Religion, Philosophy, and Scientific Thinking
During the seventeenth century, many philosophers formulated new ideas that would consequently change the beliefs of the common man. The "thinkers" of the Renaissance Period have the way 17th Century man to the current world. In short, the world viewed religion, philosophy, and science in a very different way by the end of the seventeenth century because of these great philosophers.
In the early 1600's Blaise Pascal, originally from Clermont, played a dominant two areas of advanced thinking. His mathematical reputation rests more on what he might have done than on what he actually affected, a considerable part of his life he devoted wholly to religious exercises. As a background on the author of Pensées, no one displayed greater natural genius than Pascal. In Pensées, Pascal states how God is an almighty power to which man has no comparison. Man cannot grasp neither the concept of infinity nor the vastness of the area to which he lives in. Pascal continues by saying all things, "…meet and reunite…and find each other in God, and in God alone". Everything in the universe is cause and effect, making it difficult to know a complete part without knowing the basic composition. If humans are composed of a "material" we will know nothing at all, according to Pascal. Going further to say that without a finite ending, man would rapidly overpopulate. Without an infinite space to nourish ones self in, man would contribute to his own downfall. To know God in all his might and infinites, man must understand his surroundings. All things created came from Him, as to be proven by an example of this sheet of paper. The paper comes from a tree, to which came from the Earth, which cam...
... middle of paper ...
...man beings tend to believe in what most of people see as true. To most, one person's speculations (Asimov) are not enough to impact the majority of people who read this book. Asimov's writing, in turn, must not be true.
From early days of religion, philosophy, and to current day scientific research to see anything is to be real. Imagine man already living in the "light" for his life and never knowing of a dark cave. Man cannot wish for a brighter future if he is already burning himself in the light. If philosophers were not pushed from societies for their radical ideas, how much further could a society be? If scientists study only mathematical problems, less people would have trouble understanding it. Mixing scientific beliefs to religious faiths naturally has created tensions. There are places which both can be properly taught, each having equal amounts of truth.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were also known as the enlightenment or the age of reason because of its new ideas and innovations. Europe experienced a series of the drastic changes and revolutions. This altered the way people lived and their standards of living. The people responsible for this were known as the philosophers. They questioned the world and suggested answers to many problems.
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...
The Scientific revolution in the 16th and 17th centuries changed the way that people views the world. Scientific philosophers such as Galileo and Descartes threw out the old teachings of the church and challenged them with new ways of thinking. These men sought to prove that rational thought could prove the existence of God. They also challenged that it was an understanding of a series of rational thoughts, not faith, would bring understanding of how the world worked. Traditional ways of thinking were ultimately challenged by logical and sensible rationale.
...but it also significantly altered the scientific community. People such as Francis Bacon, John Locke, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and many more, helped to spread ideals that would become a crucial turning point in the thought process of people during the seventeenth century. Without the important scientific and intellectual advances that occurred during the Enlightenment period, countless other important events and inventions that were sparked by them would also be nonexistent. There is no way of telling how history’s course would be different had the Great Awakening and the Enlightenment not occurred, but the fact is that they did. And what is known is that religion, science, government and politics, beliefs, relations between humans, society, and human perspective were all significantly altered by the wide-ranging metamorphoses inspired by these movements.
Christian Science is an idealistic and most radical form of transcendental religiosity. The study of Christian Science teaches a feeling of understanding of God's goodness and the differences between good and evil, life and death. The purpose of this paper is to address how the study of Christian Science helps us better understand the impact of globalization in America, as well as the impact of American on globalization. This paper is important because globalization features a dominant worldview. All throughout the world people believe, study and teach different types of religious movements that impact others. People need to better understand how certain religions modify, conflict with, and impact the world. First, it will discuss the life and work of the founder, Mary Baker Eddy. Secondly, it will examine the primary rituals and religious services of the Christian Science movement. Then, it will outline the precursors and history of the religion. In the conclusion, a response will be offered to the question of how Christian Science helps us better understand the impact of globalization on America and of America on globalization.
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.
