Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Relations Between Religion and Science
Science vs Religion- go through some of the debates
The Relations Between Religion and Science
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Relations Between Religion and Science
"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth…" (Genesis 1:1), the words that start it all if you are a Catholic. Children are brought up to believe that God took seven days out of his schedule to create the earth and all that is in and on it from a "formless wasteland" (Genesis 1:2). He gave man his shape and the keys to paradise and life rolls on from there. They know history of man through the Bible, and if it is not in the Bible, it did not happen. Die hard followers the Bible know little outside of the Good Book and thusly show their Those who took on the ideals of the enlightenment or raised with little to no theological beliefs have questioned the existence of God and the Bible. They have chosen to have the power of science be their creator and savior. No mythical oracles, no prophets, just the theories of motion, space, and relativity to guide them in their lives, and the gap has never been filled. To them, all of the questions can be answered with one answer: E=MC2. Since the first questions of the validity of the Bible arose with people like Aristotle, Plato, and Moses Maimonides. In fact, Maimonides said, "conflicts between science and the Bible arise from either from a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible," (Schroeder, 1997). What he means is that science cannot answer everything with science or the Bible; there must be some happy medium where the two can play off each other. The belief in religion and the understanding of science do not have to conflict and contradict each other; they can work together in helping people fully understand the universe, the world, life and death, and most importantly themselves.
The universe that surrounds us had no origin in the Bible, it is just there and only the creation of the earth is discussed. Scientists have calculated the power of the big bang to be 10120 in strength. "If the energy of the big bang were different by one part of 10120 there would be no life anywhere in the universe. The universe is tuned for life from its inception," (Schroeder, 1997). This statement is relaying messages of the two schools of thought at once. The religion translation of this statement is that something that precise could only have been made by some divine creator. The Scientific translation is none at al...
... middle of paper ...
...old as the birth one, but still does not give an answer to the afterlife. Death as seen as the body simply shutting down the heart, brain, and other vital organs stop functioning, thus having no energy left to operate and live. It does not tell where you go when you die if you go anywhere at all. God intentionally keeps that a secret from mortal men so that fear and obedience can be instilled. Science cannot explain the afterlife with a theory or a rule that has to follow an equation or variable. It is just out of the field of study for science.
People of the past have ascribed either to a scientific answer or to a theological belief to answer the questions they have. People pray to God for a cure to their disease, others visit a doctor or pharmacist. Nowadays people have become more liberal with their beliefs and where they look for answers. Priests go to the drugstore and scientists have been attending Sunday mass. The blending of the religions does not close doors and minds; it opens the mind to new interpretations of science and the Bible just the same. Harmony is being found, and questions that are more personal are being answered. It is truly something everyone can agree on.
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.
Chapter 3, The Bible, Creation, and Science by Robert Branson, PhD presented some interesting aspects of biblical interpretations relative to science. “With the rapid changes and developments that all areas of modern science produce, it is a general belief that if an informed person is made to choose between science or the Bible, science will be chosen.” (loc 647 Kindle, Branson) Dr. Branson tries and explain the three positions people take with biblical studies. The three positions examined by Dr. Branson are 1. Concordance, 2. Young-Earth Creati...
The history of opposition between science and religion has been steady for about half of a century. As early as the 1500's, science and religion have been antagonistic forces working against each other. Science was originally founded by Christians to prove that humans lived in a orderly universe (Helweg, 1997). This would help to prove that the universe was created by a orderly God who could be known. Once this was done, science was considered by the church to be useless. When people began to further investigate the realm of science, the church considered them to be heretics; working for the devil. According to Easterbrook (1...
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...
agree that “physics is the manner in which we argue about the objective side of
Christian Science is an idealistic and most radical form of transcendental religiosity. The study of Christian Science teaches a feeling of understanding of God's goodness and the differences between good and evil, life and death. The purpose of this paper is to address how the study of Christian Science helps us better understand the impact of globalization in America, as well as the impact of American on globalization. This paper is important because globalization features a dominant worldview. All throughout the world people believe, study and teach different types of religious movements that impact others. People need to better understand how certain religions modify, conflict with, and impact the world. First, it will discuss the life and work of the founder, Mary Baker Eddy. Secondly, it will examine the primary rituals and religious services of the Christian Science movement. Then, it will outline the precursors and history of the religion. In the conclusion, a response will be offered to the question of how Christian Science helps us better understand the impact of globalization on America and of America on globalization.
