and that the two can never coexist while others believe that science is in fact evidence that religious views are correct. To better understand and answer the question of whether the two sides really do conflict we will look at: my view on the subject, the definitions of both science and religion, basic arguments of both sides, scientific evolution, differing religions and religious views, the compatible versus incompatible argument, how religion has influenced science and views from the modern day scientist.
My views on scientific and religious conflict are that science is the best way to validate religion. I am a very religious person and am not swayed from my faith due to some new archaeological find on the Discovery channel. I know that there are many things that I believe but cannot prove. I do believe that modern day science is just like modern day religion. I believe that science is simply evidence of religion. I do not dispute that the scientific community has valid points on many things. I do believe that religion and science coexist and seek to validate each other. It is all a theory. I believe that no one knows why religion and science do not always see eye to eye when it comes to theory and the timeline of Earth’s life. I know that there is a higher power and that he has a plan. I do not always see that plan but believe my faith to be true. I do not believe in the theory of evolution and believe that evolution is completely incompatible with religion.
Merriam-Webster defines religion as: “a cause, principle, ...
... middle of paper ...
...ffiliation: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/science/conflict.htm
Singham, M. (2010, May 9). The New War Between Science and Religion. Retrieved January 5, 2012, from The Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-War-Between-Science/65400
Snipes, E. (n.d.). Are Evolution and Creation Compatible? Retrieved January 7, 2012, from Exchanged Life: http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/compat.shtml
University, R. (2011, September 21). Science and Religion Do Mix? Only 15 Percent of Scientists at Major Research Universities See Religion and Science Always in Conflict. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from Science Daily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110921115923.htm
Worrall, J. (n.d.). Does Science Discredit Religion? Retrieved January 7, 2012, from London School of Economics: http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/1100/1/J_Worrall_Science.pdf
“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.”
White, Andrew Dickinson, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology, New York: D. Appleton and company, 1996.
Science versus religion has always been a very controversial topic in this world and even more so in the United States. It seems that this topic in some way, shape, form, or fashion always finds its way into one's life through government, jobs, and most certainly in politics. When looking at the lives of two men who embody the two controversial ideals of science and religion one can look at the lives and views of His Holiness the Dalai Lama (views on compassion surrounding religion) and Friedrich Nietzsche (views on "Morality as Anti-Nature" surrounding science). Dalai Lama through his reading seems to establish the concept that compassion is a "guide for ethical behavior", while Nietzsche strives to develop the concept that "moral pronouncements by major religions are designed to stifle people's natural behaviors." .
Lisle, Jason. The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2009. Print.
The history of opposition between science and religion has been steady for about half of a century. As early as the 1500's, science and religion have been antagonistic forces working against each other. Science was originally founded by Christians to prove that humans lived in a orderly universe (Helweg, 1997). This would help to prove that the universe was created by a orderly God who could be known. Once this was done, science was considered by the church to be useless. When people began to further investigate the realm of science, the church considered them to be heretics; working for the devil. According to Easterbrook (1...
Cray, Dan. "God vs Science." Time Magazine 05 Nov. 2006: 1-10. Web. 30 Aug. 2011. .
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...
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.
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.
In the history of science vs. religion there have been no issues more intensely debated than evolution vs. creationism. The issue is passionately debated since the majority of evidence is in favor of evolution, but the creation point of view can never be proved wrong because of religious belief. Human creation breaks down into three simple beliefs; creation theory, naturalistic evolution theory, and theistic evolution theory. The complexities of all three sides create a dilemma for what theory to support among all people, religious and non-religious.
In modern society today, a supposed war is raging between science and religion. Some argue that religion and science cannot coexist; a person cannot believe in both as they contradict one another. Others claim that science and religion have no conflicts and can both be believed simultaneously. This type of discourse has taken root in Christianity, with two schools of thought having risen in response to this war. Each side has its unique view of the interpretation of Genesis, the authority of the Bible, the age of the Earth, and how much science can be trusted or believed in. Based on textual and historical evidence, the nonliteral interpretation of Genesis is the stronger argument.
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...
The relationship between religion and science has always been a complicated, precarious and sensitive issue. Religion and science have the same goal - to seek truth and understanding to our own existence and surroundings. Modern scientific thought is based on systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Religious thought differs as it’s based upon reflection and spirituality and focuses on beliefs and values. This is contrary to science which focuses on factual knowledge and relies on empirical evidence.
Stenmark, Mickael. How to Relate Science and Religion. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.