How religious or scientific are you really when you have to use crap science (lies) to back up your religion? How religious or scientific are you really when you have to deny the facts of good science to support your religion. I don't see how changing the way you think about the Bible when science gives you a good reason to do so makes you any less or any worse of a Christian. In fact, I think it makes you a better Christian. Some scientists will tell you that discovering things about the Earth does not mean that God didn't create it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I choose the model of conflict because I believe in some of the points it talks about such as how they are at odds because science tells how nature controls life and religion tells how God does. The point that really sticks out with me is how it’s says that if God created the universe then he created the rules that go with it and I strongly believe in that point. I thinks that this model can show a little about what it means to be faithful in God because faith is believing in God and the teachings of God, so in having faith in God you believe that he created the universe and its rules. Most scientists believe in the theory of evolution because it answers the question on how humans came to be and how life as we know it came to be. In my opinion it does answer the question of life and if I didn’t have faith in God... ... middle of paper ... ...It’s impossible for them to be able to compliment on some facts and not on others because science disagrees with the existence of God and his power and religion focuses on God and his power.
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.
In the book, Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible by Coyne, he explains how religion and science do not go hand in hand at all. He explains that there are many differences between the two fields but holds science as the upper hand between the two. In chapter two of the book, he explains how religion mostly believes all of their doctrines and faith-driven information to be true and all other types of information false. He claims that science is much more focused on the “truth about the universe.” As a scientist himself, he has experienced first hand as to how science is nowhere compatible with religion and that science and religion have different goals, which can never intertwine.
Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data considering Natural Sciences as faith is simply believing without substantial evidence. While faith in religion has in the past helped individuals make morally right choices, faith in religion has also lead to unsubstantiated actions by followers. Meanwhile, faith in natural sciences has constantly been detrimental as nothing in Natural Sciences can be established without evidence that coincides with the rest of the laws of Nature. Faith in Natural Sciences has been hindering human development for centuries due to the faith in religion of some early religious bodies. One of the best examples is the belief that the Universe was geocentric, or that the Earth was the center of the universe.
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.