Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How religion plays a role in science
Similarities and differences between science and religion
How religion plays a role in science
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How religion plays a role in science
5) in terms of science vs religion one of biggest most heated debates in the world. The argument goes that if you’re religious then you hate science and disagree with its findings and if you’re a scientist then you disagree with religious beliefs there are some people who believe in both. Religious people believe in faith and God which science sometimes disproves there God. The two groups have always been fighting since the medieval times. It usually consisted of scientist being burned by the stake for their findings. In my point of view of the topic I'm on the science side in the fact that they tend to be more correct than religions. That's my point of view I tend to believe in fact more than faith. One thing I would like to add is that …show more content…
one quote at the end of the movie the one that states that both scientific people and religious people have a common goal which is truth. Probably one of my new favorite quotes.
The sub plot of the movie for religion vs science is that Ellie and the other guy don't know his name like each other but are complete opposites of each other and how they try proving the other one wrong in a friendly manner. Then you have the government that's a really firm believer in God and makes their decisions based on bible or on the belief of God. Lastly you have the religious terrorist group protesting the aliens and scientists. Which they eventually have a suicide bomber blow up the 333 billion dollar machine in the hopes to stop the world from seeing the aliens. To conclude science and religion have always gone after each other and are complete opposites to each other and this movie show cases that , but the movie also makes a good point of pointing out that the two groups are …show more content…
similar 4) I personally believe in aliens and I know that you do too. The universe is too big for it to be empty. The Chances of there being aliens on another planet are huge considering the size of the universe and how old it is. The movie supported my belief that there are aliens because during the beginning of the movie it shows us how the farther we go out in space the more quiet it becomes. Making me so we realize how small and quiet we are and how hard it would be to hear us. The movie also supports my belief that they would be friendly to us in the movie by giving us technology allowing us to visit them. I don't believe something like war of worlds would happen there would be no point in taking over earth or killing us off there are many planets that can support life and if they can travel to our planet then they can surely go to another one. 3) How our society would act is portrayed very well in the movie in the fact that there would be mass suicides around the world.
Mass chaos would happen as everyone would be panicking and looking toward our government for answers or help. We then would have nut jobs rioting and everyone would be arguing what we should do our governments wouldn't know how to respond to this event. After this event what would most likely occur would be mass build up of militaries in panic and in increase of spending to nasa and other space industries there would be increasement to the amount of telescopes we have and satellites. The obama administration would then look for a method of communicating with them and would most likely build the machine with the world's help how. Society as a whole would crumble no one would go to there jobs. There would be anti alien protesters and people wanting the aliens to come. In the movie all theses things happen except for the building up of militaries/arms that's not shown in the movie. What was shown was at the end there was Ellie talking to children about how there would be more telescopes being built. Then there was the part where Ellie is driving to the telescope compound where there was a crowd of people protesting and rejoicing the aliens contact. To conclude on how society would act we would most likely go into a state of panic with our governments scrambling on what to do on this situation. The movie and my opinion on what would happen are
pretty similar in the fact that the directors opinion and mine are almost the exact same except for the military build up and the riots happening around the world.
There are some theories that science cannot prove. Science explains all of the logical and natural things in life through observation and experimentation. Religion explains all of the spiritual and mystical things in life. Religion is the belief and worshipping of a supernatural force like God. Jane Goodall is an outlier in the science industry. She believes in God and is also a scientist. Most scientists are only agnostic or atheists. Scientists only have one viewpoint. They only think logically and try to prove the existence of things. Religious people believe in a higher power that created everything and control everything. Jane Goodall has the perfect philosophy. When science is the only “window” someone bases their life on, there are drawbacks because there are a lot of things science cannot explain, logically. When religion is the only “window” someone bases their life on, there are drawbacks because there are a lot of things religion cannot explain, spiritually. When a person bases their life on both science and religion, more mysteries are answered. When both science and religion is part of a person’s philosophy, there are no drawbacks because they either support each other’s claims, do not explain each other, or supports one but not the
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.
My tentative solution to the problem is therefore presented in FIGURE 1. Here the panoply of positions concerning the S&R debate is arranged along two axes: on the abscissa we have the level of contrast between science and religion, which goes from none (same worlds model) to moderate (separate worlds) to high (conflicting worlds).
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...
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 the history of science vs. religion there have been no issues more intensely debated than evolution vs. creationism. The issue is passionately debated since the majority of evidence is in favor of evolution, but the creation point of view can never be proved wrong because of religious belief. Human creation breaks down into three simple beliefs; creation theory, naturalistic evolution theory, and theistic evolution theory. The complexities of all three sides create a dilemma for what theory to support among all people, religious and non-religious.
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.
There are different viewpoints on the question “what is the universe made of?” I think that both science and religion offer their own explanation to this topic and they sometimes overlap, which creates contradictions. Therefore, I do not agree with Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial, which claims that there is a fine line separating science from religion. That being said, I think the conflict between science and religion is only in the study of evolution. It is possible for a scientist to be religious if he is not studying evolution, because science is very broad and it has various studies. In this essay, I will talk about the conflict between religion and science by comparing the arguments from Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. I argue that science and religion do overlap but only in some area concerning evolution and the cosmic design. Furthermore, when these overlaps are present it means that there are conflicts and one must choose between science and religion.
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.
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...
Christianity and science are seen to conflict with each other because people approach both views the same way; instead, they should be taken differently. There are certain things that can be explained with science and other things with Christianity. There are incidents that science cannot explain and people believe that those things are still true without evidence. Christianity is not opposed to science unless it contradicts the word of God written in the Bible. Scientific method is not the only way to find the absolute truth. The scientific and Christian view of the world will always have some conflict and misunderstanding because they attempt to explain in essence two different things.
Understanding science and religion historically most individuals would assume that the two differ more than they relate. For decades, there has been the overwhelming debate about the differences between science and religion, and the issues that have set them apart from each other. However, personally, when it comes to the views, and goals of the two they share very similar ideologies and attributes.
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.