Can Science Prove All Moral Issues?

Conflicts between faith and science go back for thousands of years, most conflicts between faith and science are found in the Bible. There are many stories in the Bible which faithful people believe in fully, but people who have a more firm belief in science see the Bible as stories which can be explained through science. A few stories from the Bible which scientists believe could be explained in ways other than just by miracles, are the creation of Earth and humans, Joshua stopping the sun, Cain being unable to grow crops, and Elisha fixing a poisoned river. Religious people believe in these and consider them miracles. However, believers in science doubt their authenticity and find ways to disprove the miracles.

Many people of 20th century though, turned for truth in the logic of science. It had made many things simpler for them and had offered them a better standard of living. Even so, as Cat’s Cradle demonstrates, their is both a good and evil side to science. When it is used with careless negligence, the results of manipulating nature can be formidable. It is a tool, and must be used with respect for others. Because of this, there is ultimately a limit to the truth many people search for in this field; although we can advance through science and exploration, it doesn’t take into account human ethics and morals. It therefore doesn’t offer meaning, and it doesn’t offer happiness. One must search for those realizations from

The birth of modern science created conflict between religion and science in European societies. With the conflicts, the people had started to question the church. These conflicted changes between religion and science, had positively impacted the common people and had greatly damaged the stability of the church itself. The idea that everything was to be perfect affected the communities of the people. The ideas that the church had displayed in decades past, rejected any further discoveries or advancements that they didn’t see fit.

The conflict between science and religion has always been existed. In many religious institutions, especially Muslim and Jewish, belief in Darwinism or other scientific theories is forbidden (Ferngren, 2002). Therefore, scientific studies in faith schools subsequently differ from normal school one’s. For example, Dawkins (2006) argues that faith schools tend only to teach children in a religious way, avoiding such important curriculums such as science and humanism. Similarly, Cush(2005) states that faith schools provide limited choice of scientific and sociological subjects. The knowledge of science basics is compulsory for every decent citizen in the age of new technologies and scientific humanity progress.

The beginning of the 17th century was characterized as the “Scientific Revolution”, which initiated the foundation of conflicts between religion and scientific consideration (Moss, 1983). This era had major phases of transformation within this early modern period; religion, philosophy, and science equally influenced each other. During this time, the Bible was viewed as the “standard” etiquette regarding natural occurrences.

This first point begins with a discussion on modern day views on science in a modern society versus the spiritual based beliefs of old. In ancient days there was a natural understanding of a higher moral order. This understanding has been forsaken in modern American culture. 80% of Current Western culture argues that it is each persons right to define their own set of moral law and

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

Science can give us as good a moral code as any religion. Or so Daniel Dennett claims in his book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Dennett provides the tools to explain human morality, and inadvertently leads the way to the conclusion (which he does not share) that science can clarify how human morality came about, but not serve as a substitute or model for moral codes, religious and secular alike.

1); also, science “confers no special authority to answer a nonscientific question” (pp.1). Scientists claim that science is attacked from two sides, the fundamentalism of Christianity, and the humanities. Nevertheless, for the humanities to respect and distinguish the sciences is not enough, they need, “the humanities to submit to the sciences and be subsumed by them” (pp.3). If God exists, is for philosophy to determine, not science. Traditional religions and cultures influence believer’s interpretation of understanding and are traditions of value. As a result, the relationship between value and fact in these traditions is so strong that values often overpower facts. The study of greater ideas about life are common in science, but these ideas cannot be only based or accepted completely on scientific grounds; a scientific viewpoint may not be as broad as many think. Scientists cannot note the way natural sciences and humanities differ, since humanities would have to be explainable by science. Besides, humanities do not advance, progress, or study the way sciences do, the humanities are a study of the sciences inwardness. The central goal of scientism is the transformation of non-scientific dialogue into scientific dialogue. Meanwhile, respected

He explains that both have different roles in human life as, “Science tells us what is. Religion tells us what ought to be.” Reason gives humans an understanding of how the world works currently, but it does not evaluate morality and encourage improvement. Reason focuses on the literal instead of the metaphysical. Since they have different roles, science and religion do not need to

Excluding the presence of a supreme being, humans—representing the most evolved creatures in existence—receive exaltation to the echelon of supreme authority. This factor, in conjunction with secular humanism’s epistemological views, unambiguously propel scientists to the position of ultimate authority, since genuine knowledge is only possible through scientific investigation, and morality is a product of sociological study and technical

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.

challenged the Catholic Church’s power to dictate knowledge to people of all standing in society

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

The scientific revolution in our life cannot be denied in any way or neglected at present. The use of scientific inquiry method has changed the way we perceive, think, experience and analyze our surroundings. Before scientific discoveries or scientific revolution, religion has had an essential dominance in people’s life. People had many difficulties to know and believe the reality of their surroundings. We cannot donate discoveries of past as touchstones, but these are pillars which provide a base for further development and inventions in each field of the life (Haven, 2006).