HOW IS SCIENCE DIFFERENT FROM RELIGION? HOW ARE THEY SIMILAR?
Historically, religious groups did not show immediate acceptance of some scientific discoveries as supported by Carl Sagan statement in Hawking’s God Delusion, “how is it that hardly any major religion looked at science and concluded this is better than we thought!” [5]The conflict between science and religion was initially demonstrated by how the church’s persecution of Galileo after his publications of how the earth is not the centre of the universe but the sun is. Bowler states that this showed that the church did not want their religious texts to be reinterpreted, just because science states that their beliefs must be wrongs, however science came to authority by challenging most
…show more content…
Its beliefs are mainly based on revelations from a “superhuman controlling power” (oxford dictionary) or a personal God.[1] These revelations are believed to be inherited by descendants of each generation in a form of religious text, for example the Bible or spiritually received through prayer. In contrast science, which studies the forces of nature and its development, has beliefs mainly based on the analysis of hard-core evidence and believes in the non-existence of a supernatural power. The denotation of science and religion makes them appear completely incompatible; however, they both to some extent have a similar objective which is to get a better understanding of the universe. On the other hand, the contradictions between the two disciplines have been extant for many decades and with the continuation of the debates between science and religion, it seems inconceivable that they may coexist.
This essay is going to mainly discuss the differences between religion and science. Examples such as the Genesis and Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory and conflicts in medicine are going to be used to demonstrate confrontation and conflicts between the two. The essay is also going to explain how science and religion might be similar. How each discipline has adapted to the changes in the universe and the stages of conflicts will also be
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.
The history of opposition between science and religion has been steady for about half of a century. As early as the 1500's, science and religion have been antagonistic forces working against each other. Science was originally founded by Christians to prove that humans lived in a orderly universe (Helweg, 1997). This would help to prove that the universe was created by a orderly God who could be known. Once this was done, science was considered by the church to be useless. When people began to further investigate the realm of science, the church considered them to be heretics; working for the devil. According to Easterbrook (1...
Conflict between science and religion has been around way before Charles Darwin’s published book, Origin of the Species, came to be (“The Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Controversy”). Which is a book that is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology, featuring the idea of ‘natural selection.’ Some people believe that we as humans have evolved as the most intelligent and advanced species on the planet, while others think we have been placed here and designed for a reason. Many debates and court cases have come to be because of these two ideas of science versus religion. Although there are many debates between the two, the ideas overturn when the parties overlook the distinction between that which cannot be proven (faith), compared with that which has not been proven (theory) (Lipman, Robert M.). Theories, including evolution, can and should be investigated with appropriate scientific diligence (Lipman, Robert M.).
In recent research, I have discovered that some people think that science and Christianity cannot go together and some may argue that science and Christianity may go hand and hand. This paper is going to discuss what science is. It will give information about the areas of which science cannot give information. My personal opinion, on the reasons the average person considers science as applicable to everything, will also be discussed. Lastly, I will cover some implications to the Christian regarding the limits of science.
In 1633, Galileo Galilei was placed on trial for suspicion of heresy by the Roman Catholic Church of the era. The trial was in response to Galileo’s publication of Dialogue, a book which propounded Copernicus’ theory of heliocentrism, or more simply known as the Earth’s movement around the sun. The church believed the common biblically founded view that the Earth could not be moved. Copernican theory is common knowledge these days, and Galileo’s efforts to prove the theory have earned him the title of father of science, but the Church’s opposition to science has remained largely unchanged. America is a largely religious nation, and nearly 40% of the nation believes the world is less than 10,000 years old. Throughout history the religious counterparts of society have shown little understanding for the natural world. Instead they have clung to a very precise viewpoint of their dogma, but this lack of understanding is fatal because it obstructs scientific progress, and dissociates the individual from the realities of our modern world.
