Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Religion and science in contrast
Argument on the conflict between science and religion
Science v religion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Religion and science in contrast
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Christian belief encountered significant opposition. Until then, most of the world shared the belief of the “Medieval world view” that not only was the earth positioned at the center of the universe, but that God was all knowing, all powerful and all good. God was thought to have created and sustained the wondrous workings of the universe. This belief told the people all they needed to know about the meaning and purpose of life. Then, scientific discovery and methods began to undermine religious beliefs. Scientists began to reveal that natural laws and natural forces governed the world. Opposing beliefs, e.g. the Marxism belief, criticized Christian views. People like, Bacon, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton all played significant roles in challenging the recognized views at that time.
In contrast to the “medieval world view”, the “scientific universe” is impersonal, governed by natural laws and understandable in physical and mathematical terms. Many people trust the information science offers rather than religion because science seems to be more reliable. Science has replaced religion as the dominant intellectual authority because science offers the chance to understand the universe, whereas religion just assumes things. Many believe, as was said by Richard Dawkins, “the truth means scientific truth”. Along with the logical Positivists, they claimed the only meaningful statements were scientific. It is unfortunate that such...
During the Scientific Revolution, the struggle between faith and reason was exhibited through Galileo and his discoveries. The Catholic Church during the time period of the Scientific Revolution did not approve of any outside scientists who came up with new theories and observations. The Church believed that all information about how the world worked was in the bible and that was the only right source. In an excerpt from “What is Scientific Authority?” written by Galileo in 1615, it states, “Showing a greater fondness for their [Catholic Church’s] own opinions than for truth, they sought to deny & disprove the new things which, if they had cared to look for themselves, their own senses would have demonstrated to them…” Galileo Galilei himself knew that the Church was not willing to approve of new ideas from other scientists, but only from the teachings in the Bible. Later on in the excerpt, Galileo writes, “They [Catholic Church] hurled various charges &…made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properl...
The Scientific Revolution, during the 16th and 18th centuries, was a time of conflict. It was not a hand-to-hand martial conflict. It was a conflict of advancement, similar to the Cold War between the United States and the former Soviet Union. However, it was between the thinkers of the Scientific Revolution, such as Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei, and the Roman Catholic Church. At the time, the Catholic Church was the most powerful religious body in Europe. It controlled everything from education to faith to finances. Thinkers like Galileo took the risk and went against the church. This is shown through the documents below. Those documents tell the story of Galileo and how he was forced to revoke his support of heliocentrism by the church. The documents below also show the struggle between faith and reason that existed during this era of advancement by hindering the flourishment of the sciences by stating that it did not agree with the Bible and naming these early scientists as heretics.
In papal Rome in the early 16th century the “Good Book” was the reference book for all scientists. If a theory was supported in its holy pages, or at the very least not contradicted, then the idea had a chance of find acceptance outside the laboratory. Likewise, no theory no matter how well documented could be viewed with anything but disdain if it contradicted with the written word of, or the Church’s official interpretation of scripture. For these reasons the Church suppressed helio-centric thinking to the point of making it a hiss and a byword. However, this did not keep brave men from exploring scientific reason outside the canonical doctrine of the papal throne, sometimes at the risk of losing their own lives. While the Vatican was able to control the universities and even most of the professors, it could not control the mind of one man known to the modern world as Galileo Galilei. Despite a wide array of enemies, Galileo embarked on a quest, it seems almost from the beginning of his academic career, to defend the Copernican idea of a helio-centric universe by challenging the authority of the church in matters of science. Galileo‘s willingness to stand up for what he held to be right in the face of opposition from Bible-driven science advocates set him apart as one of the key players in the movement to separate Church authority from scientific discovery, and consequently paved the way for future scientific achievement.
Previously, the Catholic Church had professed to the entire medieval world that faith in God was absolute. Indeed, the medieval world was truly an age of faith. As such, ideas that went against the teachings of God were ignored and their preachers subsequently murdered. After the Crusades brought back old Aristotelian learning from the middle east, all this changed. Advances in Geography were made with the introduction of Ptolemaic Geography. More importantly than the rediscovery of ancient geography was the beginning of skepticism in Western Europe. No longer would the Church's word be taken on faith. The idea that the physical world could be understood through the use of empiricism-analytical thought-was also introduced. René Descartes even began to doubt his own existence until coming to the conclusion: "I think, therefore, I am." In this age we see the rise of deism. No longer is a priest's cryptic and dogmatic preachings the sole explanation for weather, personal failure, and scientific phenomena such as electricity. With deis...
While there were people like Galileo and Rembrandt who wanted to move past traditional ideas, many religious and intellectual scholars found the idea of new science as threatening because of the undesirable challenges it results in the installed traditions. Since these people remained quite, the church continued to control their beliefs, and remained powerful for a longer time.
In science people started to question the church and its powerthis may have been because the church's "indulgence" policy was so far out of line; as a result to this curiosity people started to study the natural world, discovering the secrets of the universe. Leonardo da Vinci was a huge part of the advancement in Science, with his inventions and theories. This was also the time period that Galileo discovered that the Earth revolved around the sunmuch to the dismay of the church.
‘And God went on to say: “Let an expanse come to be in between the
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?”
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.
“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.”
...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.
One of the greatest innovators of cosmology was Galileo Galilei, because not only did he challenge the geocentric model, but he also modified the telescope, which later allowed him to expand his view on the universe. Galileo lived through the reign of the Roman Catholic Church, which dictated what exactly their populations could believe in, which was all based from the bible. The Catholic church is not fond of opposition, and if anyone opposed their views or proposed a new idea, they faced consequences. Galileo was one of those people who opposed the catholic views, specifically by supporting and providing evidence for the heliocentric model, which was presented by Copernicus. This idea states that the sun at the center of our solar system, which opposed the geocentric model, a model that puts the earth at the center of the solar system. Since the church based their ideology completely on the bible, so the church refused to accept Galileo’s evidence that supported the opposing view, which then led to house arrests and even death threats. In the “Letter to the Grand Duchess”, Galileo discusses the need of an open interpretation of the bible, which can allow each and every person to have their very own perception of the bible, instead of
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
Over the course of the years, society has been reformed by new ideas of science. We learn more and more about global warming, outer space, and technology. However, this pattern of gaining knowledge did not pick up significantly until the Scientific Revolution. In the sixteenth and seventeenth century, the Scientific Revolution started, which concerned the fields of astronomy, mechanics, and medicine. These new scientists used math and observations strongly contradicting religious thought at the time, which was dependent on the Aristotelian-Ptolemy theory. However, astronomers like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton accepted the heliocentric theory. Astronomical findings of the Scientific Revolution disproved the fact that humans were the center of everything, ultimately causing people to question theology’s role in science and sparking the idea that people were capable of reasoning for themselves.
Scientism, the first of the “gods” of the age praises knowledge, research, and education (B, 94). Its reliance is on the power of man and the possibility of discovering truth in nature, and the cause of evil is ignorance, and lack of reason (B, 94). Scientism fights back against a biblical worldview with a rejection of sin nature, a machine-like universe and the reduction of humanity to objects (B, 95). The view that the world was created and continues to function and progress without a God implies a universe which is completely governed by the law of nature (B, 95). Once this is implemented into social sciences, people become objects which are pushed and formed into who they are for a desired outcome (B, 95). This reliance on nature turns