Wendell Berry in “God, Science, and Imagination” condemns the central theme – nonexistence of God of Steven Weinberg’s essay “Without God”. The critique is all about his discontentment of Weinberg’s argument and says it is just Weinberg’s opinion and everyone has right to put forward his/her opinion but he refuted the notion of nonexistence of immaterial soul and God when science is just to prove or disprove the material existence of the universe.
From the very beginning the author puts forward his disagreement with Professor Weinberg’s argument and refuted his claims. The author says even when Weinberg is saying he doesn’t mean to humiliate the association of people with religion his argument is indeed a humiliation. Standing in the middle of fundamentalists of science and fundamentalists of religion, the author censures Weinberg’s act – trying to disturb the orderness among those who value religion. Referring the example of life after death, Berry reproduces and questions the citation “more and more of us know that after death there is nothing”. If anyone doesn’t know, does it mean there is nothing? In Berry’s words Weinberg tries to power his opinion like those politicians in the battle of chair, or in the field of technology, science and religion. The author denounces Weinberg’s act of total humiliation to the fundamentalists of religion. He believes the argument must be conducted in absence of material evidence which stands as proof in lab or court and it can neither
When the modern person ponders the formation of human beings, our mind automatically goes to Adam and Eve, whom were the first man and woman created by God according to the Book of Genesis. Before there was Adam and Eve, diverse cultures came up with myths about the construction of humans. These myths included: “The Song of Creation” from the Rig Veda, An African Creation Tale, From the Popol Vuh, and A Native American Creation Tale “How Man Was Created” Each one of these legends gives a diverse perspective on the creation of human beings.
Throughout many centuries philosophers have argued over the existence of God. In today’s society many people tend to hesitate in believing in a God because of the new scientific discoveries. For example, in the mid 1990s scientists built the Hubble telescope which revealed that there were billions of galaxies in our universe, this discovery led some people to question how can one divine being create so much and yet have a personal connection with everyone in the world. Which, in result, may take some scientific explanation to strengthen one’s belief in God, but for those who believe there is a benevolent God they do not need science to show proof that he exists because of their morals and beliefs they have been raised to follow. In this paper I will prove that God does exist by explaining the ontological, cosmological, and design argument.
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.
God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist The existence or otherwise of God has attracted a seeming countless debates from all classes of people mainly academics, comprising theologians, scientists and philosophers, not to mention laypersons. Consequently, this singular topic has generated many publications and reviews. Of particular interest are the two opposing views brilliantly presented by William Lane Craig, a popular Christian philosopher and apologist who is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Philosophy at Dartmouth College. There had been intense rounds of debate on the subject, prominent among which were the one at Dartmouth in 1999 and another at Wooddale Church in 2000. William Lane Craig believes, and firmly too, that God exists while Walter Sinnott-Armstrong would always want to convince his listeners that He does not. These opposing views and more are taken up in the 2003 popular and unique book, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. The uniqueness of the book, and in fact, its greatest strength can be found in the fact that it was co-authored by opponents, a christian and an atheist. What makes the book more interesting is that it represents the results of an actual debate, where each side not only presents its succinct and polite views but has the chance to actively respond to its opponent with some succinct theological and philosophical sophistication. While they arrive
One of the fundamental questions that religions seek to answer is that of origin. How was man put on earth? Why and from what was he created? Who created him? What does his creation imply about the status of human beings? Some or all of these questions are answered by a religion’s creation stories. Every religion’s creation myths attempt to give solutions to problems present to that religious society. Because of this, each religion may have one or more creation stories, each of those different from one another in the questions they ask and the answers they give.
The essay “God, Science, and Imagination” by Wendell Berry discusses fundamentalists, specifically ones of science and religion, and their need to humiliate their opponents through evangelism and conversion. He also criticizes Professor Steven Weinberg’s essay and his opinion on God and religion. Weinberg is in fact a fundamentalist of science who questions the existence of God. But, Berry argues that “If in fact the fundamentalist scientists were as smart as they think they are, and if the religious fundamentalists were as secure in their belief as they claim to be, then they would leave one another in peace… these camps keep pestering each other because they need each other” (25).The same could be said for the contestants in James Fallows’
One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this
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
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.
Most religious zealots have no doubt about who created and the source of the origin of the universe. The same is true of the existence of the omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent God. Although God may not be seen or heard or touched, however; by faith, we believe of his majestic existence. His existence as God cannot be measured in terms of Gallup surveys or scientific proofs to show otherwise but “religious thinkers” according to James and Stuart Rachels have offered numerous thesis for the for the existence of God, starting with the argument from design, with its subtitles such as the wonders of nature; the “best-explanation arguments and the same-evidenced argument” (Rachels). In either of the cases, the conclusions drawn were similar in the sense that the universe was created by an intelligent designer.
The first section of this paper should properly be named: “The Happy Ending,” as it seems fitting for this point of success for religion. It is not unfair to assert that one of humans greatest fears is death, the thought of become nothingness. Honestly, is there ever a point in ones own life that they can think, or even experience nothingness? Evidently the answer should be no, as we are always something, always being. For a human this is an overwhelming, and at times frightening thought. Especially when science and many atheist comes to the conclusion that when a human dies nothing happens, there is no happy ending -- sadly, nothingness seems to be the answer.
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
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
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,