Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Religion and science in contrast
Religion and science in contrast
Religion vs science
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Religion and science in contrast
Science vs. Religion
Since the dawn of man, humans have striven to explain the many mysteries of the universe, and to justify our existence in it. Throughout this journey of self-understanding, numerous standpoints on human existence have evolved and merged into a complex, abstract manifestation called religion. However, as the human race has grown and advanced itself, many ideas expressed by religion seem less and less plausible. Advances in science and technology have yielded a new breed of human thought that has disturbed and shaken the foundations of religious ideology. Our new, scientifically grounded understanding of the universe has unfolded a plethora of answers to age-old questions, which are antithetical to the explanations offered by religion. As strong scientific evidence has surfaced which is contrary to the prevailing religious view, open-minded believers have adapted their beliefs accordingly, but many fundamentalists refuse to accept scientific evidence. This is the root of the dilemma between science and religion. Many philosophers and theists have offered their views concerning the ongoing battle between science and religion.
Reconciliation between science and religion is impossible, because the claims made by religion and the evidence provided by science are so extraordinarily different. The advance of science has caused many theists to compromise traditional religious beliefs in order to facilitate scientific evidence, thus proving that scientific explanations of the universe are more plausible than the rationales offered by religion. An excellent example of this can be seen in the question of the age of the planet Earth. According to religious theology, the Earth is less than ten thousand years old. However, there is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that proves the Earth to be many billions of years old. Many religious thinkers have responded to this evidence, by claiming that the methods used to ascertain the Earth's age are inaccurate. They argue that radioactive dating; a widely accepted method of determining the age of rocks, is inaccurate because there is no available rock sample of a known age, which the method can be calibrated to. However, this argument is obsolete, because the only calibration required to find the age of a rock is the measurement of decay rates, which can be found in the laboratory in...
... middle of paper ...
...ith. Many theists point out that certain aspects of nature are also invisible, such as gravitational fields and magnetic fields (Foster 60). However, a parallel cannot be drawn between the invisibility of these natural phenomenons and the invisibility of god, because these aspects of nature can be measured. God, on the other hand, cannot be proven to exist through empirical evidence.
If scientific evidence exists that refutes the teachings of the bible, then why do people believe in religion? Religion gives humanity a sense of security, a sense of individual purpose, and most importantly, brings people together. Arguably the most important aspects of any valid religion is its belief in a code of conduct, a set of moral teachings that define how people should behave towards others. Religion is one of the major ways one generation passes on its values and morals to each succeeding generation. Religion has also been viewed as a way to control the masses. According to Karl Marx, "Religion is the opium of the people" (Microsoft Bookshelf CD-ROM 1998). Despite the scientific arguments that challenge the teachings of religion, religion will always remain an institution in our society.
The battle between sciences and religion has been waged for as long as people have wanted to know what makes the world around work. Some may have turned to faith; because they couldn’t figure out how exactly it works, drawing on the ‘god of the gaps’ theory. The god of the gaps theory is endorsed by Neil DeGrasse Tyson as being how people have always ascribed what they, at that time, could not understand to God. "God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on" Saying that because they could not understand it, no one could because it must have been God’s domain. But in the modern world those ‘gaps’ are growing smaller and smaller, one of those gaps is, however, the “soul”. One of the major arguments from the religious community is ...
Evolution is a theory that is refuted by the majority of creationists; creationists argue that evolution is simply a “theory” and is not supported by scientific evidence. This argument is clearly false. In order for a scientific theory to become widely accepted by the majority of the scientific world, it must be supported with facts and evidence. In a recent Gallup Poll, 55% of scientists, a majority, believed in evolution with no divine intervention. An additional 40% of scientists believed in evolution with divine intervention; only 5% of scientists believe that the earth was created by a divine power in the last 10,000 years. However, the public opinion is nearly the direct opposite. 46% of those polled believed the earth was created by a divine power in the last 10,000 years; furthermore, 40% of those polled believe in evolution with divine intervention. Only 9% of those polled believed in evolution with no divine aid. The disparity between scientists and the public is too great to be ignored; despite the overwhelmingly scientific evidence, many people still do not fully support, or believe in the theory of evolution. There is also a clear correlation between belief in evolution and belief in God. While the polls attempting to record the religious beliefs of scientists are not always reliable, it is true that the percent of scientists that believe in the divine is much lower than that of the general public. According to the Eastern religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, these tensions between science and religion are only a Western issue, referring to the Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Many people, including scientists, believe that the relationship between science and religion should not...
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?”
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.
some, such as Karl max saw that religion is a way strong of a tool that impairs social evaluation. Which resulted in ethnic and religious cleansing and furthermore proved to be the wrong approach to defining the role that religion plays in societies behaviors. I for one, think that religion is an indispensable and integral part of human sociology; furthermore, I believe understanding this relationship would lead to social development.
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.
ABSTRACT: Curiously, in the late twentieth century, even agnostic cosmologists like Stephen Hawking—who is often compared with Einstein—pose metascientific questions concerning a Creator and the cosmos, which science per se is unable to answer. Modern science of the brain, e.g. Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind (1994), is only beginning to explore the relationship between the brain and the mind-the physiological and the epistemic. Galileo thought that God's two books-Nature and the Word-cannot be in conflict, since both have a common author: God. This entails, inter alia, that science and faith are to two roads to the Creator-God. David Granby recalls that once upon a time, science and religion were perceived as complementary enterprises, with each scientific advance confirming the grandeur of a Superior Intelligence-God. Are we then at the threshold of a new era of fruitful dialogue between science and religion, one that is mediated by philosophy in the classical sense? In this paper I explore this question in greater detail.
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...
While some people may believe that science and religion differ drastically, science and religion both require reason and faith respectively. Religion uses reason as a way of learning and growing in one’s faith. Science, on the other hand, uses reason to provide facts and explain different hypotheses. Both, though, use reason for evidence as a way of gaining more knowledge about the subject. Although science tends to favor more “natural” views of the world, religion and science fundamentally need reason and faith to obtain more knowledge about their various subjects. In looking at science and religion, the similarities and differences in faith and reason can be seen.
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.
How can we know that God exists? It is when a person stands on the top of a mountain or on the shore of an ocean he becomes aware of the vastness of the universe and wonder on the precision of the creation. Any logical person can conclude that nothing will be seen at a place without reason and it could not have been there unless some one kept it . In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments.
When considering the basis for the understanding of both science and religion it is interesting to distinguish that both are based on an overwhelming desire to define a greater knowledge, and comprehension of the universe that surrounds us. Now while, science has based its knowledge of experimental basis, researcher, and scholarly work; religion
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.
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.