More handpicked essays just for you.
Relationship between science and religion
Similarity between religion vs science
Similarity between religion vs science
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Relationship between science and religion
"Great is our fear of the unknown." Titus Livius made this statement in a time when science and religion were one and the same; a time when pagan mysticism gracefully intertwined itself in the sparse gaps of scientific knowledge. The two have since diverged and people-- society-- have had to make a choice: will science, or religion, sate the innate curiosity borne by human beings? This is a question that haunted me for the first fifteen years of my life, a question I constantly pondered.
As a young boy, one could say I was a religious person; certainly, my parents wanted me to be religious and I trusted in that judgment. I attended church, if begrudgingly at times, and trusted in the information given to me during the sermons. But, being the young person I was-- I had an endless stream of questions; a desire to understand the world around you is an intrinsic part of being young. The only problem is that, every once in a while, a question I asked would be greeted by a blank stare, a moment of perplexed, palpable silence followed by a response I grew to dread, "That's just the way i...
“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 unknown in the universe makes humans uncomfortable. Throughout history, people have emerged with answers to mind-boggling universal life questions. Why do humans exist? Are supernatural forces real? How was the earth created? People have attempted to answer these questions with science, theories, and most of all religion. But humans don’t always get the answer to the mind-boggling universal questions right. Salem’s colonial witch trials were horrific examples of religion encouraged by fear of the unknown and imagination. The Salem Witch Trials were a direct result of religious extremism, fear, and delusion.
Faith plays a pivotal role in our construction of religion. The work of Dr. Sharon Parks analyzes faith development throughout one’s life span but pays special attention to emerging adulthood. Dr. Parks has an extensive academic career which incorporates her attendance of Princeton University’s theological seminary. As well as her attendance of Harvard University’s divinity school where she obtained her doctorate. Through her extensive research in areas such as “developmental psychology, religion, theology, leadership and ethics” (Service Resources, 2014) Parks is able to focus her work on faith development. Her work is influenced by theorists such as Erickson, Piaget, Perry and Levinson but primarily it is based off of Fowlers work in faith development. Her background in teaching and counseling has allowed her close access to seeing students during this important portion of their lives.
First, religion has often played an important role in people’s lives, however its significance continues to decrease in recent decades. Parents do not pass on faith or beliefs onto their children, because most parents do not have faith or beliefs. These parents believe it would be hypocritical to teach their children about being spiritual, when they are not spiritual themselves. Children often go to their parents with questions regarding matters such as death, life, and God, but "Western culture is so secularized that parents can evade or dismiss 'religious' questions without feeling that they’re merely getting themselves off the hook" (Brandt 193). In contrast wit...
As said by Yale professor of psychology and cognitive science, "Religion and science will always clash." Science and religion are both avenues to explain how life came into existence. However, science uses evidence collected by people to explain the phenomenon while religion is usually based off a belief in a greater power which is responsible for the creation of life. The characters Arthur Dimmesdale and Roger Chillingworth in Nathaniel Hawthorne 's novel, The Scarlet Letter, represent religion and science, respectively, compared to the real world debate between science and religion. Roger Chillingworth is a physician who is associated with science. (ch. 9; page 107) "...made [Roger Chillingworth] extensively acquainted with the medical science of the day... Skillful men, of the medical and chirurgical profession, were of rare occurrence in the colony...They seldom... partook of the religious zeal that brought other emigrants across the Atlantic." The people of the Puritan community traveled across the Atlantic for religious reasons, and because men affiliated with medical science did not tend to practice religion, they rarely inhabited this community. Chillingworth, falling under the category of "skillful men of the medical and chirurgical profession," would not be expected to reside in this community. The narrator through emphasizes this with his rhetorical questioning, "Why, with such a rank in the learned world, had he come hither? What could he, whose sphere was in great cities, be seeking in the wilderness?" These questions demonstrate that it was so strange for Chillingworth to appear in this community because of his association with science. Perhaps, the phrase "with such rank in the learned world" could yield the narra...
