In the first day, light and darkness (day and night) were mad... ... middle of paper ... ...do not totally agree with it because the possibilities of an accidental origin are tiny. Although I am considered Catholic, I do not believe in its theory of the creation because science provides explications, contrary to religion, which is based on believing what the bible and the church says. The scientific theories of creationism have a rational explanation step by step not including philosophical part, but the chemical coordination of the formation of the universe and life since its most minimum expression. Religion explains the origin of life in its own way by forcing people to believe in its principles without any discussion, therefore, humans’ logic rejects its impositions and to my point of view, what may be called their fantasies. On the other hand, both theories could be either real or false by the very fact that they are theories and are not ascertained.
Perfectly inspired yet imperfectly written (and interpreted,) the biblical account is believed to be true by the religious.... ... middle of paper ... ...ternative Dawkins puts forth is “some kind of liberal consensus of decency and natural justice.” This alternative changes over time, and serves as a substitute for a legitimate source of moral convictions. Dawkins’ opposition to the church with science is draws similarities to Galileo. Galileo in his time did use his scientific reasoning to dismiss scripture. But, he did so by observation and demonstration in order to disprove scripture by providing a counterexample. He did this in order to show his work of the universe.
The church fears the lack of strength in the people's belief in religion because the fundamental structure of religion is the people themselves. ... ... middle of paper ... ...t science is not merely a group of 'inventive dwarfs'. Instead, science is a way of life. The book of discourses (dealing with the laws of motion), that was published after Galileo's recantation, represents a way in which Galileo can contemplate for his unethical and immoral acts by generating knowledge to the public. Although Galileo reassures the making of science by making the book of discourses, nothing can ever bring compensation to the harm which he brought on humanity and the way in which he destroyed the meaning of sacrifice.
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.
Jennifer Sexton and Laura Finley, from an Ebsco host article made an excellent point and stated, “Religious believers argue that the presumption of God's existence is based on reason, and that the proof of God's existence is in the unanswered questions about the universe, which remain unaddressed by science” (Sexton). As Christians our world views should strongly relat... ... middle of paper ... ... to my understanding that the reason why most scientists have turned atheistic and secular is because they are not strong believers in God to begin with. The powerful observations made in the science world are indeed believable but as Christians we underlie God’s power that exhibits the results we see. Secular scientists don’t believe that God has that much power and that is why this great controversy continues today and will continue throughout our life. However as a High school biology teacher I will be forced to keep my faith and beliefs to myself and teach what I am required to.
If, through the experimental processes of science, we have been able to diagnose the causes of so many of the universe’s origins and following products, why would it be unreasonable to conclude that we couldn’t find a scientific solution to the origin of life? Science seeks to answer the questions of the universe, while creationism and religion lay under problems and fill in gaps of uncertainty with divine intervention. Science has disproved the vast majority of religious claims, so to assume that it couldn’t do the same for the origin of life would be asinine. Science constantly defeats pseudoscience with the use of logic and evidence and its dedication to finding substantial truth.
This belief can be applied to the present day by finding equilibrium, and in turn allowing for a balanced life. In his Letter to The Grand Duchess Christina, Galileo challenged the widely accepted religious beliefs of the time, claiming that the conflict lies in their interpretation, not the context. In Galileo’s eyes science was an extremely useful tool that could and should have been used in interpreting the Scriptures. He argued that “the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven not how heaven goes” (Grand Duchess). The purpose of science was not to counter what the bible teaches; rather its purpose was to help explain the teachings of the scriptures.
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. How would science be able to compliment on a religious fact if they don’t believe in the power of God. Science and religion will always be on opposite ends of the spectrum but I think that they need each other to balance out that spectrum. When it comes down to it science will always have some sort of proof that shows how the world works that will show religion is wrong but it’s up to the faithful to believe that it’s actually God behind the science of the universe.
Science provided a more analytical view of the world we see while religion was based more upon human tradition/faith and the more metaphysical world we don’t necessarily see. Today science may come across as having more solid evidence and grounding than religion because of scientific data that provides a seemingly more detailed overview of life’s complexity. “Einstein once said that the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible” (Polkinghorne, 62). Yet, we can still use theories and ideas from both, similar to Ian Barbour’s Dialouge and Integration models, to help us formulate an even more thorough concept of the universe using a human and religious perspective in addition to scientific data. Ian Barbour introduced four models to establish the relationship between religion and science in his book, “Religion In An Age of Science”.
that there's a power at work imposing order, design, structure and purpose in creation. Modern religious piety salivates at the prospect of converting scientists and will take them any way it can. From Plato to Planck the problematic lion of religion must be rendered safe and tame. Religion must be reasonable, after all, we are reasonable "men." Einstein writes that the scientist's "religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."