Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The relationship between faith and reason
The relationship between faith and reason
The relationship between faith and reason
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The relationship between faith and reason
Agnostics often accuse religious people of being irrational because the concept of faith is irrational on its face. From their perspective, it’s difficult to gainsay that accusation when many of those same religious people (far from all) then proceed to fight evolution education, discount climate change science and avoid vaccinating their children. These are really all grievances for the lefties who feel like facts are being overrun primarily because they feel that religious people don’t listen to facts; rather, they see religious people as only engaging in conversation on these kinds of subjects with the intent to convert a nonbeliever, which gets under some people’s skin. As problematic as that can sometimes be, it is arguably the utmost …show more content…
People are against scientific reasoning in increasing numbers these days, and many institutions spend copious amounts of money to keep anti-scientific reasoning alive so that they can capitalize on it. For irreligious people, it’s sometimes unnerving and even frustrating when it seems as though any conversation you have with a Christian, regardless of the topic, always comes back to the thread of trying to convince you that God is real or that you need religion in your life. It’s judgmental and too condemnatory; it makes people feel like a hive mind is trying to control how they organize their own lives.
On the other hand, though, pro-science atheists, for example, do the same thing in their frustration but advocating for a different conversion. From the perspective of the Christian, it can seem like an invitation to speak on the subject when everything you — the atheist — say carries connotations that imply the big bang theory is valid or that evolution supplants Creation. Christians are sensitive to invalidation because non-Christians of all types are often challenging Christianity. Both sides, however, are reactionary, and both sides are equally committed to trying to convert the other
…show more content…
Even so, this is usually the point in the US, for example, at which conservatives might bring up school prayer, enraging liberals who don’t want to be forced not only to pray in school but even to be exposed to others praying in school. The point liberals get right is that it is, indeed, a manipulative encroachment on children’s ability to make up their own minds about religion and spiritual matters. The same is true of subjecting children of faith to classes in which the instructor’s not content to simply teach you the concept but is compelled to convince you of its
One of the most visible critics of science today, and the progenitor of the anti-science sentiment is the religious community, specifically the conservative Christians. One can hardly read the newspaper without reading of one religious figurehead or another preaching on the "fallacy of science," pushing their own brand of "truth" on whoever would hear them. As Bishop writes "It is discouraging to think than more than a century after the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species (1859), and seventy years after the Scopes trial dramatized the issue, the same battles must still be fought."(256) And the loudest rallying cries to these battles can be heard issuing from the throats of the ranks of zealots and their hordes of followers.
Faith is in the heart and as has been said, the heart has reason which reason cannot understand. So if it were a fight over finding rationality, it would not be fully supported because finding the complete and total reason for faith will never be found.
Mrs. Moreno and the other plaintiffs in this case believes religious education should be the responsibility of parents and religious communities, and not the public schools to which she sends her children (ACLU, 2007). Additionally, Mrs. Moreno and the other plaintiffs’ feels the use of their tax dollars to promote and endorse religion in the public school system is unconstitutional (ACLU, 2007).
No Prayer in Public Schools Chapter three of Civil Liberties: Opposing Viewpoints inspired me to research today’s issues of school prayer. To understand how we got to where we are today, I first delved into our country's history of court cases pertaining to rulings on prayer in schools. Lastly, to update my audience on how our lives are being affected today, I directed my efforts toward finding current situations. By analyzing these situations, I gained knowledge for a better understanding of why society needs to be aware of these controversies. I don’t think there should be any form of organized prayer in today’s public schools.
Prayer in School: Good or Bad? As secular humanists and groups like the Christian Coalition are at war with each other regarding prayer in high schools behind closed doors in Washington DC, the average high school kid is the one that gets caught in the middle. For years now there has been a heated debate about whether or not prayer should be allowed in school. Every time the argument is rekindled, it ends in a stalemate, and is a topic that campaigning politicians tend to stay away from.
