The Truth About Physics and Religion
Many people believe that physics and religion are separate entities.
They claim that physics deals only with the objective, material world, while religion deals only with the world of values. It is obvious, from these, and from many other comparisons, that conflicts have arisen between physics and religion. Many are convinced that the two fields completely oppose each other, and are not related in any ways. Many people, who follow a particular religion, feel offended by the claims that physicists have made, while physicists believe that religion has no basis in reality. I will show, however, that these conflicts are founded on a misunderstanding, and that there is no division between physics and religion. I will also prove that the misunderstanding lies in the parables of religion and in the statements made by physicists.
Furthermore, I will show that only physicists can really know the truth of physics, and only religious followers can know the truth of that religion; everyone else has to take it on faith.
Many people believe that physics and religion are entirely separate.
They claim that physics is only concerned with discovering what is true or false, while religion is concerned with what is good or evil. Scientists appear to agree that “physics is the manner in which we argue about the objective side of reality.” Religious followers, on the other hand, agree that “religion is the way we express the subjective decisions that help us choose the standards by which we live.” Although these definitions seem to be contrasting, an important element remains absent, an element that must first be considered before religion and physics can be compared.
Those who think that religion has no basis in reality also believe that there is an “obvious” separation between the two fields. They think that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. Paul Dirac, a physicist, once said:
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. Dirac, and those who think the same way, however, fails to consider the essential element that has caused many to misunderstand the relationship between physics and religion. What they fail to realize is that religion uses language in quite a different way from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the language of science.
Stanley Kramer's film, Inherit the Wind, examines a trial based on the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee. Often referred to as "The Trial of the Century" (Scopes Trial Web Page), the Scopes trial illuminated the controversy between the Christian theory of creation and the more scientific theory of evolution. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, was arrested for illegally teaching evolutionism to his class. "The meaning of the trial emerged because it was seen as a conflict of social and intellectual values" (Scopes Trial Web Page). Kramer's film dramatizes this conflict between the Christian believers and the evolutionists in "Hillsboro, heavenly Hillsboro, the buckle on the Bible belt" (Inherit the Wind). Prosecutor Matthew Brady represents the values of fundamental Christianity while defense attorney Henry Drummond is the voice of reason and science. Although the two men have been good friends and partners in the past, the case in Hillsboro illuminates the difference in their values. Through the scene on the porch with Matthew Brady and Henry Drummond, director Stanley Kramer illustrates the incessant tug-of-war between religion and science. More specifically, camera angle and Drummond's metaphor of the "Golden Dancer" help deliver Kramer's belief in evolutionism.
Ross, H. (1997c). The Shell Game of Evolution and Creation. [Online]. Available: http://www.reasons.org/resources/papers/shellgame.html. [Oct. 1997].
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
As said by Yale professor of psychology and cognitive science, "Religion and science will always clash." Science and religion are both avenues to explain how life came into existence. However, science uses evidence collected by people to explain the phenomenon while religion is usually based off a belief in a greater power which is responsible for the creation of life. The characters Arthur Dimmesdale and Roger Chillingworth in Nathaniel Hawthorne 's novel, The Scarlet Letter, represent religion and science, respectively, compared to the real world debate between science and religion. Roger Chillingworth is a physician who is associated with science. (ch. 9; page 107) "...made [Roger Chillingworth] extensively acquainted with the medical science of the day... Skillful men, of the medical and chirurgical profession, were of rare occurrence in the colony...They seldom... partook of the religious zeal that brought other emigrants across the Atlantic." The people of the Puritan community traveled across the Atlantic for religious reasons, and because men affiliated with medical science did not tend to practice religion, they rarely inhabited this community. Chillingworth, falling under the category of "skillful men of the medical and chirurgical profession," would not be expected to reside in this community. The narrator through emphasizes this with his rhetorical questioning, "Why, with such a rank in the learned world, had he come hither? What could he, whose sphere was in great cities, be seeking in the wilderness?" These questions demonstrate that it was so strange for Chillingworth to appear in this community because of his association with science. Perhaps, the phrase "with such rank in the learned world" could yield the narra...
A Scientific Understanding of God Two eighteenth century movements, the Enlightenment and the Great Awakening, changed American colonists’ views on reason and wisdom. The Enlightenment, led by philosophers such as John Locke, emphasized abstract thought to acquire knowledge. The European and American thinkers’ research led to a greater understanding of scientific phenomena and the questioning of the government’s rule. Similar to the Enlightenment, the Great Awakening changed colonists’ mode of thought through the concentration of emotion rather than wisdom. Reverend Jonathan Edwards, a Great Awakening revivalist, emphasized seeking salvation by recognizing one’s own moral corruption and surrendering to God’s will. Although the Great Awakening challenged religious, social and political orthodoxy, the Enlightenment had a greater impact on colonial America and vastly influenced future decisions. The Great Awakening reached a large quantity of people because of the traveling orators that preached the evangelical word. Although Enlightenment learning was limited to the wealthy, educated colonists, the movement’s influence was still stronger because the well-to-do ruled the land. Enlightenment philosophers began questioning corrupt governments and the combination of church and state. John Locke claimed that because the people created a government, then civilians could change the run of the government. This belief, perhaps, was the most influential to colonial society. Educated and powerful political leaders began questioning their government under British rule, therefore, igniting dreams of independence. The Enlightenment theory added to the oppression of British rule led to a revolution. Although not as significant as the Enlightenment, the Great Awakening still had a deep impact on colonial society. Primarily, the conflict that arose between the religious revivalists and ultimately ended in a split in the evangelical group changed the face of religion in the British colonies. The New Light revivalists spawned such denominations as Baptist and Methodist, which differed in the old lights beliefs in doctrine and matters of faith. These new sects resulted in a stronger tolerance toward religious diversity. Also, because revivalists preached mainly to backcountry people who had no religious affiliation, the emphasis on emotion rather than wisdom gave less-educated people a feeling of self-worth. These new freethinking converts gained the strength to begin questioning social and political order. The movements of the Enlightenment and the Great Awakening mainly produced a new mode of thought for American colonists.
