Alexander Conflict Model

A worldview is a set of basic beliefs about the nature of reality. It affects the way a person behaves and responds to different circumstances. When young, our worldview is influenced by parents, who tell us what is right and wrong. However, as we grew up, our life experiences come to shape worldviews that we hold as adults. As scientists, our worldviews matter a great deal. Whether theist or atheist, it is critical to know what we consider to be our responsibility towards everyone and everything around us. In this paper, I talk about views of a number of scientists about God and creation and the impact of these beliefs on their approach to science. In addition, we will look at different natural phenomena and what they tell us about the Intelligence design behind them. I will also discuss the effects of human actions on the environment and what can be done to keep it clean.

"water-tight compartment" system which, even at the present time, is frequently extolled or considered possible."(Boutroux, 406) Two powerful forces that coexist yet each of them deny one another, but yet they define one another. The perfect paradox within the world of both, two opposites that attract and one cannot exist without the other. Most people fail to understand that; they fail to realize that without science there is no religion and without religion there is no science. On one hand, science studies and examines every form of life and thing of known existence. On the other hand, religion studies the pure feeling and knowledge of a higher being, the omnipresent god who created all that is known. And on the hand that no one likes to see, you have science that fills in the gaps of religion, and religion that fills in the gaps of science. By examining a literature work titled "The star" By Arthur C. Clarke, a work based off science and religion in itself. I will show you the juxtaposition of science and religion.

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

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

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.

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.

The relationship between religion and science is indubitably debated. Barbour describes four ways of viewing this relationship (conflict, independence, dialogue--religion explains what science cannot, and integration--religion and science overlap). Gould presents a case in which religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), that the two entities teach different things and therefore do not conflict. The subject of this essay is Worrall, who says that religion and science does conflict, and that genuine religious beliefs are incompatible with a proper scientific attitude. The former half of the essay will describe his argument, while the latter will present a criticism of his argument.

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.

Alvin Plantinga begins his side of the debate by using Christianity to demonstrate the how science and religion do not possess a problem together. The items that are used to illustrate the point that is being made is the different doctrines used in the different types of Christianity, such as the Apostles Creed. There is not a conflict between the scientific fields of chemistry, physics, or the religion Christianity. He choose to use the theory of evolution to compare religion against because the theory of evolution does not state whether it is a guided or unguided process of creation. Plantinga creatively debates the comparison between the two by using different religious

In society today there are two worldviews that tend to be complete opposites, the ideas of scientific naturalism against Christianity. These worldviews are incredibly opposite, but there may be areas that the two opposing sides could meet on. Both views have valid ideas to contribute to the argument. We strengthen our beliefs through ideological conflict with others. Both view-points are strengthened when compared to each other rather than presented separately with no alternative view to oppose it.

In our modern age of scientific revolution there seems to be a growing tension between the scientific and religious understanding of this world. This tension is not surprising as the two worldviews exist on different realms in many ways. The Christian faith, grounded in the revelation of God through Christ for humanity’s salvation, clashes with science on many levels especially concerning human nature, as well Divine authority, as compared to the scientific rational and mechanistic understanding of matter. However in this age of scientific revolution there has been a more concerted effort to develop ways to integrate the scientific and Christian

“In the light of modern science religion appears to be a remnant of ancient superstition that will one day be completely replaced by a scientific view of the world.”(p.104) However, with developing science, many people found themselves that God become more awardable ever because of these newly found and developed knowledge of sciences. Modern philosophers interest to know whether or not this ever booming science has affect the people’s views toward religious beliefs. For example, “Seven Reasons Why a Scientist Believes in God” by A. Cressy Morrison, a highly respected scientist. (p.105) In this paper, I will discuss what Morrison’s Seven Reasons and reasons why this particular subject is interesting.

We live in a world full of people who hold different beliefs and convictions. Many of them may even be different from our own. For example John Haught, in his book God and the New Atheism shares his belief that, “Science alone can tell us what religion is really all about, and it can provide better answers than theology to every important question people ask” (x). Berger and Zijderveld, on the other hand, argue in In Praise of Doubt that, “Whether God does or does not exist in cosmic reality is another question. And this question cannot be answered by the empirical sciences: God cannot be the object of an experiment” (1).

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 “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.