Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The influence of science on religion
Perspective on world religion
Comparing between religion and science
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The influence of science on religion
Science vs. Religion Christopher Hitchens took a very one-sided approach to the idea of science and religion co-existing. In his work, “Does science make belief in God obsolete?” he made various attempts to poke fun at the concept of religion in modern times. However, the one that stuck out to me the most was when Hitchens said “It is how we came up with answers before we had any evidence. It belongs to the terrified childhood of our species, before we knew about germs or could account for earthquakes. It belongs to our childhood, too, in the less charming sense of a demanding a tyrannical authority: a protective parent who demands compulsory love even as he exacts a tithe of fear.” (4). Religion was a method of our predecessors to give answer the questions they couldn’t solve, and give a purpose to life. But, I believe it is an outdated method since science has become commonplace after 1832.
Hitchens said how religion became accepted in society and became a part of our everyday lives. “But the original problem with religion is that it is our first, and our worst, attempt at explanation. It is how we came up with answers before we had any evidence.” Back when religion first came around, people had many
…show more content…
Many other children have had a similar experience to mine. I was forced to believe all of these things that I did would affect me somehow after I died. It also goes to the childhood of our species. Back then, people believed if they pleased the gods by doing a rain dance, the gods would let it rain. When in reality and proven by science, water evaporated and then condensed to form rain. The earlier Catholic Church believed that the Earth was in the center of the Universe, the Ptolemaic model. Everything, including the Sun, revolved around us, however science has also disproved this. The heliocentric model was formed, where we revolve around the
Christopher Hitchens was a leading controversial writer of his time (20th-21st century) who wrote several articles on subjects such as religion, literature, art, politics and war. (Hitchens, Christopher) In the article “Free Exercise Of religion? No Thanks”, the writer proposes a question and then proceeds to answer it, thus stating his opinion. The topic itself highlights the writer’s stance on the issue as it shows that he is against the idea of “free exercise”(Hitchens, 1) of religion. Hitchens has used the view of the majority, sarcasm, vivid imagery, pathos and sarcasm to back his claim and appeal to his audience to see his point of view. However, despite its strengths, Hitchens condescending attitude combined with some illogical claims made in the article means it is offensive to some of his audience and his contradictory tone makes the readers question his judgment.
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...
The first issue with Hitchens’ challenge is that the question he is asking is in reality a very unfair one. An atheist and a religious individual’s cosmology will naturally have vast differences causing similar rifts in what one deems ethical, moral, “good” and “evil”, and whether or not the last two concepts even exist. If one holds a view of reality that is dependent on creation from a higher being, then that individual’s belie...
Still, religion itself cannot hold the attention of human society forever. Eventually, as displayed in "Dover Beach," faith in religion and its structure will fade in the light of new ideas and new human inventions. Society's faith cannot always be "full" because as civilizations grow individuals become more independent. They begin to think for themselves, which causes life to become more subjective. With less imposed structure, individuals will determine that they do not subscribe to all of what their predecessors believed, and they are left "wondering what to look for." Technology often replaces religion because it is far more tangible than the concepts of organized religion that require blind faith. It is easier to believe in something touchable. In "Church Going," this attitude is examined. A wistfulness for a time when faith came easier is apparent, but there is also "an awkward reverence" for the ways of religion even if they are no longer believed.
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?”
“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.”
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.
Throughout the course of history, man has looked to religion for answers. Curiosity as to how we got here and why we are have driven people to seek out answers to these somewhat unanswerable questions. Over the past few thousand years, several varying religions have been established, some more prominent than others. Many of them share a similar story of a divine creator who has always been and will always be. In the case of Christianity, whether true or not, it has proven to be beneficial to society as a whole. The Bible set the standard for the moral compass that humans live their lives by to this day. The key fundamental problem with religion, although not the fault of religion, is that man has often used it as a gateway to power and prominence. In the case of the 18th century Gallican church, the French were abusing their religious powers, thus creating vast inequality throughout France, which eventually led to a rebellion against the church, and the eventual destruction of the church within France.
...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.
The history of science has long been in conflict with religion or ¡§organized ignorance¡¨ as Dr. David Starr Jordan called in his book Science and Sciosophy. In this conflict history would reveal that science always prevailed. At times this victory was won at the cost and/or suffering of the individual who earth the nerve to present their finding to the world as court. Obstructions have been raised by men who thought the little they knew of the works and ways of the Creator was all that there was to be known. However, this insensitive response to the essential Christian Concepts provides inadequate recognition of the fact that Science and Religion may work to the same end but take different routes. My holistic view of the issue of science and religion has changed over the past 6 weeks. I realize that there is a certain harmonization of science and religion that gives humanity the abundant life engineered by Jesus Christ in the Gospel. This blending of my ethnocentric religious beliefs and the reasoning of empirical thought allowed a reinventing of viewpoint allowing my position to be transformed into something new. Which I believe would be an objective to this disciplined study. The selection of this book Science and Religion Opposing viewpoints allows the reader to take a glance at this conflict from five areas. Great Historical Debates on Science and Religion, Are Science and Religion Compatible, How did the Universe Originate, How did Life Originate and Should Ethical Values Limit Scientific Research? For the sake of brevity we will cumber you with a skeletal version of the text. The author is very clever in presenting information to provide a deeper understanding of the material and come away with an appreciation of the complex nature of the issues debated. The author was careful to mention Pitfalls to Avoid:
...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.
To react to the first assignment, all the quotes mentioned in the earlier assignment still sustain, but one more quote from Einstein is added. Because my personal philosophy of science still believes that science and religion go together (Quote #1 to 3). Human beings obtain wisdom and abilities from religion to understand the phenomena through science application to investigate the phenomena. While religion can cultivate a human beings’ sense of morality and humanity, it can also guide scientists when they conduct research that runs the risk of going beyond humane standards. However, after a semester, different views of religion are included in the current personal philosophy of science. At the beginning, religion was seen in a very limited way without beliefs and spirituality. In other words, religion was only about a specific system of faith and worship of God. Nonetheless, it now contained beliefs and spirituality. Although religion and spirituality is not totally the same, they are interconnected (Barker, 2007) and both provide meanings and purposes in human life (Bhagwan, 2010). What people believe and experience is not restricted to be from a systematic and structural belief. According to Wilber (1998), religion is embedded in human culture, so it can be treated as a context to explain human behavior. People can understand each other through consideration of others’ religion which is a product of a culture and folkways. That is why Martin Luther King, Jr. said religion interprets and Einstein stated science is lame without religion. Wilber (1998) suggested that empiricist science should broaden its sensory data by expanding conceptual operation and religion should utilize experiential evidence to verify or reject its truth c...
The relationship between religion and science has always been a complicated, precarious and sensitive issue. Religion and science have the same goal - to seek truth and understanding to our own existence and surroundings. Modern scientific thought is based on systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Religious thought differs as it’s based upon reflection and spirituality and focuses on beliefs and values. This is contrary to science which focuses on factual knowledge and relies on empirical evidence.
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.
But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam." The scientist confidently responded, "Sure, no problem." He bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt. God lovingly looked at him, grinned, and said, "No! You get your own dirt!" Just as the scientist was blind to the fact that there would have been no science without God, we realize that religion cannot be explained without the help of science. In other words, science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.