A third student interjects with the secular country like our own does and should treat each argument as valid. However, only the third student’s argument cites scientific evidence. Is it fair that we are denying that intelligent design is taught as an alternative to evolution in our science classes? When a belief has no legitimate scientific backing, it is not science, but rather a philosophy, whereas biology is in fact science, which is why intelligent design does not belong in science classes in public schools. Since the time that teaching evolution in public schools was banned as heresy and taboo for contradicting the Bible, most public school systems today take an opposite approach in which creationism is seldom taught – the controversy, however, never diminished.
"God help, I'm so lost!" If you listen carefully, this is a common thought that is heard throughout many schools in the nation. Is this thought appropriate? The following statement clearly shows that the law allows students and adults to practice religion, but at the same time be respective of others and their beliefs even if they do believe or if they don't. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (First Amendment, The Constitution of the United States). Prayer is not normally permitted as a scheduled part of classroom activities, because it would result in the violation of the principle of church-state separation, which has been defined by court interpretations of the 1st Amendment to the U.S, Constitution. The separation principle is extended to Public school as an arm of the government, with an exception which can be permitted if, during the school year, a mixture of prayers, statements, etc are delivered, using material derived from a number of different religions and secular sources. So far, this has never been tried in a school or ruled upon by a court (Religion in Public).
Religion in school can be defined as the practice of any personal religious belief or act in a place of education. To say that religion is a big topic of interest to a lot of people in the United States today is a bit of an understatement. The debate over the separation of church and state has been going on without end for years. With many different perspectives on the matter and even more opinions on how it should be handled. Since the beginning many people have challenged the role that religion has played in education. Should schools teach religion? If so, can they do it evenhandedly? Will they misinterpret the religion wrong? How many people would be offended? Would we be better off without it so that it doesn’t cause controversy? The problem is can we truly answer any of these arguments without the opposite side disagreeing? Many of these questions are rooted from the same controversy that is happening in schools today. Aside from the separation of church and states comes one of the vastly debatable topics of education allowing religion which is prayer in school. While a few believe that prayer in school is constructive to the development of a child and their faith, others may conclude that it could completely denounce the faith of a child. Because this is an ongoing controversy further research on whether religion should or should not be allowed in public education is usually boils down to two major points the First Amendment and is religion good for our children? Could we potentially have a compromise or could the two opposing sides meet somewhere in the middle?
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?”
In today’s society, many topics create a very substantial amount of controversy between different groups of people. From abortion to the healthcare reform, there are countless topics of discussion. One of the major and ongoing controversial topics in the religious society is the Big Bang theory versus Creation. One side of the controversy is, predominately, the scientific community, with the other end obviously being the religious community.
Many atheists have used science as a way to disapprove the existence of God. Science is not an accurate way of disapproving the existence of God(2). Scient...
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...
Annie Laurie Gaylor quoted Thomas Jefferson in her article The Case Against School Prayer, “No citizen shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever…” and that to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of [religious] opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical” (Gaylor, 1995, p. 7). No man should have to be subject to anything that he does not believe in. Prayer should not be allowed in the public school system because of the idea of separation of church and state and the First Amendment.
While students are attending public schools they should be aware of their religion options. The student should have the right to practice their religion as they please, just on the own time. Yes, religion plays a huge part in molding a person but, should be practiced when the time is available, not in a classroom setting. The government should have the ability to control the protection of the students that just want to learn. The capability to regulate the religious practices while attending public educational institutions should be left to the government. Faith, religion and belief, usually are three words that are used to describe one situation, although these words have three different meanings. To have faith in something or someone you must first believe in it and also accept it as well, but have a belief without evidence. Religion is a belief in a heavenly superhuman power or principle, such as the almighty or creator to all things. Everyone has faith and belief, but not all believers believe in the almighty. Allowing religion into public schools while everyone attending not having the same belief is unfair, unconstitutional and is complicated to teach to a verity of students.
I think the intended objective was to establish that religions are irrational and that the idea of God is unprovable and, therefore, unscientific. If that is true, I think I have understood the article clearly. I guess I cannot find a reason to contend this theory. My question is why does it have to be scientific? Why do we need to prove something?