Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Integration between science and religion
The effect of religion on science
Impact of science on religion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Integration between science and religion
Religion and the Existence of God The existence of God has been questioned since the beginning of time. Religions thrived on answering the unanswerable questions of the universe and people were able to find solace in the answers. As science has expanded and been able to answer these questions with natural, as opposed to supernatural answers, many people stopped looking to God and religion for the causes of things and started looking towards science. God was dead, according to many scientists and people of all professions. 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. Darwin denied the creationist ideas of Christians and caused, an uproar in the Christian community. Some drastically decided to deny all science. To deny science, however, would be to deny the natural world. Others searched for ways to confirm and hold on to their faith. One way that people found to confirm their belief in a God was philosophy. St. Thomas Aquinas used the science of philosophy to prove God's existence. He showed five ways in which the existence of God must be absolutely concluded. His first proof dealt with the mover and... ... middle of paper ... ...as St. Thomas's proofs of Gods existence and other teachings on the existence of God, but even empirical science. The more scientists discover, the more many of them are realizing that the reason for things goes deeper than what science can explain. For those who already believe in a God, science may even strengthen their belief, not weaken it. Even things that seem like they might have been proven by science, that may completely deny biblical teachings, may still have their origins in a God. Even if Darwin's theory of evolution is true, perhaps this only gives insight into God's nature. Perhaps He is humble enough to create and allow His creations to continue as they will. Perhaps He created natural selection. The scientific theories that have been developed and have been said to kill God do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that no God exists.
Charles Darwin, the Father of Evolution, was a British scientist who laid the foundations of the theory of evolution, transforming the thinking of the entire world about the living things around us (Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882)). After working on his theory for nearly 20 years, he published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859. As soon as the book was released, the controversy began with each sides gaining followers until the climax on July 10, 1925. The idea that animals could “evolve” and change into new species, including humans, was one that challenged not only how people thought about the natural world, but challenged the story of the creation from the Bible itself. Even though Darwin himself never said that humans “evolved” from apes, everyone took it as a logical extension of his new theory. It went against the idea of argument for design that had unified theology and science for decades (Moran 5). This new threat to Christianity and the social culture of the time was one that would transform state laws on their educational curriculum.
In conclusion I am left pretty much in the same place as I have started. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God philosophically. For every philosopher who publishes his or her opinions on the subject, three more are there to tear it down. In the end I think it is best that man does not figure out the answer to this lifelong question. Some things are better left unanswered.
Truth, what is truth? This question itself has a thousand answers, no person can ever be sure of what truth is rather, truth can be justified, it can checked for reliability with strong evidences and logic. If the evidence proves to be accurate then it can be established that a certain answer is the truth. However, have we ever tried to think about what intrigues us to seek the truth? To think about a question and set foot firmly on the path of knowledge. Definitely it has! That was the very cause itself which is why this world has witnessed some of the greatest philosophers like Aristotle, Plato and Socrates etc. along with the school of thought. The ability to think and reason is one of the greatest ability humans have, it is what distinguishes us from the animals. It is what gives us free will, the ability to control our own outcomes. However, it is that ability to ‘think’ itself which has caused men to rebel with the myths and statements established about the unseen and natural forces since the beginning of time. It gave rise to questions such as: Do aliens exist? Is there a world of the unseen? Life after Death and the most popular question since the beginning of times, Does God exists? And the answer is ‘yes’. Here is how I will justify my stance.
Being a devout Christian, Thomas Aquinas naturally believed in God, but he wanted to prove God's existence to those who could not accept things on faith alone. As a result he made five proofs, which he claims, prove the existence of God. With each proof there is always a beginning, a starting point, Aquinas claims it must be God that is the beginning of each. The first proof does not do complete justice to Aquinas’s claim that God exist, while the fifth proof could be used alone to prove Gods existence.
Throughout history, the worship of gods has been a part of daily life even amidst those cultures that have been considered "savage". The reactions, movement, existence, comparisons, purposes, and common beliefs of the world show that there must be a god. The existence of a god is an irrefutable fact.
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.
Instinctually, humans know that there is a greater power in the universe. However, there are a few who doubt such instinct, citing that logically we cannot prove such an existence. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, wrote of five proofs for the existence of God. The Summa Theologica deals with pure concepts; these proofs rely on the world of experience - what one can see around themselves. In these proofs, God will logically be proven to exist through reason, despite the refutes against them.
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
Many atheists have used science as a way to disapprove the existence of God. Science is not an accurate way of disapproving the existence of God(2). Scient...
From the discussion, it can be concluded that existence of God can be proved and developed by logical reasoning. They can be proved by seeking answers to our everyday questions like what can be bigger than our reason, who dictates solar system to act like an animate body. The evidence may not have physical existence but it is supported by the physical elements of nature.
A fascination of the human race is discovering how the universe, everyone, and everything came into being. Many scientist and theologians have studied this topic for centuries and looking back at some of the earlier arguments will show key insights in proving Gods existence. One of the best sources we have on the subject of Gods existence in the catholic theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas Aquinas uses five proofs to argue for God’s existence. A few follow the same basic logic: without a cause, there can be no effect. He calls the cause God and believes the effect is the world’s existence. The last two discuss what necessarily exists in the world, which we do not already know. These things he also calls God.
On the other hand, many well-known scientists now admit that certain discoveries tend to indicate that God rather does exist than not. The problem, I suggest, lies in certain preconceptions. If we picture God as a person, then the question comes up: where is God?
God’s Existence is a very intense topic.The non-believers believe that mostly science created this world, but are not convinced that people created science. As more and more people start to look for answers to basic life questions like; how were we created? why? how did this world come? why are we who we are? and infinite life question, they’ve found many different answers from different religious perspectives which confuses them. No matter how many proof there is of anything’s existence, it’s the people’s choice whether to believe in it or not, if they decide to believe in what they view proof of, then they become believers, if they decide to deny the proof , they become non-believers , but denying the proof shown of something’s existence does not make it disappear.
Some feel that scientist are atheists. Some scientists say we still believe in God. St. Thomas answers some questions about faith and science and why faith cannot be tested by the rules of science. In obj.4 he says, “ Because the object of science is something seen, whereas the object of faith is the unseen, as stated above”(258). What he is saying is science is something that has to be seen and proven whereas faith is something as unseen and relies solely on an individual 's beliefs. St. Thomas also says, “ In like manner it may happen that what is an object of vision or scientific knowledge for one man even in the state of wayfarer, is , for another man, an object of faith, because he does not know it by demonstration”(258). Meaning that what one person sees as scientific and fact, can appear to another man as just another sign of faith, faith has no bounds whereas science has boundaries and