Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare religion and science
Problems between religion and science
Science vs religion essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Compare religion and science
Since the beginning of human history there have been many explanations for events that seem out of human control. In recent civilized history, religious and since the beginning of human history there have been many explanations for events that seem out of human control. In recent civilized history, religious and scientific views have often clashed with one another. Religious ideas are usually presented first and then enough scientific evidence accumulates to dare religious beliefs. These findings of science are met with incredulity and most are considered a heresy. Since the middle ages until the 18th centuri, religious ideology was the most accepted way of explaining the unexplained. During the next couple hundred years, many members of academia(a school of philosophy), using science to back them up, came up with new ways of dealing with the unanswerable questions. When the church had the greatest power, men and women of science were viewed as the "wicked guys." In most cases it was safer to believe in the church and their ideas, in order not to be excommunicated or shunned by society, than to place their trust in charlatan scientists. As a result, many conflicts arise between men of religion and men of science. Even if a scientist set out to prove the church wrong and show some very strong evidence contrary to popular belief, he was usually shunned and his ideas denounced publicly. It is not until many people have similar evidence and findings do they gain any credibility with normal people and the church. Nowadays people believe that if a scientific view is false, then by continuing study and research the truth may be discovered. one may conclude that if no one presented new ideas, then intelligent thought would have no place in a society like that. Scientists like Darwin accepted the risks involved in presenting new ideas. Voltaire also was a revolutionary thinker. Although, he presented ideas of his own, he decided to satirize science and religion. Each society, church, men of academia, believes that their ideas are correct and therefore are the best of the world. It is true, even to this day, that each nation has a different set of standards, reasoning, and beliefs on how life works and what are the best possible things to believe in. In some cases, nations try to push those beliefs on other nations. This results in a push for new scientific research and other religious and philosophical beliefs of that nation, to fight the ideas that are being reflected on them.
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.
The scientific revolution can be considered one of the biggest turning points in European history. Because of new scientific ideas and theories, a new dawn of thinking and questioning of natural elements had evolved. Scientific revolution thinkers such as Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus all saw nature as unknowable and wanted to separate myths from reality. During the scientific revolution during mid 1500-late 1600s, key figures such as Isaac Newton and Nicolaus Copernicus greatly impacted Europe in terms of astronomical discoveries, scientific methods, and the questioning of God to challenge the church’s teachings.
The Scientific revolution in the 16th and 17th centuries changed the way that people views the world. Scientific philosophers such as Galileo and Descartes threw out the old teachings of the church and challenged them with new ways of thinking. These men sought to prove that rational thought could prove the existence of God. They also challenged that it was an understanding of a series of rational thoughts, not faith, would bring understanding of how the world worked. Traditional ways of thinking were ultimately challenged by logical and sensible rationale.
During the sixteenth century and even into the seventeenth century, scientific discoveries and new empirical ways of thinking began to emerge. This period of history is commonly referred to as the Scientific Revolution. The Scientific Revolution challenged past authorities by challenging church teachings, philosophy, and traditionally held views of humanity’s place in the cosmos.
The modern science view as well as the Scientific Revolution can be argued that it began with Copernicus’ heliocentric theory; his staunch questioning of the prior geocentric worldview led to the proposal of a new idea that the Earth is not in fact the center of the solar system, but simply revolving around the Sun. Although this is accepted as common sense today, the period in which Copernicus proposed this idea was ground-breaking, controversial, and frankly, world-changing. The Church had an immense amount of power, and was a force to be reckoned with; in the beginning of the Scientific Revolution, new scientific proposals and ideas were discouraged in many cases by the Church. A quote from Galileo’s Children does an excellent job summing up the conflict: “The struggle of Galileo against Church dogma concerning the nature of the cosmos epitomized the great, inevitable and continuing clash between religion and reason.” If evidence goes against scripture, the scientist is considered a heretic and is, like in Galileo’s case, forbidden to discuss the ideas any further. Galileo Galilei, who proposed solid evidence and theory supporting the heliocentric model, was forced to go back on his beliefs in front of several high officials, and distance himself from the Copernican model. This, luckily, allowed him to not be killed as a heretic, which was the next level of punishment for the crimes he was charged with, had he not went back on his beliefs. Incredible support was given through the young developing academies with a sense of community for scientists and academics; “Renaissance science academies represent a late manifestation of the humanist academy movement.” Since the Church was grounded traditionally evidence that went agains...
Scientists were skeptic because for their own knowledge they were questioning the priests who taught the natural things at church, it is ...
In Alfred North Whitehead’s “Religion and Science”, he nullifies the argument between the religious factions and scientists of the world by eliminating all grounds for the argument. Although debated to the “ends of the Earth”, Whitehead points out that these two subjects are actually based upon events that are unrelated. He states “Science is concerned with the general conditions which are observed to regulate phenomenon; whereas religion is wholly wrapped up in the contemplation of moral and aesthetic values”(Whitehead, Religion and Science). Through his definition of both viewpoints, he is able to explain one will never see the other, thus no argument exists.
The relationship between science and religion is not easy to navigate. On the most basic level, they are viewed as different types of thought. Religion, it seems, deals with the subjective, spiritual realm. Science, on the other hand, seems to deal with facts. It may then appear easy to separate the two realms of thought, and philosophers, theologians and scientists have from time to time attempted to do this. Both science and religion make hypotheses about the fundamental nature of human existence and the nature of the universe, however, and inevitably the claims of each come into conflict. Whether this conflict occurs on a personal level or between opposing institutions, the claims of one often seem to place the other in dire jeopardy. We have seen demonstrations of such conflict throughout history, especially in relation to the Christian faith.
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.
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.
This essay is going to mainly discuss the differences between religion and science. Examples such as the Genesis and Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory and conflicts in medicine are going to be used to demonstrate confrontation and conflicts between the two. The essay is also going to explain how science and religion might be similar. How each discipline has adapted to the changes in the universe and the stages of conflicts will also be
Science and the study of religion have existed in society for hundreds of years and have agreed and disagreed on many of the same topics. When it comes to solving problems and figuring out complex phenomena we can use both science and the study religion to get answers. While religious studies are not intended to solve problems it can be used and is used just like science to solve problems we have in society. Science is based more on reason and evidence while religion is based more on philosophical ideas and faith. Science is meant to answer problems that require reason and evidence while religion is not.
...ul attitudes regarding science exploration and religion or because they came later in the Revolution and the Church and society was more prepared to receive their messages. Religion was based on personal faith and guidance by the Church and prior to the Scientific Revolution, the Church had even extended their power into the world of science. Science and scientists proved to have the final say, not so much as to discredit the Roman Catholic Church but to dictate a place for science in the world. In the end, science and religion remained independent from each other and free of outside control, which allowed each person to define the universe and its workings for themselves. Through the many years of the Scientific Revolution, people were inspired to pursue knowledge for themselves and make social changes, thus fulfilling both social and intellectual revolutions.