Contact: The Battle Between Science And Religion

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.

In a letter addressed to Phyllis Wright, a sixth-grade girl, Albert Einstein somewhat effectively accomplishes his purpose of answering her question as to whether scientists pray, and if so, what they pray for with the use of logos and inattention to the audience. Einstein was thought to be the greatest scientist of the twentieth century, so people turned to him for thoughtful explanations. When Einstein begins to answer Wright’s question, he employs the use of logos to support his theories presented. He presents all angles of the situation to properly develop the response to Wright’s question. Einstein claims that science is a sort of religion on its own to a certain extent, and is “quite different from the religiosity of someone more naïve”.

Faith Matters. (2010, April 02). Scholar says that religion and Science can coexist. Lab Activity: Chapter1. Podcast retrieved from

The Pivotal Dichotomies of Science and Religion Science can help identify and elaborate upon the laws of nature, help humans ascertain an improved understanding of the universe, and enable people to acquire powerful thinking skills to generate innovative and beneficial ideas. However, in the recent centuries many scholars have addressed the numerous conflicts that have emerged between the fields of science and religion. Although certain similar factors can render science and religion compatible, many differences have caused a contentious divisiveness to permeate between the two fields. Many philosophers have contemplated and debated the relationship between science and religion.

"Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam."

Albert Einstein, a renowned scientist, once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Tension between religious faith and science will exist; however, the importance of them coexisting is also valued. Science without moral values can be twisted like the Nazi experiments. Religion also needs sensibility, or else it will become factitious. In the book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, religious faith helps frame the Lackses' response to, and interpretation of, the scientific information they receive about HeLa. Thus, faith and science can exist in unison.

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.

Belief can be best described as confidence in the truth. Throughout the centuries, philosophers have argued over support for religious beliefs. Some, like W.K. Clifford, claim that beliefs need evidence and reason behind them. Others, like William James, would offer a philosophical justification for religious faith, and would argue against evidence and reason behind beliefs. After reading both sides of the argument, I lean towards James’s philosophical justification the most due to the fact that I too would argue against evidence and reason behind beliefs.

Writer Suzanne Massie, while advising President Ronald Regan in the 1986 Cold War era, told him, “You know the Russians often like to talk in proverbs and there’s one that might be useful,” Massie told the president. “Trust, but verify’” [1]. This phrase has become part of the American lexis, it embodies and articulates the need to authenticate what we hope or believe, it is a simple yet effective philosophy to employ in the ongoing systematic transformation from the embedded to deliberative theology. I have heard, that faith is belief without tangible proof. However, the pursuit of knowledge requires critical thinking and certain evidence; “faith seeking understanding.” It has to make sense; it is essential to trust but verify.

Both science and Christianity identifies the relationships that confirm and expand their understanding of what is experienced and observed (Schaab, 2008).

I found the movie Contact very interesting as it explored both the belief of religion and science. I think Ellie suffered many losses in her life so it was no surprise to me that she had no faith that God existed. How could someone exist, yet cause her so much pain at such a very young age? In the beginning of the movie, Ellie asks her father if he believed if there was life on other planets. Little did she know at the time that answer would come full circle by the end of the movie. So it was no surprise to me that she became a doctor of science, an astronomer, looking for a sign or signal via radio that life out there did in fact exist. Was it coincidence that an atheist like Ellie would embark on this journey to finding

Nonetheless, Smith's stature as a researcher likely bears him more believably among researchers than evangelicals, for example, Johnson appreciate. Withal, Smith's incapacitating toned replete with impeccably set stories and quips tempers the boldness of his proposals and the trouble of his topic. While he might be powerless against scrutinizes that definitely emerge when non-researchers draw in and challenge logical cases, Smith shows a great handle on material science and science , and concedes to researchers who share his worries. Most gratifyingly , subsequent to spending the book's first half ensnaring science, theory and the media in the minimization of religion, Smith spends the second half illustrating and asserting mystical perspectives and envisioning courses for science and religion to accomplice all the more even-handedly later

“The Will to Believe” by William James takes place when the scientific positivism was more optimistic and the religious faith was an impediment for its consummation. The presence of religious faith at the academic level was then the task that James wanted to propose. Science responds well to the question of how the world functions, but is limited at the moment to respond the reason why. As James says, "Our faith is faith in some one else’s faith" (James. P.311-17) . The last faith upon which the rest remains as incomprehensible and unreachable for scientific

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.

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