I Appreciate Barbour 's Praiseworthy And Toilsome Effort

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.

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.

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.

For most people of the modern age, a clear distinction exists between the truth as professed by religious belief, and the truth as professed by scientific observation. While there are many people who are able to hold scientific as well as religious views, they tend to hold one or the other as being supreme. Therefore, a religious person may ascribe themselves to certain scientific theories, but they will always fall back on their religious teachings when they seek the ultimate truth, and vice versa for a person with a strong trust in the sciences. For most of the early history of humans, religion and science mingled freely with one another, and at times even lent evidence to support each other as being true. However, this all changed

Scientific Naturalism and Christianity are possibly the two most contradictory worldviews that are in our culture today. They are also the two most difficult to understand by one another. There is very little about these two worldviews that they have in common. They are a vast amount of ideas and beliefs held by adherents of each that are different. In order for these two worldviews to successfully co-exist in society, it is important to understand, accept, and learn from each one.

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

“In the Forest of Gombe” by Jane Goodall describes her own perspective of the correlation between religions and science through her experiences in the forest at Gombe where she finds comforting to recover from the loss of her husband. Developed several new concepts regarding life, Goodall comes up with the idea of the coexistence of science and religion. Agreeing with Goodall, however, the windows that Goodall sees through have no drawbacks.

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.

Ultimately, Consolmagno argues that various perspectives are required when examining the natural world. Without more than one perspective, it would be foolish for us to believe that what we see is the truth. Specifically, he marks the importance between religion and science. Science and religion are intertwined fields of study that, when used appropriately, lead to the best understanding of our role and place in the

Inheriting the Demon Haunted World Science and religion are very similar, so much so in fact that without religion would science not exist. In the excerpt from Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Sagan describes a feeling of a greater force even with science. In comparison, the excerpt from Inherit the Wind displays in the final scenes of the play, that Drummond concludes both science and religion can coexist by placing the Bible and Darwin's Origin of the Species side by side in his bag. Although these two excerpts show the relation of science and religion in two completely different ways, they both show how important it is that there is a common ground between religion and science. Throughout this essay, both excerpts will be analyzed to show Sagan’s stance on religion and science and the commentary that the final scene provides and how that based off of them, religion and science can definitely exist together.

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 and religion are often viewed as two diametrically opposed practices where one is used to refute the other, or one is held in a higher regard. Science is modernity; progress, enlightenment and cold logistics while religion is spiritual, traditional, and perhaps archaic. Rarely are the two viewed through a ‘both-and’ lens in which neither is greater or lesser, or more true or false. The 1997 film Princess Mononoke, deals with the relationship between science and religion and effectively shows that the two must coexist or face inevitable mutual destruction.

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

Science and theology have diverged lines amongst several of the world’s phenomenon with the two greatest differences being human and world development. Although there are differences in the beliefs of these two groups, they are ultimately attempting to solve the same puzzles that consume the minds of members of both disciplines. In the end one might say, both disciplines are working to solve two different puzzles that may be really different, but ultimately are aspects of the same puzzle. Both the method and the aims of science and religion seem to be different. Science is considered to be more linked to the material aspect of all things, where religion is concerned with the spiritual. These are just two of the differences to be discussed