Alexander Conflict Model

Dr. Connie Bertka’s essay, “A Primer on Science, Religion, Evolution and Creationism,” expands on Kingsolver’s idea that science and religion have cohabited by explaining how science and religion are formative elements that shape society and serves to contribute to the common good. The relationship between science and religion can be described as a conflict approach which means that “science sets the standard of truth to which religion must adhere to or be dismissed or religion sets the standard to which science must conform.” On the other hand, science and religion can form an interactive relationship in which ideas converge from a scientific and religious perspective. Dr. Bertka mentions that religion and science can be taught in a classroom, since their interactive relationship can constructively benefit from engagement, since they both lead to individual insight and communal discernment.

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

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.

In time, quantum discoveries led to a changing mindset about the world and this made it necessary for religious thinkers to cope with it. It could be part of the reason John Polkinghorne went into the priesthood. Some of these ideas affect religious beliefs, mostly the rigidity known to fix religious beliefs once learned. Polkinghorne never abandoned the search for truth, and he did not move away from the rational pursuit of it, but theology had to follow its own kind of discourse in the quantum world. He compared the concept of the duality of the wave/particle phenomenon to the idea of duality of Jesus Christ being truly human and truly divine. While the Newtonian world is “clear and orderly”, the quantum world is based on the uncertainty principle explained by Heisenberg, and it is “cloudy and fitful” and counterintuitive. A different kind of quantum logic has to apply in the quantum world. So, Polkinghorne says science and theology both require a rational strategy and what he calls ‘bottom-up theory,’ and move from reliance on experience to the attainment of what he calls “well-motivated belief and understanding.” Relying on a “top-down approach is not preferred as it is based on the hope that one has prior access to clear and certain general ideas from which one can then descend to the consideration of the particularities of experience.” He is very strong on the argument that belief must be well-motivated. It is after this discussion that he says he holds a “passionate belief in the unity of

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Many people consider science and religion to be at loggerheads. Other people consider religions and science to be completely unrelated and different facets. The idea that many people have is that science seems to be more popular than the legions since it is based on facts while religion is based on perceptions. However, what many people fail to realize is that science is not the only source of facts, and religion has been effective in reaching out beyond the realms of morals and values. Indeed, science and religions rely on one another in examining and explaining the things that happens in the daily lives of individuals. Although the views of religion and science have been more or less distinct, there are several ways in which science and religions come together. This paper reviews

The first category that will be explained is conflict. This is optimally categorized with the statement that, “Science and religion investigate common questions, but their theories contradict one another and so compete with one another for our acceptance.” (Pojman 562). With the view of conflict, it is believed that science and religion overlap in regard to the quest for truth, but their methods and findings are contradictory. This theory is most commonly held by religious fundamentalists, those that believe in strictly literal translation of scripture; and the more recent movement of new atheism that is

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,

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.

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.