Flaws Of The Intellectualist Theory

In the article “Redefining Myth and Religion: Introduction to a Conversation,” Dr. Loyal D. Rue discusses how science, religion, and myth are related and how they coexist. Some people may argue that science and religion should not coincide and that they are opposites. However, Rue argues, “…In an ideal world, the vocabulary of science would inform the myth that binds together the culture.” In this statement, Rue claims that science can be used to help explain the supernatural phenomena that religion and myths describe. Science is not anti-religion; it helps us to explain religion in ways that humans can understand.

A clay pot cracking, a hut burning down or sickness can all be connected to their beliefs in what we call supernatural. A craftsman in one of the villages told Evans-Pritchard that when his stools or bowls split, he could be absolutely sure that it was witchcraft, and that it was the jealousy of his neighbours that caused the bowls to split. He answered that the craftsman was mistaken. Evans-Pritchard has been critiqued for his view that witchcraft cannot exist. Winch argued against Evans-Pritchard’s distinction between the supernatural and scientific notions and argues that “science – like witchcraft – is not inherently meaningful, but makes sense only within a particular, culturally created frame of reference” (Eriksen, 2010, p. 243).

Martin discusses the uses of the hermeneutics of suspicion for his second step in his approach. He believes it is important to remain suspicious of the cultural element being examined and presume it is false. Geertz, in the second part of his definition, states that a system of symbols “acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men” (Geertz, 1993). This statement is in agreeance with the suspicious mindset provided by Martin, as Geertz also does not confirm any religious beliefs to be true. He uses the word “acts” to show that the cultural elements function in a specific way, not to prove their factual accuracy. His definition demonstrates the unity of individual components in a culture and how they function. Both methods do not approach religion with yes or no questions but rather seek the answer to why it functions in particular ways and how it continues to exist.

Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.

Today, new technology and theories provide proof on how our world functions. Through these new developments, the sciences can advance. This advancement not only allowed us to increase knowledge but our rationality likewise. Traits that are only unique to us in the entire animal kingdom. Like science, Religion is seen to have as much of an influential role in our development as a species. Organized religion helps create a connection between people which results in community and culture. Ideas would be able to spread and grow far easier within a community. This was due to religion’s prevalence in the ancient world more so than the present day. A key example was the establishment of Christianity as the Roman Empire’s official religion. As

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.

The battle between the relationship of science and religion has always been a controversial topic in society. It has been a subject of study since the classical era from scientists, theologists, philosophers, and regular citizens. It is understandable that the perspective on culture and religion are unquestionably varied due to different geographical regions, but why are there so many heated debates regarding the global discussion and what is it that causes those controversies? Is it possible that there is more than two outlooks and theories? Jerome Lawrence and Robert E.Lee contrasts the two perspectives in Inherit the Wind by bringing back an historical and legendary trial. Matthew Harrison Brady, an established lawyer in America demonstrates his ideology in God. Addition to Mr. Brady, his arch nemesis, Henry Drummond, defends his morals by expressing his vision that evolution is where human come from.

Religion and science play crucial roles in defining who we are and our outlook on societal norms.

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

The first few weeks of class our coursework was based around the book titled Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity by David N. Entwistle. The author takes us on a journey of learning the history of Christianity and psychology integration by exploring his philosophical views and the development of the five models of integration. Entwistle (2010) encourages his readers to consider the integration of both Christianity and psychology and provides us with various times when integration has either been accepted or rejected and researches the dilemmas behind the acceptance and rejection of the two. Entwistle (2010) opens the book explaining the intense topic of science and religion describing the two as a modern debate, yet he says that it is imperative to know that “although these questions have modern overtones, they reflect ancient undercurrents” (p. 8).

The overlap and divisions between religion and science tend to a great extent to be avoided topics, shunned because of their supposed irrelevance to each other in the everyday workings of life. In the United States, the segregation of the spiritual and mystic from what could be considered the mechanics of making it through a day of work and then rest seems commonplace. There are designated times and areas where the spiritual part of our lives comes to the forefront of our attention, but these tend to be times that are planned out and organized.

Malinowski begins “Magic, Science and Religion” by clearly defining two domains: the domain of magic and religion versus the domain of science (Malinowski, 1954, 17). Though the domain of science is often believed to be absent amongst primitive people, Malinowski asserts that there are not “... Savage

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

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