Alexander Conflict Model

Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those super personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

For most people of the modern age, a clear distinction exists between the truth as professed by religious belief, and the truth as professed by scientific observation. While there are many people who are able to hold scientific as well as religious views, they tend to hold one or the other as being supreme. Therefore, a religious person may ascribe themselves to certain scientific theories, but they will always fall back on their religious teachings when they seek the ultimate truth, and vice versa for a person with a strong trust in the sciences. For most of the early history of humans, religion and science mingled freely with one another, and at times even lent evidence to support each other as being true. However, this all changed

When dwelling into the explorations about science and religion, one can find it quite amusing. "If science and religion are to continue to coexist it seems opposed to the conditions of modern thought to admit that this result can be brought about by the so-called

As William Paley once wrote, “There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; arrange without anything capable of arranging.” In our world today, the ultimate designer, contriver and arranger would be considered God to many. Although the existence of God has consistently been debated throughout the course of time, the cause of debate has almost always returned to science. Considering the Design Argument and the Anthropic Principle, science can be seen to simultaneously support and go against the existence of God depending on one’s own perception of the topic.

Throughout Collins’s book he goes through many topics that have been a barrier between science and religion for a long time. I agree with many of Collins’s viewpoints when stuck in-between science and religion. This includes his view on the origins of the universe.

He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak: as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”[v] Though Jastrow treats the issue as settled and declares that scientists have finally been “defeated,” it is too early to reach any judgements on the implications the new cosmology has for both science and religion. Our image of the origin of the universe is not yet complete and further investigations must be conducted before the towel is thrown in. Science has still much to offer to help us understand how the universe came to be. Therefore, let us now attempt to solve the cosmic mystery of creation by referring to the great scientific minds as our guide. Let us now rewind the story of the big bang and look into the origins of the universe.

Will Langas The first speaker I agree with is Whitney Harris, whose essay, “Human Existence Is In Peril,” touched on many ideals concerning God, the human condition, and our ultimate destiny. The first point he made that I agreed with was that one can be balanced between their faith and science and religious beliefs. Although he does not say much about the role of science in religion, he personally found a way to incorporate both ways of life into his own set of beliefs.

The contemporary social issue I have selected is the discrimination of Muslims in America. I selected this issue because it appears to be a growing problem in the United States, and I believe it is rooted in racism, making it a two-part issue. Muslim is not a race, but in many Middle Eastern countries, Islam is the majority religion. Even though anyone from any race could be Muslim, it is only Middle Eastern Muslims that are targeted. As someone who is in the social work field, it is distressing for me to see a group of people be treated unjustly and experience many societal challenges based on their faith and race. Conflict theory is one theory that can improve people’s understanding of this issue. One of the main concepts of conflict theory is that “power is unequally divided and some groups dominate others” (Overview of Theories, 2008). In the social issue I chose, white Christians are the dominant group, and they hold more power than Middle Eastern Muslims. Power is not

The Language of God written by Francis S. Collins proposes a new synthesis, a new way to think about an active, caring God who created humankind through evolutionary processes. This book is a must-read for any individual wondering about the deepest questions that life has to offer: Why are we here? How did we get here? And what does life mean? In this book, Dr. Collins uses his previous profound and far-reaching accomplishments in the scientific field to try and answer these questions, along with how science and faith can actually work together to fill in many gaps concerning evolution, how the Earth came to be, and much more.

First of all, I appreciate Barbour’s praiseworthy and toilsome effort to put theology and science in a meaningful and fruitful dialogue, by seriously taking account of both continuities and discontinuities between scientific metaphors and religious metaphors. For Barbour, because both disciplines have continuities and discontinuities they can contribute to our more comprehensive understanding of the reality of our experiences in the world through their metaphorical relationship. While scientific models, theories, and paradigms are focused on the explanation of natural phenomena, the religious counterparts are more focused on the human experience of their natural/social environments and evoking moral and attitudinal responses, while religious affirmations do not exclude truth claims like the scientific claims do. Also, like religion, scientists also hold on to their traditions in their observation and interpretation of natural phenomena; hence, they are not neutral. In that sense, I agree with Barbour that science and religion bear significant similitude, while they can complement each other in our holistic understanding of our world.

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

Science “aims to save the spirit, not by surrender but by the liberation of the human mind” (Wilson, 7). Both religion and science seek to explain the unknown. Instead of surrendering reasoning with the traditional religion, a scientific approach one takes full authority over it. Being an empiricist, Wilson takes favors the scientific approach to the question: “why are things the way they are?” This question can pose two meanings: How did this happen, and what is the purpose. Traditional religion answers this question with stories, many of which are impossible to prove or disprove, making them arguments of ignorance. These explanations entail the adherent surrender reasoning and put faith in the resolution. According to Wilson these are always wrong (Wilson, 49). Science is the most effective way to learn about the natural world. Religion is merely speculation.

God designed nature so meticulously perfect that His imprint is obvious in every living thing. Some scientists want to explain away God. Steven Hawking, once an advocate of belief, in God, suddenly changed his mind. He stated that science offers a “more convincing explanation” for the origins of the universe, and that the miracles of religion “aren 't compatible” with scientific fact. Although very unreasonable, this change of heart exhibits one of God’s basic gifts to the human race: free choice. God will not force people to accept Him.

When humans try to believe in biblical text, it is hard to look past science and how much it has impacted human life. Science and biblical text have clashed since the era of Isaac Newton and Galileo. Biblical text and science disagree in many aspects, but people are able to pick sides on what he or she truly believes. Three instances of when Science and biblical text do not agree is the ideas of Adam and Eve vs. evolution, the flooding of the earth, and finally scientific law vs. miracles performed by Jesus Christ.

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,