Argument Between Science and Religion Essay

The scientific revolution established the new view of the universe. During this period people were finally beginning to define the scientific method and apply it to search for the truth. The scientific ideas of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries overturned many of the most fundamental ideas of the medieval worldview. New knowledge of the physical world provided occasions for challenging the authority of the church and of scripture. The new ideas then began to displace and reshape religious models of thought. Even though the scientific revolution exposed humankind to the truths of the world, the new science posed a potential challenge to religion.

Natural science and religion are two areas of knowledge that perceive knowledge using ways of knowing differently to pursue its knowledge, an example of that would be Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection and evolution. In natural science, the theory of natural selection is derived from studying the common features in the bone structure of vertebrate limbs despite its varied use. Therefore, using deductive reasoning, they established the evolution theory which states that humans evolved from apes due to the fact that human and apes have similar features and that human has evolved due to adaptation and survival of genes. However, religion, using not only intuition and emotions but also reason disagrees with the claim of evolution.

Within philosophy, there has long been a question about the relationship between science and religion. These two systems of human experience have undoubtedly had a lot of influence in the course of mankind’s development. The philosopher Ian Barbour created a taxonomy regarding science and religion that has become widely influential. His taxonomy postulates that there are four ways in which science and religion are thought to interact. The four categories are: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. By using articles from a select few philosophers, theologians, and scientists, it is clear to see the ways in which these two systems of human experience are categorized in the four categories presented by Ian barbour. However, it will be apparent that the category of conflict may be seen as the most dominant in regard to the interaction between science and religion.

John William Draper, in the History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, states, “The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other.” John William Draper brings up a strong truth behind the progression of science. Human faith inevitably conflicts with the progression of science. One may think that religion is the moral part of human belief and science is the advancement of intellect. It is inevitable that morals and the advancement of intellect would. Emotions and morals sometimes may overpower what the advancement of science would lead to. This concept is present in the ethical controversy involved with the Catholic Church and stem cell research. The moral and heart of many members of the Catholic Church easily disables the acceptance and support of stem cell research. This is unfortunate because stem cell usage and research has tremendous potential in helping those that suffer from disease. Stem cell research will advance medical fields and assist in finding cures for deadly ailments. Many followers of the Catholic Church view the science of stem cell research as killing innocent lives, however a sense of the faithful needs to come into action in order to look passed tradition and history to

Understanding the book requires a semi-vast knowledge of vocabulary and laws, and is clearly intended for an audience that has studied the subject of Christianity versus Evolution before.

Is there a conflict between religion and science, or are both items compatible? This question is addressed in the debate that is written about in the book Science and Religion, Are they Compatible, by Daniel C. Dennett and Alvin Plantinga. Alvin Plantinga thoroughly debates the topic by covering the compatibility of Christianity and science. He continues his argument by stating the issue of naturalist and science harbor the conflict not the theism. Plantinga goes into detail how some scientific theories without the help of theism has conflict and should be considered falsifiable because of the contradictions they possess. While Alvin Plantinga does make a prominent effort to illustrate how religion and science are compatible, there are also

The debate of evolution and creationism has extended since the beginning of time. In fact, it is not even as simple as these two opposing views. Each person seems to have formed their own theory which has a unique list of beliefs and dimensions. This makes a complex and difficult task when trying to find agreement between each of these unique theories. However, many Christians are finding it necessary to discover an alternative to the extremist views of evolution and creationism.

In 2011, the Barna Group completed and published the results of a five-year study on why many teens are turning away from Christian churches. The research showed that one-fourth of these skeptical young adults felt that “Christianity is anti-science” . This statistic should not be too surprising because Christians are notorious for their steadfast beliefs in Genesis 1 which states that the universe was created by God in just 6 days. Obviously, this tale contradicts countless scientific records and theories, making a life of faith practically unachievable for any science-minded individual. But contrary to popular belief, no one has to choose a side. There is no need to abandon trust in a higher power for scientific evidence or vice versa

In discussions of intelligent design, one controversial issue has been whether intelligent design was conjured up using science or religion. On the one hand, John G West argues that it was theorized with science. On the other hand, the editorial staff of the New Scientist contends that intelligent design was based off of religion. I concur with the latter. I believe that intelligent design was made on the back of religion.

     One of the main things that evolutionalists have a problem with is time. They say that the world has existed for millions and billions of years. There is a couple problems with this though. The sun shrinks so much every day because it is burning up all its fuels. Scientists can calculate how big the sun was at any point in history.

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.

It is possible to believe in both Science and Christianity because they both share a cause and effect relationship that exists between the two (Schaab, 2008).

“Does Science Make the Belief in God Obsolete?” by Kenneth Miller and Christopher Hitchens debate with no date of the discussion.

What is the relationship between religion and science? In his book, Consilience, Edward O. Wilson aims to find a unified theory of knowledge. Consilence also seeks to show how science is superior to and can replace religion. In this paper, I intend to show how Wilson understands this relationship and science as well as how. as well as show John Stuart Mill would agree or disagree with Wilson.

Since the dawn of mankind religion has been one of the most significant elements of a society’s social and cultural beliefs and actions. However, this trend has declined due to the general increase in knowledge regarding our the natural sciences. Where we had previously attributed something that we didn’t understand to the working of a higher power, is now replaced by a simple explanation offered by natural sciences. While advocates of Religion may question Natural Sciences by stating that they are based on assumptions, it is important to note the Natural Sciences are based on theories and principles which can be proven using mathematical equations and formulas. Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data