Stanley Kramer's film, Inherit the Wind, examines a trial based on the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee. Often referred to as "The Trial of the Century" (Scopes Trial Web Page), the Scopes trial illuminated the controversy between the Christian theory of creation and the more scientific theory of evolution. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, was arrested for illegally teaching evolutionism to his class. "The meaning of the trial emerged because it was seen as a conflict of social and intellectual values" (Scopes Trial Web Page). Kramer's film dramatizes this conflict between the Christian believers and the evolutionists in "Hillsboro, heavenly Hillsboro, the buckle on the Bible belt" (Inherit the Wind). Prosecutor Matthew Brady represents the values of fundamental Christianity while defense attorney Henry Drummond is the voice of reason and science. Although the two men have been good friends and partners in the past, the case in Hillsboro illuminates the difference in their values. Through the scene on the porch with Matthew Brady and Henry Drummond, director Stanley Kramer illustrates the incessant tug-of-war between religion and science. More specifically, camera angle and Drummond's metaphor of the "Golden Dancer" help deliver Kramer's belief in evolutionism.
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 Scientific Christians religion was founded and discovered in the nineteenth century by Mary Baker Eddy. She described it as "the law of God, the law of good". In the Christian Science faith by god is the infinite love and it is believed that through prayer anything can be healed and restored. At a young age Mary Baker Eddy looked for the answer in human suffering. She experienced a critical injury and tried to gain her health back through many therapeutic theories of that time period, things such as "homeopathy; the curing of disease by the internal and external use of water, and hydropathy; treating disease by drugs, given in minute doses, that would produce in a healthy person symptoms similar to those of the disease, and Graham’s dietary systems; feeding the body fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains". There was no improvement so she looked to the bible for answers and prayers. She was able to get up with no help and walk around the room. She surprised her friends. She told them that her prayer had worked. Her health improved in the months ahead. Baker being able to move across the room changed her life. Mary Baker saw that spiritual healing was based on Divine laws of God, Spirit, and these laws could help heal human suffering and
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.
...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.
At first glance, many facets of science and religion seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Because of this, I have generally kept them confined to separate spheres in my life. I have always thought that science is based on reason and cold, hard facts and is, therefore, objective. New ideas have to be proven many times by different people to be accepted by the wider scientific community, data and observations are taken with extreme precision, and through journal publications and papers, scientists are held accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their work. All of these factors contributed to my view of science as objective and completely truthful. Religion, on the other hand, always seems fairly subjective. Each person has their own personal relationship with God, and even though people often worship as a larger community with common core beliefs, it is fine for one person’s understanding of the Bible and God to be different from another’s. Another reason that Christianity seems so subjective is that it is centered around God, but we cannot rationally prove that He actually exists (nor is obtaining this proof of great interest to most Christians). There are also more concrete clashes, such as Genesis versus the big bang theory, evolution versus creationism, and the finality of death versus the Resurrection that led me to separate science and religion in my life. Upon closer examination, though, many of these apparent differences between science and Christianity disappeared or could at least be reconciled. After studying them more in depth, science and Christianity both seem less rigid and inflexible. It is now clear that intertwined with the data, logic, and laws of scien...
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.
The relationship between science and religion has been debated for many years. With strong personal opinions and beliefs, it is not surprising that no progress has been made in this argument. In my opinion, I feel as though religion and science have to be related in some way. There is no possible way people can separate two things that attempt to prove the same facts. My belief is that a metaphorical bridge has to be formed to connect the two. Personally, I feel as though science can be a compliment to religion, and that the scientific discoveries can and should be used to prove that God exists, not disprove it. If science did this, then the relationship between science and religion could be a friendly one. If that happened, people could stop debating and fighting over the two, allowing priests and scientists to talk and work together peacefully.
Religion did not clash with science for most of the 6000 years of history because religion can be used to explain those things that science can not explain, or vise versa. The sciences like astronomy, biology, geology, meteorology and psychology superseded religion, according to some people because it was used to understand and explain things that didn’t make sense through religion. The Phiolecus’ and Copernius’ ideas were both seen as impious, in their day because they didn’t see it possible for science to explain what religion couldn’t explain. It was hard for them to believe in something else besides religion. Furthermore, it was hard for them to go against something that they had already been believing before their ideas were introduced.