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. 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... ... middle of paper ... ...hough many were opposed to the thought, I admire his approach as well as Barbour’s Integration and Dialogue models. Though neither science nor religion contain any absolute truths of our origins, I still believe that the use of both is very helpful in settling our inquiring minds about why everything around us exists, for now. It is still curious to me that neither can assess our questions sufficiently, however by persisting and expanding our endeavors in science and understanding religious scriptures, I do believe that with time, we will come closer and closer to having an even more holistic and individual understanding of our origins. Though I believe that science and religion are both separate forms of thought, as a human, I find it more appropriate to use science to understand the universe’s complexity and use religion to have morality and ethics in why I exist.
Science and faith are generally viewed as two topics that do not intermingle. However, Andy Crouch’s work, Delight in Creation, suggests that there is an approach to both faith and science that allows support of scientists in the church community. There is an approach that can regard science as a career that can reflect the nature of God.
Mankind has an insatiable desire to pursue the unknown. A key facet of the human condition is questioning humanity’s place in the universe and what the future holds. Many believe that this is a large factor of what sets mankind apart from the rest of the animal kingdom: the ability to scrutinize the world on a deeper level. There have been many ways of going about this, from observing the planetary ecosystem and analyzing the rest of humanity, to contemplating whether there is a higher power or entity in the universe. It is through these processes that humankind has come up with the theories and beliefs founded in religion. However, with the more recent development of science and technology, society is faced with a whole slew of issues concerning
In order to continue our discussion of the legitimate philosophical, scientific, and religious aspects of the science and religion quagmire we need a frame of reference to guide us. What I present here is an elaboration on a classification scheme proposed by Michael Shermer. (5) Shermer suggests that there are three worldviews, or "models," that people can adopt when thinking about science and religion. According to the same worlds model there is only one reality and science and religion are two different ways of looking at it. Eventually both will converge on the same final answers, within the limited capabilities of human beings to actually pursue such fundamental questions. The conflicting worlds model asserts that there is only one reality (as the same world scenario also acknowledges) but that science and religion collide head on when it comes to the shape that reality takes. Either one or the other is correct, but not both (or possibly neither, as Immanuel Kant might have argued). In the separate worlds model science and religion are not only different kinds of human activities, but they pursue entirely separate goals. Asking about the similarities and differences between science and religion is the philosophical equivalent of comparing apples and oranges. "These are two such different things," Shermer told Sharon Begley in Newsweek's cover story "Science Finds God," "it would be like using baseball stats to prove a point in football."
2) An Introduction to Humanities Block 4, "Religion and Science in Context," The Open University 1998 2nd ed. 2001
Science and Religion dialogue has been a bitter-sweet topic for many people over the years. The controversy is not only common between one sole community, but affects a variety. The beliefs held about these topics has the potential to personally effect an individual, whether it be positively or negatively. In the United States, we draw only a fine line between religion and science, often failing to realize that the two benefit each other in copious ways but are not meant to interpreted in the same way. Due to this perspective, people seem to be influenced to pick one or the other, when in reality we should treat both science and religion with the same respect and recognize that they are completely separate from one another, along with having individual purposes. John F. Haught, a distinguished research professor at Georgetown University, published a book titled, “Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation”. In it he evaluates each side, persuading the reader that the truth is that both realms may benefit from each other despite the differences emphasized. John F. Haught introduces his audience with four approaches on Science and Religion. Haught’s third approach, contact, is of major significance to aid in the response of: “Does Science Rule out a Personal God?”
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.
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.
Religion and science are complementary 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 surroundings. This will put an end to our scientific research and advancement because we will be relying on answers provided by religious books to answer our questions. If we don’t argue whether these answers are right or wrong, we would never have studied space stars or the universe or even our environment and earthly animals. These studies have always provided us with breakthroughs, inventions and discoveries that made our lives better.
ABSTRACT: Curiously, in the late twentieth century, even agnostic cosmologists like Stephen Hawking—who is often compared with Einstein—pose metascientific questions concerning a Creator and the cosmos, which science per se is unable to answer. Modern science of the brain, e.g. Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind (1994), is only beginning to explore the relationship between the brain and the mind-the physiological and the epistemic. Galileo thought that God's two books-Nature and the Word-cannot be in conflict, since both have a common author: God. This entails, inter alia, that science and faith are to two roads to the Creator-God. David Granby recalls that once upon a time, science and religion were perceived as complementary enterprises, with each scientific advance confirming the grandeur of a Superior Intelligence-God. Are we then at the threshold of a new era of fruitful dialogue between science and religion, one that is mediated by philosophy in the classical sense? In this paper I explore this question in greater detail.
In Alfred North Whitehead’s “Religion and Science”, he nullifies the argument between the religious factions and scientists of the world by eliminating all grounds for the argument. Although debated to the “ends of the Earth”, Whitehead points out that these two subjects are actually based upon events that are unrelated. He states “Science is concerned with the general conditions which are observed to regulate phenomenon; whereas religion is wholly wrapped up in the contemplation of moral and aesthetic values”(Whitehead, Religion and Science). Through his definition of both viewpoints, he is able to explain one will never see the other, thus no argument exists.
Barbour, Ian G. Religion in an Age of Science. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990. Print. (BL 240.2 .B368 1990)
"How do you see the relationship between science and reason to faith and religion? Are the two irreconcilable? Or can science and religion complement one another? Can faith be reasonable?"
Galadari, A. (2011). Science vs. religion: The debate ends.The International Journal of Science in Society,2(2), Retrieved from http://science-society.com/journal/
“We tend to assume that religion is a question of what we believe or don’t believe. It’s an assumption with a long history in philosophy, which has been reinforced in recent years by the dull debate of atheism” (Gray 1). Science has given us many benefits, so many that it would be hard just to name them. The only problem is science can’t save the human species from itself. Science inquiry is probably one of the best methods we have today for figuring out how the world works. “As of now, we know a lot more than we ever have and what we know will only increase as time goes by, actually if we know anything it’s that our current theories are filled with errors and that we will still continue to use those theories to until we find a better alternative” (Grey 1) Science isn’t about belief anymore then religion is. “Religion is then not fundamentally different from science; both are like attempts to frame true beliefs about the world. That way of thinking tends to see science and religion as rivals, and it then becomes tempting to conclude that there’s no longer any need for religion” (Grey 1). If science produces theories that we can use without believing them, religion is just a bunch of gathering myths. Point intended you don’t have to believe a theory is true in order to use it. Just like you don’t have to believe a story is true for it to give a special meaning to your life. In other words, to believe in religion and to have faith in the things that you can’t see is completely up to you. Precisely, religion is a powerful tool for peace and enlightenment, but a negative tool when used for manipulation. To achieve peace, we must first submit to the unknown, and eliminate all negative intentions through religion. Religion not only affects someone’s way of thinking, but it affects our decision making ability and exactly how we choose to make that decision. In addition, you can relate the way religion is used in novels and the way
Stenmark, Mickael. How to Relate Science and Religion. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.