Religion and science have always been in direct competition with one another. The ultimate goal of science is to prove the inexistence of God with facts, while the existence in God is simply based on belief and faith. While 95% of the people living on Earth believe in a superior being of some sort, some might say that religion clouds the minds of otherwise logical individuals and makes it impossible for them to pursue the truth of the Universe. Thus, the debate on which view is the right one continues on, while somewhere in the middle stand religious followers who are also scientists.
Clashes between the two do exist, yet it is conceivable that these contentions can help clear up inquiries and issues that relate to both science and religion. They both look for truth and comprehension, and I trust that there are a wide range of approaches to discover truth. Religion and science are two altogether different ways, but since neither religion nor science will stop to exist, they will need to coincide and inevitably cooperate to achieve their
...ween science and religion regarding the creation of the earth; however these disconnections were recognised when the churches found reason in scientific findings and vice versa. Although the creation of earth can be broadly defined by creationism and the big bang theory, both have created a connection in one another through the endeavour of defining the creation of the same world. Though beliefs are still held regarding religion and science to be separate fields of inquiry, the youth of today’s 21st century believe that there are connections between religion and science regarding the creation of earth, with the gap between both academically challenging concepts is becoming smaller through time. Scientist Albert Einstein once said, A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Are science and religion mutually exclusive? If not, how do they overlap? The relationship between science and religions has its magnificence and it’s like no other. The necessity of establishing and understanding this relationship is vital to our survival. Religion and science are complement elements to our society. The notion that religion and science should not be merged together, does not mean neglecting to understand the parallel relation between these two concepts and will result in a better understanding of our
...wever, in the best interest of advancing education and an enlightened society, science must be pursued outside of the realm of faith and religion. There are obvious faith-based and untestable aspects of religion, but to interfere and cross over into everyday affairs of knowledge should not occur in the informational age. This overbearing aspect of the Church’s influence was put in check with the scientific era, and the Scientific Revolution in a sense established the facet of logic in society, which allows us to not only live more efficiently, but intelligently as well. It should not take away from the faith aspect of religion, but serve to enhance it.
While some people may believe that science and religion differ drastically, science and religion both require reason and faith respectively. Religion uses reason as a way of learning and growing in one’s faith. Science, on the other hand, uses reason to provide facts and explain different hypotheses. Both, though, use reason for evidence as a way of gaining more knowledge about the subject. 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.
At first glance, many facets of science and religion seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Because of this, I have generally kept them confined to separate spheres in my life. I have always thought that science is based on reason and cold, hard facts and is, therefore, objective. New ideas have to be proven many times by different people to be accepted by the wider scientific community, data and observations are taken with extreme precision, and through journal publications and papers, scientists are held accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their work. All of these factors contributed to my view of science as objective and completely truthful. Religion, on the other hand, always seems fairly subjective. Each person has their own personal relationship with God, and even though people often worship as a larger community with common core beliefs, it is fine for one person’s understanding of the Bible and God to be different from another’s. Another reason that Christianity seems so subjective is that it is centered around God, but we cannot rationally prove that He actually exists (nor is obtaining this proof of great interest to most Christians). There are also more concrete clashes, such as Genesis versus the big bang theory, evolution versus creationism, and the finality of death versus the Resurrection that led me to separate science and religion in my life. Upon closer examination, though, many of these apparent differences between science and Christianity disappeared or could at least be reconciled. After studying them more in depth, science and Christianity both seem less rigid and inflexible. It is now clear that intertwined with the data, logic, and laws of scien...
When considering the basis for the understanding of both science and religion it is interesting to distinguish that both are based on an overwhelming desire to define a greater knowledge, and comprehension of the universe that surrounds us. Now while, science has based its knowledge of experimental basis, researcher, and scholarly work; religion
Stenmark, Mickael. How to Relate Science and Religion. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.
Ian Barbour introduced four models to establish the relationship between religion and science in his book, “Religion In An Age of Science”. This included the Conflict, Separation, Dialogue, and Integration models. The dialogue model in particular describes the methodological parallels that exist between the two paradigms. In this model, both science and religion are areas with significant knowledge of the unive...