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?”
First, I will demonstrate Stephen Jay Gould’s argument against the overlapping between science and religion, which is as follows:
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 community 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. Genesis 1:1-2 says: “First this: God created the heavens and earth—all you see, all you don’t see.
...eveloped, and especially during the Enlightenment, God and religion were relegated to a lesser role because it was thought that science could explain everything. Now, though, the farther we plunge into science, the more questions we find that can only be answered by religion. When science and Christianity are both studied and well understood, especially in the context of their limitations, it is possible to integrate them, or at least for them to complement each other, in my view of the world.
The Bible and the written laws of nature are like two different books. These books are written and read in completely different languages. The Bible was written in the view of people of that time; whereas, science laws are constantly written and changed for modern world. Therefore, there always will be some controversy between two thoughts. There are still many unknown things in the world that science is yet to find out. Christianity on the other hand accepts extraordinary occurrences and prevents science from explaining things that it cannot. Christianity is needed to explain unbelievable phenomena that are part of our daily life.
'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light…'(Gen 1:1.5) '…then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. '(Gen 2:7) This part from the bible is a typical example of what people used to believe before scientists came and gave logical explanations to the questions of mankind.It is possible, of course, to define a non-supernatural "religious" worldview that is not in conflict with science. But in all of its traditional forms, the supernatural religious worldview makes the assumption that the universe and its inhabitants have been designed and created by "forces" or beings which transcend the material world. The material world is postulated to reflect a mysterious plan originating in these forces or beings, a plan which is knowable by humans only to the extent that it has been revealed to an exclusive few. Criticising or questioning any part of this plan is strongly discouraged, especially where it touches on questions of morals or ethics. Science, on the other hand, assumes that there are no transcendent, immaterial forces and that all forces which do exist within the universe behave in an ultimately objective or random fashion. The nature of these forces, and all other scientific knowledge, is revealed only through human effort in a dynamic process of inquiry. The universe as a whole is assumed to be neutral to human concerns and to be open to any and all questions, even those concerning human ethical relationships. Such a universe does not come to us with easy answers. We must come to it and be prepared to work hard. According to Thomas W. Clark science and religion are in a battle from the day that scientists got in the fields of the theologises
Barbour writes, “Changing cultural presuppositions also affect perception of what is significant in the social world.” (pg.137) It becomes so simple to say that science and religion are completely different, and while they may share differences I think that it is unfair to say that science and religion are separate from one another. If careful consideration is taken you can take notice that may issues that arise in the Bible such as consuming red meat, banning pork, discarding fat within meat are all backup by scientific facts. Issues that arise within science such as Einstein’s seven invisible dimension that are left unexplained, however many religion believe in the seven levels of “the heavens”, “the invisible”, “the afterlife”, and “the everlasting”. Issues such as the ones mentioned above are ones that connect science and religion on such as deeper level than many care to reveal. I think that it is fair to say that both science and religion have become so reluctant in their own stubborn, self-centered ideologies. Both science and religion have become so consumed in their own ideologies, and understandings that neither allows attention from the others research of teachings. I whole heartedly believe that if science and religion were used to approve one another rather than disprove one another there could be more of a mutual balance and connection between the two. There are numerous similarities in the processes that are taken when achieving new understandings, and knowledge. Also if we allowed ourselves to be honest if science and religion worked together rather than against each other there could be so many new discoveries that could be made, and so many debates that could be put to rest. Like I mentioned before but I think it is important, it either side stopped trying to disprove one another and rather
First off, it is important to realize that religion and science have to be related in some way, even if it is not the way I mentioned before. If religion and science were completely incompatible, as many people argue, then all combinations between them would be logically excluded. That would mean that no one would be able to take a religious approach to a scientific experiment or vice versa. Not only does that occur, but it occurs rather commonly. Scientists often describe their experiments and writings in religious terms, just as religious believers support combinations of belief and doubt that are “far more reminiscent of what we would generally call a scientific approach to hypotheses and uncertainty.” That just proves that even though they are not the same, religion and science have to be related somehow.