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.
Scientific and religious approaches to comprehending reality are deeply complementary. I do not use the word ‘deeply’ for emphasis alone: the qualities that science and religion hold in common are anything but obvious. Viewed on the surface, science and religion often appear to be at odds. Details and dogmas frequently conflict, and misperceptions originating on either side can lead to rejection of the unfamiliar system. At the lofty level of philosophical abstraction, a satisfying reconciliation of science and religion will likely always remain elusive. At the level of personal experience, however, incorporating scientific and religious modes of understanding is not only possible, it is profoundly enriching. The impulses, methods, and themes that define both science and religion are strikingly similar. Curiosity and an insatiable desire to make sense of the world are qualities that are innate to human life; unsurprisingly, these impulses are the driving force behind both scientific and religious explorations. The means that facilitate such explorations are fundamentally alike as well: both science and religion are system-driven, with an emphasis on unflagging action in the pursuit of greater understanding. Finally, both scientific and religious modes of understanding inexorably return to a common set of recurrent themes, emphasizing the creativity, dynamism, and unity of the world we perceive.
The Scientific Christians religion was founded and discovered in the nineteenth century by Mary Baker Eddy. She described it as "the law of God, the law of good". In the Christian Science faith by god is the infinite love and it is believed that through prayer anything can be healed and restored. At a young age Mary Baker Eddy looked for the answer in human suffering. She experienced a critical injury and tried to gain her health back through many therapeutic theories of that time period, things such as "homeopathy; the curing of disease by the internal and external use of water, and hydropathy; treating disease by drugs, given in minute doses, that would produce in a healthy person symptoms similar to those of the disease, and Graham’s dietary systems; feeding the body fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains". There was no improvement so she looked to the bible for answers and prayers. She was able to get up with no help and walk around the room. She surprised her friends. She told them that her prayer had worked. Her health improved in the months ahead. Baker being able to move across the room changed her life. Mary Baker saw that spiritual healing was based on Divine laws of God, Spirit, and these laws could help heal human suffering and
Over centuries, the epic battle between modern science and ancient religion rose to the level of wars, resulting in millions of deaths all over nations. Since the days of Galileo, religion has tried to kill any kind of scientific thinking, logic reasoning, or theories. Science is no innocent victim as it has always tried to wipe out any religious meanings and the existence of God, throughout contaminated evolution theories and philosophical thinking. However, scientists nowadays are more reasoning; believing that faith is a gift they haven’t yet received. A man devoid of religion is like a horse with no bridle– A Latin proverb. Religion can no longer fulfil people’s aspirations owing to its unbearable constrains over science, the uncertainty of its value in a world spinning out of control, and the fact that it’s a theory that lacks coherence in its system and supporting evidence for its beliefs, contradicting many proven scientific discoveries regarding creation yet denying itself. It cannot physically protect people from any harm that may befall them. Science and religion are similar in that both of them have constraints imposed on them. In the case of religion that constraint is faith.
Newtonianism has been an influence on many. You see my name has been used to describe many different viewpoints. My name has had such an influential effect that it has become a religion. Newtonianism sees me as a paradigm of rational belief and my work was a model for understanding and looking at the universe in the terms of laws. It was put in many social and cultural areas in the eighteenth century. My work was an inspiration for many others. As my work did inspire others to look into the world of science and the mysteries of the universe, it also had some bad effects when it came to religion. Voltaire, a philosopher, was mainly responsible for popularizing Newtonian ideas across Europe. Christians saw Newtonian ideas as a threat to them
Throughout history, conflicts between faith and reason took the forms of religion and free thinking. In the times of the Old Regime, people like Copernicus and Galileo were often punished for having views that contradicted the beliefs of the church. The strict control of the church was severely weakened around the beginning of the nineteenth century when the Old Regime ended. As the church's control decreased, science and intellectual thinking seemed to advance. While the people in the world became more educated, the church worked harder to maintain its influential position in society and keep the Christian faith strong. In the mid-nineteenth century, the church's task to keep people's faith strong became much harder, due to theories published by free thinkers like Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, David Friedrich Strauss, and others. These men published controversial theories that hammered away at the foundation on which the Christian church was built. As the nineteenth century progressed, more doubts began to arise about the basic faiths of the Christian church.
Cole, K. C., and Sue Giddings. "Is There Such a Thing as Scientific Objectivity?" DISCOVER Sept. 1985: 76-78. Web.
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...
The relationship between science and religion has been debated for many years. With strong personal opinions and beliefs, it is not surprising that no progress has been made in this argument. In my opinion, I feel as though religion and science have to be related in some way. There is no possible way people can separate two things that attempt to prove the same facts. My belief is that a metaphorical bridge has to be formed to connect the two. Personally, I feel as though science can be a compliment to religion, and that the scientific discoveries can and should be used to prove that God exists, not disprove it. If science did this, then the relationship between science and religion could be a friendly one. If that happened, people could stop debating and fighting over the two, allowing priests and scientists to talk and work together peacefully.
Up until the Enlightenment, mankind lived under the notion that religion, moreover intelligent design, was most likely the only explanation for the existence of life. However, people’s faith in the church’s ideals and teachings began to wither with the emergence of scientific ideas that were daringly presented to the world by great minds including Galileo and Darwin. The actuality that there was more to how and why we exist, besides just having an all-powerful creator, began to interest the curious minds in society. Thus, science began to emerge as an alternative and/or supplement to religion for some. 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.