Pascal originally proposed his idea in the Pensées, a collection of fragments of his work, primarily written to defend the Christian religion. Although Pascal clearly supports the existence of a supreme being, he is relatively unimpressed by attempted justifications of a God at the time, and he concedes that “we are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is” (Pascal 233). Instead, he formulates different arguments, which can be framed as the following:
Second Paper “I shall briefly explain how I conceive of this matter. Look round the world: Contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit subdivisions, to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which ravishes into admiration all men, who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles, though it much exceeds, the production of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man; though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work, which he has executed.
Barbour writes, “Changing cultural presuppositions also affect perception of what is significant in the social world.” (pg.137) It becomes so simple to say that science and religion are completely different, and while they may share differences I think that it is unfair to say that science and religion are separate from one another. If careful consideration is taken you can take notice that may issues that arise in the Bible such as consuming red meat, banning pork, discarding fat within meat are all backup by scientific facts. Issues that arise within science such as Einstein’s seven invisible dimension that are left unexplained, however many religion believe in the seven levels of “the heavens”, “the invisible”, “the afterlife”, and “the everlasting”. Issues such as the ones mentioned above are ones that connect science and religion on such as deeper level than many care to reveal. I think that it is fair to say that both science and religion have become so reluctant in their own stubborn, self-centered ideologies. Both science and religion have become so consumed in their own ideologies, and understandings that neither allows attention from the others research of teachings. I whole heartedly believe that if science and religion were used to approve one another rather than disprove one another there could be more of a mutual balance and connection between the two. There are numerous similarities in the processes that are taken when achieving new understandings, and knowledge. Also if we allowed ourselves to be honest if science and religion worked together rather than against each other there could be so many new discoveries that could be made, and so many debates that could be put to rest. Like I mentioned before but I think it is important, it either side stopped trying to disprove one another and rather
As Europe began to move out of the Renaissance, it brought with it many of the beliefs of that era. The continent now carried a questioning spirit and was eager for more to study and learn. Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, many discoveries were made in subjects all across the realm of science, but it was the doubting and testing of old traditions and authorities that truly made this time into a revolution. The Scientific Revolution challenged the authority of the past by changing the view of nature from a mysterious entity to a study of mathematics, looking to scientific research instead of the Church, and teaching that there was much knowledge of science left to be discovered.
Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, radical and controversial ideas were created in what would become a time period of great advances. The Scientific Revolution began with a spark of inspiration that spread a wild fire of ideas through Europe and America. The new radical ideas affected everything that had been established and proven through religious views. "The scientific revolution was more radical and innovative than any of the political revolutions of the seventeenth century."1 All of the advances that were made during this revolutionary time can be attributed to the founders of the Scientific Revolution.
When looking at Pascal’s arguments that emerge in Pensees; the history, ideas, and people that influenced Pascal must be examined. Many of Pascal’s arguments involve the unity of both religion and science. This can be very controversial at a time where an absolute monarch challenges and tries to destroy other faith practices. Along with introducing scientific ideas others may misinterpret as trying to disprove God’s existence. Pascal was heavily influenced by the Christian church and was a firm believer in God. In fact, Pascal’s discoveries and experiments only solidify his faith even more. Pensees is Pascal’s thoughts on God and some other subjects that tie philosophy and the nature of man.
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...
I believe that religion should not be considered the basis of reality since it is highly faith-based. People have different beliefs and that provides multiple versions of how they interpret their reality. I also feel that the “truth” that religion tends to glorify is not the truth because of its lack of empirical claims. In accordance to science, on the other hand, it is heavily evidence based. With science, we understand that it is solely based on observation. The theories and phenomenon that we know of today are solely from observation. Without this characteristic, we wouldn’t have an understanding on the universe and reality. Another characteristic that is quite important in science is that science is open to falsification. Scientists understand that they want to find the truth with different phenomenon. They also understand that they cannot find the absolute truth. Scientists always change their findings as new findings are being collected. Thirdly, it rejects faith as a method of evidence. Faith is based on ones’ belief on a specific subject matter. Science is not based on belief but on finding the truth. Scientists occasionally doubt their findings or evidence in order to find more concrete evidence. On the side of religion, it is primarily faith based. Most of the characteristics that science accept, religion denies. First off,
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.