More handpicked essays just for you.
Relationship between science and religion
Relationship between science and religion
Relationship between science and religion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Truth About Physics and Religion
Many people believe that physics and religion are separate entities.
They claim that physics deals only with the objective, material world, while religion deals only with the world of values. It is obvious, from these, and from many other comparisons, that conflicts have arisen between physics and religion. Many are convinced that the two fields completely oppose each other, and are not related in any ways. Many people, who follow a particular religion, feel offended by the claims that physicists have made, while physicists believe that religion has no basis in reality. I will show, however, that these conflicts are founded on a misunderstanding, and that there is no division between physics and religion. I will also prove that the misunderstanding lies in the parables of religion and in the statements made by physicists.
Furthermore, I will show that only physicists can really know the truth of physics, and only religious followers can know the truth of that religion; everyone else has to take it on faith.
Many people believe that physics and religion are entirely separate.
They claim that physics is only concerned with discovering what is true or false, while religion is concerned with what is good or evil. Scientists appear to agree that “physics is the manner in which we argue about the objective side of reality.” Religious followers, on the other hand, agree that “religion is the way we express the subjective decisions that help us choose the standards by which we live.” Although these definitions seem to be contrasting, an important element remains absent, an element that must first be considered before religion and physics can be compared.
Those who think that religion has no basis in reality also believe that there is an “obvious” separation between the two fields. They think that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. Paul Dirac, a physicist, once said:
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. Dirac, and those who think the same way, however, fails to consider the essential element that has caused many to misunderstand the relationship between physics and religion. What they fail to realize is that religion uses language in quite a different way from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the language of science.
Without theories, scientists’ experiments would yield no significance to the world. Theories are the core of the scientific community; therefore figuring out how to determine which theory prevails amongst the rest is an imperative matter. Kuhn was one of the many bold scientists to attempt to bring forth an explanation for why one theory is accepted over another, as well as the process of how this occurs, known as the Scientific Revolution. Kuhn chooses to refer to a theory as a ‘paradigm’, which encompasses a wide range of definitions such as “a way of doing science in a specific field”, “claims about the world”, “methods of fathering/analyzing data”, “habits of scientific thought and action”, and “a way of seeing the world and interacting with it” (Smith, pg.76). However in this case, we’ll narrow paradigm to have a similar definition to that of a ‘theory’, which is a system of ideas used to explain something; it can also be deemed a model for the scientific community to follow. Kuhn’s explanation of a Scientific Revolution brings to light one major problem—the problem of incommensurability.
Ross, H. (1997c). The Shell Game of Evolution and Creation. [Online]. Available: http://www.reasons.org/resources/papers/shellgame.html. [Oct. 1997].
Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). Arguing About Science. Argument! (pp. 396-398). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Co..
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...
Religion versus science, the debates and conflicts have been on for centuries. For both religious and scientific ideals, the faith people have drives them. In this paper, I will examine the story of “The Eye of Apollo” by G.K. Chesterton, and the episode “House vs. God” of House, M.D., in order to question this conflict. The main character—Father Brown—in “The Eye of Apollo” combines his reasoning with his religious ideals and beliefs, or we can say his faith in God leads him to the truth of the crime. However, if we try to have a deeper look at the both the rational and religious sides of Father Brown, his perspectives on the immortality and justice are similar to Dr House, who interprets his rationality based on science. Thus both the beliefs and faith in religion and science in some way reflect the faith and way of thinking of people, and the two different ideals don’t necessarily conflict with each other.
This essay aims to discuss the problems of the common view of science which was presented by Alan Chalmers by Popperian's view and my personal opinions. Chalmers gives his opinion about what science is and the judgment will be made in this essay through the Popperian hypothetico-deductive and my arguments will be presented in this essay. Popperian is an important philosopher of science who developed hypothetico-deductive method, which is also known as falsificationism. In my opinion, I disagree Chlamer points of view of science and this will be present in essay later. I will restrict my arguments into three parts due to the word limitation. Three aspects will be discussed in this essay: justifying the view through the Popper's view, my agreement about the Popper's objections and additional personal opinions.
