Science and religion has always been in debate since mankind's sanity.while sceince has proved itself with logical truths, religion has thrived with its people's faith and customs. Can both survive together?
While the mere existence and origin of the human kind has made us belive on multiple God theories with various supernatural beings playing its part, does it directly deny the Darwin theory where all mankind are the successor of apes. Or is it that the Big Bang theory is just a redundant theory of all scientific research.
So lets head back to where all life started. Times when our ancestors lived in caves, hunted for food in berries and trees. A natural phenomenon would start maybe a thunder and our ancestors would look up at the sky with awe fearful eyes and hands holding in submission. There were times when the earth shook and even worst times when sea of water came flooding taking with it his shelter,food and freinds away. He started to feel and realize and associate his own life and fate in the hands of some far supreme invisible power which he gave the name of God. And this is how God was Born. But what about man's origin? Weren't we going to talk about Adam and Eve being created by God and the breaking up of paradise and all hell loosing because of a apple? No . We are talking about a long essay here with logical thoughts and rational words to choose from. And more ever i am an atheist.
The basis of science is believed to have been observation and on experiences that man has lived centuries observing the natural phenomenons, experiencing of varied types. Yet religion is considered and believed to be older than science. Was it that God created man or is it that he was obliged to let him being created by man.
A more pr...
... middle of paper ...
...ith. Just like a scientist can be a religious guy so can a cleric use his sceintifically developed bike . While our life cannot be improved by any God, so does science cannot fill the gap of people's religion and faith. Each have their own purpose and place. It only becomes hapazard when both are inappropiately misplaced and overlapped. When sceintific theories are misnomed by religious dogma. Or when a persons religious space and way of living is violated with anti-religion blames and racist stance in the name of sceince.
Do they answer the same questions ? What is important is do they make us ask our purpose and how much are they successful of making our life more purposeful and meaningful. I will leave that to my readers to ponder upon. As someone had said-
"Religion is not to be discussed and urgued upon but is to be followed and belived" .
Who the mortal am i !
The theory of Evolution was developed by Charles Darwin throughout his life and published in 1859 in a book called "The Origin of Species." In brief, it states that all living things on earth evolved over time and that natural selection is how they evolve. Natural selection is the process by which entire populations change in response to their environment. It works because those who are better adapted to the environment reproduce at a higher rate than those who are less suited for the environment (Biology, 2001). It is widely accepted that humans evolved from primates. That is why the trial had the nickname of "Monkey Trial". In contrast, the theory of Divine Creation states that the universe was created in seven days by God and that animals have not evolved since. One can see clear differences between these two theories.
First, I will demonstrate Stephen Jay Gould’s argument against the overlapping between science and religion, which is as follows:
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...
But not without the hurdles that science has faced before. Of course, in the past, we’ve seen times where the changes of reason and science did prevail. It just took its time to receive the following to be what was “right”. For example, the Roman Catholic Church was one of the most powerful organizations in the world in the medieval ages, commanding respect and penance from all the nations of the European continent, who did more than deny the works of dissenters to their teachings. From Giordano Bruno (a former Catholic who believed the universe was infinite and that the earth was not the center of God’s domain) to many others, the beliefs held by the church would not be opposed. Slowly, however, the balance of power would shift from religion to the state, releasing the scientists and philosophers to keep thinking of how the world worked. Today, we face a problem quite opposite to this one. Oversaturation of pieces by those who put feelings over the cold, hard facts. And shouting matches that have left the Internet for the real world, stifling progress, polarizing people onto a spectrum, making everyone choose one extreme or another, and rarely
The evidence supporting evolution continues to increase, and someday we may be able to prove without a doubt that mankind developed from a more primitive species. Some fundamentalist groups though may never update their way of thinking no matter what science is able to prove, however, in my opinion, the vast majority of the “developed” world, will eventually make their way to a theistic evolutionary outlook. The combination of science and religion will offer someone the gift of knowledge with the piece of mind of knowing there is some guiding force, and not just some natural process without a specific goal. Albert Einstein said it best when he said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
The theories of human evolution may always cause a heated dispute. Each theory presents its own evidence proving its acceptance, but lacks enough evidence to prove the other theories incorrect. All the theories that attempt to explain human existence fall under the categories of creation theory, naturalistic evolution theory, and the theistic evolution theory. The creation theory explains that a certain God created the humans, and evolution does not exist. The naturalistic evolution theory states that evolution is driven by purely natural forces, and is not controlled by any input from a god, goddess, or multiple deities. The theistic evolution is a mixture of both creation and naturalistic theories. The theistic evolution theory states that god created the world and guides the evolution process (Religious Tolerance, 2004).
In the book, Why God Wont Go Away, by Andrew Newberg, it seems that we are psychologically built to alleviate the existential fears and comfort us in this confusing and perilous world through invention and myths. From the earliest weapon to the latest technological revolution we are trying to make ourselves more secure in this world. That's one reason why it seems that in Christianities' earlier years it was either science or religion; you could not have both. Not only because they had conflicting goals and views, but also because when you had science, the human mind's ...
Is it possible for science and religion to coexist? In both The Day The Earth Stood Still and The Man Who Fell to The Earth, the idea of science versus religion is questioned. The films show that our world is rapidly changing and how society reacts to events during those specific times by questioning spiritual faith. Certain sounds that are heard throughout both movies allow us to feel the tone that each movie tries to relay. These sound effects help the viewers understand moments of tension, fear, desperation, peacefulness, to name a few. In addition, certain cinematic techniques that portray quick cuts, long and complex scenes, and much more allow viewers to explore the relationship between science and religion. This leads the viewers mind to recognize that these scenes are intended to elicit an emotional response. Both the idea of science and religion are questioned in the films, though the films were made two decades apart. The movies examine how our world can deal with unexpected situations by allowing society to implement science or religion as a coping mechanism. Since there is no confirmed answer as to which is more accurate of effective, people assume to look to one or the other for help and believe that whatever happens is a direct result of their beliefs. These movies explore the evolution of science and religion in both forms in addition to how reality can obscure them.
...ith the correct knowledge. Although religion and science have different approaches to answering the question why, it is debatable whether one provides any benefits over the other. The deciding factor on whether religion or science is better is completely dependent on an individual’s perception.
Science and faith are generally viewed in opposition because of today’s culture. Today’s culture often pits faith against reason, as if the more you believe in God, the more unreasonable you are. These ideas are set in the minds of people thanks to todays media and politics. The modern culture of today also offers us false choices. Instead, “rather than choosing between faith and reason, the Church invites us to harmonize our faith and our reason because both are vitally important to human well-being.” (Kaczor”
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
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.
...eveloped, and especially during the Enlightenment, God and religion were relegated to a lesser role because it was thought that science could explain everything. Now, though, the farther we plunge into science, the more questions we find that can only be answered by religion. When science and Christianity are both studied and well understood, especially in the context of their limitations, it is possible to integrate them, or at least for them to complement each other, in my view of the world.
Religion and science have been at odds since time immemorial. On December 21, 1613, history saw one of the first true debates between religion and science. Galileo Galilei’s letter to Reverend Father Benedetto Castelli outlined and shaped many of the values and thoughts held in modern Western culture. Religion and science are about as opposite as two things can be, however Galileo makes the argument that science and religion are both right in their own sense, dealing with absolutes and variables. Neither is wrong, instead they each provide answers to what the other cannot.
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.