Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How religion plays a role in science
How religion plays a role in science
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
The intrinsic value that science adds to human’s lives can not be objectively measured but no one can doubt that science has made life as a human much easier over the course of our history as a species. What is science one might ask, and though science is basic and all humans practice it, the answer to that question is both simple and complex. Einstein defines science in his famous essay “Science and Religion” as “the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thorough-going an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization” (Einstein 47). Einstein, as per usual, sums up the phenomenon succinctly although one can find fault with his mention of science being a “century old endeavour” (Einstein), because all humans engage in science sometime in their life. This usually occurs as small children and is often times called playing but many times a child is testing the world, seeing how things work. This process of testing one’s ideas about the world is as intrinsic to human development and human civilization that there is only one other segment of human life that is as fundamental to us, religion. Religion in the broadest sense possible is one of the most fundamental ideas a human will carry with them throughout their life. One’s beliefs or non-beliefs regarding religion will fundamentally shape their life and how they interact with others. The Author Pico Iyer writes in his article “Maximum India” “Philosophy is ceaseless along the Ganges, and usually causeless. Holy men sat on the ground under umbrellas, chanting and smearing paste and ash on their foreheads. "These ... ... middle of paper ... ... to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations” (Einstein 45). Facts are never the sole decider in a question of what should be, because the very essence of the idea of “what should be?” lies at the heart of the unknown, we cannot know how things will be when we change them to how we think they should be, but through belief in what one can call a better world the human race as a species keeps trying to make the world into what we think it should be, and its the fundamental concept of religion that guides this endeavor. Meanwhile science is pushing our species along with a slightly different intent, to add knowledge and understanding to specific questions or areas of life. While this is important to us as a species, it is only with the religiosity that Einstein describes that one can ascertain whether the knowledge is beneficial or detrimental.
In 1936 a sixth-grade student by the name of Phyllis Wright wondered if scientists pray, and if so, what for. She decided to ask one of the greatest scientists of all time, Albert Einstein. A while later he wrote a letter back to Phyllis with his response. Understanding the context and purpose of his response assist in analyzing its effectiveness. After receiving a letter from such a young student, Einstein aimed to provide Phyllis with a comprehensible answer. He intended for his response not to sway her in one way or another, but to explain science and religion do not necessarily contradict each other completely. By using appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos, Einstein achieved his purpose by articulating a response suitable for a sixth grade
Have you ever questioned scientists religious beliefs? A young girl asked, and got a vague answer. Phyllis Wright, a sixth grade girl, wrote to Albert Einstein, asking him if scientists pray, and if they did, what they would pray for. When reading Einstein’s response, you get a very unclear answer to this question most people think about. The speaker of this letter is Albert Einstein; a man who is widely considered the greatest scientist of the twentieth century. The attended audience at the beginning was just Wright, and maybe some of her peers. Today, the intended audience is anyone who is interested on this topic along with high school students. Einstein uses multiple literary devices throughout his letter, including ethos, logos, and pathos, to answer the young girl's question about praying.
When asked how he feels about the advancement of science to places that were once notions to be the job of the creator, Dr. Martin Luther King replies by saying, “Cowardice asks is it safe? Expedience asks is it political? Vanity asks is it popular? But the conscience asks is it right?”
For many centuries religion seemed to be the most accurate source of truth and value to life. As humanity started to question the foundation religion had established, science began to unfold its own perspective of life. From then on humanity juggled ideas of conscience, morality, and the true meaning of life. On one hand science began to explain the world around us in a more empirical and understanding perception to humanity; with the use of emerging technologies and theories. On the other hand religion outlined a way of life and possibly another approach to the understanding of our existence. The question lay in the hands of the individual, do we allow science and/or religion to give us a value to our life or do we need to look further from the perspective of the masses. In “The Gay Science.” Friedrich Nietzsche outlines the evolution of mankind from religion to science and finally his ideal value of life. Nietzsche believes that neither science nor religion are adequate enough to live by. Nietzsches argument holds some consistent ground against science but does not fully refute it. Science holds the key in holding a balance between the unexplainable and quantifiable to put balance and meaning in someones life.
The views of both religion and science are of such importance to study in today’s society because of their differing conclusions as to how the world was formed, and how they are able to give clarity and meaning to one’s life. The scientific view of the creation of Earth involves the Big Bang Theory. Scientists believe that one hundred billion years ago the Earth, the Sun and all the planets of the solar system were cold dust particles until these particles were attracted to one another. This came to form a huge spinning disk, with the centre of the disk becoming the sun, and the particles that had separated into rings turned into the planets (Lunsford, 2010). In contrast to this, the religious view of the creation of earth involves Creationism, the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are a creation of God (Williams, 2010). Both definitions can be differentiated into the fact that science is unable to understand religion, however similarities are evident is that both fields study the same world and same reality. Since both religion and science contain quite controversial opinions into the creation of earth, is it possible for there to be a connection?
“The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains—for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.”
Others have proposed science as a new agnostic religion (5) and moral system (6), praising its commitment to evidence and philosophy of deduction. Those in agreement have raised their own Big Questions (7) from within the ranks of the natural and social sciences, as well as the humanities. Discussions in the World Question Centre (8), for example, range from democracy and complexity to sustainability and fear.
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.
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...
Religions have always played a vital role between humans and its society especially in terms of what is good and proper in the society. In modern world, people have become increasingly dissociated from religion and spirituality.
“Scientific knowledge is not inevitable” (Andrew Irvine). There is no guarantee that scientific progress would keep increasing. As long as people have the belief to live better, the scientific progress is not essential or necessary to exist. Progress of science and technology is a key factor in promoting the development of productive forces. The history of human civilization has fully proved this point. As research, ancient people to the natural forces that extreme lack of understanding, when they are faced the thunder lightning, floods, volcanic eruptions these natural scene, they are terrified. In order to find the strength to survive rely on primitive religion produced. Several of religious that domination of the human mind for thousands of years, which long confined ignorance of human wisdom. Scientific technology as a knowledge system is a powerful spiritual force, it helped people to keep the internal laws of the world know the real face and overcome to get rid of all outdated fallacious thing. It also does not worship any idols superstitious that always gifted elimination inferior and always full of innovation and creativity. This inherent ethos of science and technology would inevitably lead people to the way of thinking of
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
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.
DOES SCIENCE MAKE PEOPLE ASIDE FROM RELIGION? Science does drive people away from their religion because it provides elucidations and makes people analyze what religion obligates to believe. People have to accept what the religion says with no opportunity to question it. Besides, science approves what religion does not, for example clonation, heliocentrism and the origin of life; also, the morning-after pill which was developed by the science and the religion is dissident about it. The bunch of proofs that science has supplied, has put humanity in doubt and has unbalanced the belief of the origins of life. Religion and science have always been seen as two different fields. Some people are inclined towards religion while others opt for science. This essay will explain the differences between scientific and religious creationism. Both of the creationisms are theories. Religious creationism might be considered as blind faith because no proofs are given but it focuses on what has been thought since always, instead, scientific creationism has proofs and explanations of what has been happening depending on Earth’s changes and the nature. Religious creationism starts with the inception of a supreme being also named God, and scientific creationism starts with the Hadean eon.
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.