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.
In recent research, I have discovered that some people think that science and Christianity cannot go together and some may argue that science and Christianity may go hand and hand. This paper is going to discuss what science is. It will give information about the areas of which science cannot give information. My personal opinion, on the reasons the average person considers science as applicable to everything, will also be discussed. Lastly, I will cover some implications to the Christian regarding the limits of science.
However, if we could truly realise our being as the Absolute then the objective world would cease to appear real. What does this hypothesis mean for the physicist's idea of matter? If the physicist limits his idea of matter to the laws of physics, then there is no problem as they all exist in the material world. Matter can then be seen as independent of individual minds. However, the independence of mind is just as much an appearance as material objects are.
Over centuries, the epic battle between modern science and ancient religion rose to the level of wars, resulting in millions of deaths all over nations. Since the days of Galileo, religion has tried to kill any kind of scientific thinking, logic reasoning, or theories. Science is no innocent victim as it has always tried to wipe out any religious meanings and the existence of God, throughout contaminated evolution theories and philosophical thinking. However, scientists nowadays are more reasoning; believing that faith is a gift they haven’t yet received. A man devoid of religion is like a horse with no bridle– A Latin proverb. Religion can no longer fulfil people’s aspirations owing to its unbearable constrains over science, the uncertainty of its value in a world spinning out of control, and the fact that it’s a theory that lacks coherence in its system and supporting evidence for its beliefs, contradicting many proven scientific discoveries regarding creation yet denying itself. It cannot physically protect people from any harm that may befall them. Science and religion are similar in that both of them have constraints imposed on them. In the case of religion that constraint is faith.
Prior to the 1990’s, the problem of scientific objectivity was a question many philosophers tried to grapple with. Initially, the Logical Positivist’s view of scientific objectivity was most popular. They held to the belief that science was overall objective because of the distinction between the “context of discovery” and “context of justification,” which still allowed for science to contain some subjective elements (Longino 172). Basically, Positivist’s allowed for subjective qualities, such as mental makeup of scientists and values scientist brought in to their scientific work, by stating that the initial formulation or “discovery” of hypothesis/theories included subjective qualities. However, these subjective characteristics were negated by the fact that when investigating theories scientists focused on comparing their hypothesis to observable consequences in an empirical and objective manor (“context of justification). Thus, this allowed the Positivist’s to “acknowledge the play of subjective factors in initial development of hypotheses and theories while guaranteeing that their acceptance [is] determined not by subjective preferences but by observed reality” (Longino 172). However, although this theory was popular for some period of time, a philosopher by the name of Helen Longino approached the problem of scientific objectivity in a different way. She believed that science was a social practice that involved the inevitable input of various subjective factors such as scientist’s values, beliefs, etc… when performing their work. However, she goes on to say that what made science objective was the process in which scientist performed their work. She essentially thought that if the process in which scientist gained knowledge wa...
Newtonianism has been an influence on many. You see my name has been used to describe many different viewpoints. My name has had such an influential effect that it has become a religion. Newtonianism sees me as a paradigm of rational belief and my work was a model for understanding and looking at the universe in the terms of laws. It was put in many social and cultural areas in the eighteenth century. My work was an inspiration for many others. As my work did inspire others to look into the world of science and the mysteries of the universe, it also had some bad effects when it came to religion. Voltaire, a philosopher, was mainly responsible for popularizing Newtonian ideas across Europe. Christians saw Newtonian ideas as a threat to them
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...
In the past centuries scientific innovations have occupied people’s mind. People have been looking for answers about their existence with the help of science and the scientific method. But nothing has changed with people’s culture or behavior. However, something happened two thousand years ago that influenced and changed how some people perceive the world and self existence. It was the beginning of Christianity.
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.