To the extent that evolution is similar to other "morality policies," the battle has symbolic meaning for the mass public as well as strong implications for the power of science as a "social institution" (486). The trouble with the battle between secularists and creationists today is that it is often seen as a divide between religion and science. Failing to acknowledge any validity in the creationist argument reveals ignorance and further polarizes the nation. At the surface level, separation of church and state is simple enough: remove creationism entirely from public schools to avoid conflict. However, the moral implications are far deeper.
Contrast follows conflict, in this state conflict intends to be no... ... middle of paper ... ...the contact approach determines, both religion and science may come to an agreement in order to ease conflict and gain the comfort of relating with a personal God. In order to fully comprehend the benefits of Haught’s contact approach, we much first dissolve the common belief that religion and science cannot be put into the same bin. Even though they each have different purposes and answer radically different questions, they are meant to be intertwined in a way that we can, without conflict, openly discuss and relate to them. Most importantly, we can decipher the similarities in order to achieve a greater comprehension that cosmology provides support for a divine being, and also realize that theology manages to have a great influence on new scientific developments. As Albert Einstein once said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
American interior could be shipped directly to the Atlantic and could b... ... middle of paper ... ... put translations in its imperial bureaus.” In the end of the 19th century, the idea that the United States had a special mission to uplift "backward" people around the world also commanded growing support. During the late 1880s, American foreign policy makers began to display a new assertiveness. The United States came close to declaring war against “Germany over Samoa in 1889, against Chile in 1891, over the treatment of U.S. sailors; and against Britain in 1895, over a territorial dispute between Venezuela and Britain”. With this new political flex, the United States began to embrace the idea of imperialistic policy, transforming the nation. The United States concentrated on three main objectives when it came to the concerns of foreign policy.
Consequently, I am researching the inevitability of the two seemingly separate ideas overlapping and impacting one another. In my last paper, I observed how religion and politics overlap one another in the Renaissance, and I continue my hypothesis into this paper, however focusing on the post Renaissance era. The two ideas need to be balanced and is quite hard to find an equalizer when a person cannot avoid the influence of their religion. Some might argue atheists have the balance, conversely, aren’t they being influenced by choosing to not believe, and denying any possible idea of religion? Religion and politics are held to be separate ideas, but on the contrary influence one another in more ways than society cares to acknowledge.
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.
Various controversies exist in the society today. One of the concerns is about teaching scientific theories and religions in schools. According to scientists, evolution is the origin of man while religions such as Christianity believe that man was created by God. Such conflicting perspectives create conflict between science and religion yet both are needed for effective functioning of the society. Therefore, in order to achieve social order and solidarity in the society, both religion and science should be allowed to exist separately and in coexistence in a way that avoids conflict.
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.
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.
On the contrary, writings ... ... middle of paper ... ...een altered since then. In conclusion, the advancement of these three philosophies from the theological Puritan views to the great scientific and reason ideals of the Enlightenment showed how a reform of beliefs and ideas resulted in the progressively modern ethics that our society is based on today. Scientific reasoning of the world ignited ideas that the ignorant society of the Puritans was immensely closed-minded about. These ideas gave way to how we explain how things happen through the use of science and reasoning. Though Puritans saw that this great reform was a blasphemy against God, the Enlightenment expanded different beliefs of religion which furthered societies intellect and understanding of religion.
The growing prestige of science compelled Americans reformulating theology; two popular theologies include New Theology, Theodore Munger, and Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy (Goff and Harvey 21-25). These religions are known as NRM, encompassing newer religious groups and old alternative groups, which, together, have challenged mainstream religious traditions and the secular society back in the 19th century, and still to this day. The three popular NRMs during the 19th century are Christian Science, Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormonism), and Jehovah’s Witnesses. According to Daschke and Ashcraft, people are intrigued by NRMs for a number of reasons: new understanding, new self, new family, new society, and new world (Daschke and Ashcraft 1-13). Conversely... ... middle of paper ... ... centering on work, frugality, and temperance that served to empower converts for a measure of economic success in the industrial order (Goff and Harvey 281).