Pope John Paul II begins his message by recalling the work of Pope Pius XII in his attempt to rectify the conflict between the doctrine of faith and the development of scientific research. Pope John Paul II follows the footsteps of his predecessor in by engaging in a dialogue with the Academy of Sciences concerning the origin of life and evolution.
Pope John Paul II recognizes that the conclusion of evolution seems to be a direct contradiction to Revelation. In order to come about a solution, Pope John Paul goes on to clarify the different functions of the scientific and religious views.
The development of scientific research brings the ability to give rise to new inquiries in its attempt to advance towards solutions which benefit all of the human community. If science puts forth a justified true belief, the church ought to be compelled to inspect and interpret the idea. This demands the church be critical of its own interpretations and conclusions in the face of new information. The church has the chance to reinterpret scripture in a new light, and the church is able to discern a value-judgment.
Pope Pius XII argues that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of faith. Because science and religion differ in their epistemology, they differ in the kinds of questions that they are qualified to answer. This distinction explicates the need to be aware of the limitations in following a doctrine in order to prevent erroneous conclusions made outside its own epistemological basis.
In the case of evolution and the origin of life, the biblical account is challenged by evolution theory. 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. Galileo was quite bold in his challenging of the church, but does respect it as well. This does differ from Dawkins. In Obscurantism to the Rescue, Dawkins has little substance in his reasoning, and all it seems to do is dismiss religion. His dismissal doesn’t really show any new information, he dismisses religion because he enjoys it.
The respective areas of science and religion always seem to be overlapping, or stepping on the other area’s toes. In his book, Stephen Jay Gould addresses the topic of Non-Overlapping Magesteria, or NOMA. Gould examines the principles of NOMA as a solution to the supposed false conflict between religion and science. (Pg. 6) He starts off his argument on NOMA by telling a story of “Two Thomas’s.” The first Thomas is from the bible, of which he makes three appearances in the Gospel of John. The second Thomas, is a Reverend Thomas Burnet. Thomas the Apostle defends the magesteria of science in the wrong magesteria of faith, while the Reverend Thomas proclaims religious ideas within the magesteria of science.
“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.”
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...
These days, most of the textbook only presents evolution theory as a fact to interpret the origin of life and the earth. More and more people get to reject creation unconsciously because they had no opportunity to compare and evaluate both worldview in same degree. I interviewed my three close acquaintances and heard a various responses from many people including my interviewees. Some of them had same belief with me, but some people had significantly different opinion with me. As a consequence of evolution theory’s monopoly in education, non-believers and Christians are unconsciously influenced by this secular worldview.
...tarted rationalizing their emotions, the clarity of evolution dawned upon their eyes, and of acceptance of new foreign ideas. Here was a thing that not only could explain the mysteries of life, but also serve as testimonial to the foolishness of pride. Evolution was a hallmark in the relations between science and religion, as the two sides realized neither was trying to undermine the other, and even in some cases joined in union to promote humanities advancement. The story of evolution is significant to history not only because of its scientific achievements, but also the gap it bridged between the scientific and religious community, and the lesson it taught that acceptance of new ideas does not have to mean the end of prior beliefs altogether. No other scientific revolution has generated as much human controversy and unity as Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
Stanley, George Edward. Pope John Paul II: Young Man of the Church. New York: Aladdin Paperbacks, 2005. Print.
Evolution and creationism: two warring beliefs that are constantly looking for an upper hand. With similarities and comparisons that Christianity does not deny, yet evolution quickly repudiates. Where do you stand? In a belief that has so many loose threads, like a puppet that has too many strings, you try to apply it, but the strings become tangled and unusable? Or in a belief that does have proof and undeniable evidence, one that has a promise of everlasting life as apposed to a dark nothingness? A decision must be reached. Whether through further evidence outside this paper, or just through your day to day life, your must know where your beliefs lie. Just know, that if what Christians say is true, and the evidence is overlooked and criticized, you will face something much, much worse than being castigated by those around you.
Edward O. Wilson, in his essay Intelligent Evolution, diagnoses the gap between science and religion as “tectonic” (556), and predicts its continuous expansion. Obviously, the widest chasm appears in the field of biology: evolution versus creation. Evolutionary science sees life as a consequence of blind chances, while Abrahamic religion views life as a creation of God. After all, is it possible for evolution or creation to become the “correct” explanation, prevailing over the other? Wilson claims that evolution is the correct one, but I believe that there is no better or worse answer. Each authority is built on the different ground: either proof or faith. Hence, there is no common criteria to weigh them side by side and simply choose the answer.
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. Furthermore, it was “prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood” (Grand Duchess). However, because of the terminology in which the bible was presented the perception of what the Scripture defined as truth was skewed. The Bible was written so that the common man could understand it and follow its commandments. The people also showed a greater inte...
The information presented in evolution studies must be viewed with an open mind since there is no definite proof or law of evolution. The dilemma boils down to science vs. religion. God has been our creator since beginning of time, but the discoveries of recent science are sudde...
Our current Pope, Pope Francis has said, " The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve." He also said, “When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything,” he said. “However, it was not like that. He created beings and left them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave each one, so that they would develop, and reach their fullness.” These statement support both sides of the story, although it takes a little out of the creation story. These statements suggest that when God created Adam and Eve, they were not humans like us, but rather humans more similar to cavemen. Pope Francis is saying that evolution is real for sure, and that he believes the creation story is true as well. Personally I love this statement he throws out, I think it compromises many debates and satisfies both sides of belief. Francis has only been Pope of the Catholic Church for two years, yet has made many revolutionary
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.
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
Wiester, John L. 1993. The Real Meaning of Evolution. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 45 (3): 182-86.
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.