This relates to the fact that religion and science are independent from one another. Science is the best method we have to explore the natural world and if we assume that religious principles comes from God there is nothing to ‘scientifically investigate’ about divine revelation, since it is not part of the natural world which science studies. The way we acquire knowledge in the scientific field and in the religious field is simply different. (Moritz 2009) For a religious scientist this means that he can carry on with his research about the functioning of life or with the laws of physics by using the scientific method but he should be aware that if we want to analyse God the criteria to use are
Although science tends to favor more “natural” views of the world, religion and science fundamentally need reason and faith to obtain more knowledge about their various subjects. In looking at science and religion, the similarities and differences in faith and reason can be seen. In exploring what faith really is, we must remove the stigmatism of being purely religiously based. Faith, in its truest form, is the reliance and complete confidence in a set of principles, standards, person, thing, doctrine, theory—anything that cannot be fully proven. While most of faith appears in a religious context, faith can be used in many different ways and in different subjects.
Although depicted mostly as a 'religious' book, the Bible is really more a book of 'science'. The reason why Christianity and other Bible-based religions often disagree on doctrine is because the interpreters attempt to explain that which must be 'self-interpreting'. Contained within the Bible itself is the method for interpretation. This methodology is scientifically sound and refutes many long-held foundational Bible-based doctrines. horizontal rule Mr. Darwin – The Keen Observer: Governing edicts in early U.S. universities were often established by church clergymen who genuinely and sincerely believed there were certain things about God and creation which were beyond question.
The people also showed a greater inte... ... middle of paper ... ...e and thus strengthen his argument/claims. It is through science and its use that Galileo claimed one could better find and understand the truths of the Scriptures. If science is used correctly, as a tool to support claims, rather than blindly accepting the claims made by authoritative figures, Galileo claimed one would be able to fulfill the truths mentioned in the bible; to use one’s sense of reason. Religious people can find their solace through science, and scientist can find reason for their science through religion. This is evident in the fact that Galileo was a scientist but also had strongly rooted scriptural beliefs.
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.
The scientific method of hypothesizing, testing, collecting evidence, and accepting or rejecting the proposed hypothesis is epistemology encapsulated. Therefore, science and philosophy cannot be separate entities, as they are the same. Based on this reading, I also compared Jaspers’ use of the comparison of philosophy and science to analyze the relationship between science and religion. Looking from this perspective, the reading would mean that religion originated before science, was more meaningful, and the two can be differentiated. I understood this reading in another light after thinking about it from this standpoint and saw even further that I disagreed with Jaspers.
In this essay, I will talk about the conflict between religion and science by comparing the arguments from Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. I argue that science and religion do overlap but only in some area concerning evolution and the cosmic design. Furthermore, when these overlaps are present it means that there are conflicts and one must choose between science and religion. First, I will demonstrate Stephen Jay Gould’s argument against the overlapping between science and religion, which is as follows: “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.” Stephen Jay Gould demonstrates his claim that both religion and science can co-exist;... ... middle of paper ... ...fs.
Science forms our knowledge on the world as it is based on testable hypotheses, where as faith supports itself on a strong conviction of hope for something that no one can see. Science and faith relate to each other, but are do not support each other. Faith, in the religious sense of the word, should be omitted from scientific analysis, but in the complete trusting sense of the word, scientists should have convictions on their work. I argue that science has its own faith based belief system that it bases itself upon, and that they are different and independent from each other. Science and faith in the religious sense are founded on general faith, with the belief of existence of something outside the universe.
Both of the creationisms are theories. Religious creationism might be considered as blind faith because no proofs are given but it focuses on what has been thought since always, instead, scientific creationism has proofs and explanations of what has been happening depending on Earth’s changes and the nature. Religious creationism starts with the inception of a supreme being also named God, and scientific creationism starts with the Hadean eon. People who think that Earth was made by God believe in this because of their faith in him and his word. Religious theory of creationism is hypothetical since it is considered possible without having proofs to verify it.
We would still be using faith to comprehend occurrences in nature if it hadn’t been for the shift of power from faith in religion to human reasoning and logic. All in all I believe that while faith in religion and science may sometimes seem harmless and even beneficial, the risks are great and misconception as well as misrepresentation of facts has occurred several times in history. Faith in the natural sciences is not substantiated as natural sciences require the scientific methodology to make any assertion legitimate; however religion contrasts in the way that religion offers “Answers to mysteries” that cannot be found - and thus cannot be proved.