Assignment 1: My Personal Philosophy Of 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.

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.

John William Draper, in the History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, states, “The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other.” John William Draper brings up a strong truth behind the progression of science. Human faith inevitably conflicts with the progression of science. One may think that religion is the moral part of human belief and science is the advancement of intellect. It is inevitable that morals and the advancement of intellect would. Emotions and morals sometimes may overpower what the advancement of science would lead to. This concept is present in the ethical controversy involved with the Catholic Church and stem cell research. The moral and heart of many members of the Catholic Church easily disables the acceptance and support of stem cell research. This is unfortunate because stem cell usage and research has tremendous potential in helping those that suffer from disease. Stem cell research will advance medical fields and assist in finding cures for deadly ailments. Many followers of the Catholic Church view the science of stem cell research as killing innocent lives, however a sense of the faithful needs to come into action in order to look passed tradition and history to

Summer for the Gods concentrates on the Dayton, Tennessee Scopes trial, or "Monkey Trial," of 1925. The trial was over a Tennessee law that banned teaching evolution in public schools. The American Civil Liberties Union protested the law with teacher, John Scopes, who agreed to help. The"trial of the century" brought together two famous political enemies, William Jennings Bryan, who led the anti-evolution crusade, and Clarence Darrow, who was known as the best criminal defense lawyer and evolution supporter. The author presents the history of controversy that led to the trial. Fossil discoveries, the rise of religious fundamentalism, and increased attendance in public high schools influenced the anti-evolution movement due to the

Is there a conflict between religion and science, or are both items compatible? This question is addressed in the debate that is written about in the book Science and Religion, Are they Compatible, by Daniel C. Dennett and Alvin Plantinga. Alvin Plantinga thoroughly debates the topic by covering the compatibility of Christianity and science. He continues his argument by stating the issue of naturalist and science harbor the conflict not the theism. Plantinga goes into detail how some scientific theories without the help of theism has conflict and should be considered falsifiable because of the contradictions they possess. While Alvin Plantinga does make a prominent effort to illustrate how religion and science are compatible, there are also

In 2011, the Barna Group completed and published the results of a five-year study on why many teens are turning away from Christian churches. The research showed that one-fourth of these skeptical young adults felt that “Christianity is anti-science” . This statistic should not be too surprising because Christians are notorious for their steadfast beliefs in Genesis 1 which states that the universe was created by God in just 6 days. Obviously, this tale contradicts countless scientific records and theories, making a life of faith practically unachievable for any science-minded individual. But contrary to popular belief, no one has to choose a side. There is no need to abandon trust in a higher power for scientific evidence or vice versa

Science and religion were based back in modern days to be the answer to everyone, and society as a whole to handle their issues through the church majority of the time, until science came along and changed the perspective of everyone’s outlook on how they were to solve their conflicts. Within the world today they both still exist and are still being put to use for its main purpose which is to create answers to things we face that need a solution.

The relationship between religion and science is indubitably debated. Barbour describes four ways of viewing this relationship (conflict, independence, dialogue--religion explains what science cannot, and integration--religion and science overlap). Gould presents a case in which religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), that the two entities teach different things and therefore do not conflict. The subject of this essay is Worrall, who says that religion and science does conflict, and that genuine religious beliefs are incompatible with a proper scientific attitude. The former half of the essay will describe his argument, while the latter will present a criticism of his argument.

I distinctly remember sitting in my 9th grade Biology class as Mr. Shorba projected the classic picture of an ape progressively evolving into a human, and explained to the class Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, being raised in a conservative Christian home, I did not listen to one word of the evolution lecture, as I had already made up my mind as to what I believed in. Although I still believe in creationism, my take on learning about evolution has drastically shifted as I have realized the importance of understanding this popular theory. In Jonathan Well’s book, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth, he dissects well-known evolutionists arguments with explanations as to how they are falsifiable.

It is possible to believe in both Science and Christianity because they both share a cause and effect relationship that exists between the two (Schaab, 2008).

Many people consider science and religion to be at loggerheads. Other people consider religions and science to be completely unrelated and different facets. The idea that many people have is that science seems to be more popular than the legions since it is based on facts while religion is based on perceptions. However, what many people fail to realize is that science is not the only source of facts, and religion has been effective in reaching out beyond the realms of morals and values. Indeed, science and religions rely on one another in examining and explaining the things that happens in the daily lives of individuals. Although the views of religion and science have been more or less distinct, there are several ways in which science and religions come together. This paper reviews

Conceptions holding that science and religion should operate (epistemologically and philosophically) in basically the same manner lead to the Conflict or Integration models . At issue for philosophy, from the most formal seminars in leading universities to the most basic ideas of personal morality conceived by individuals world-wide, is achieving a supreme understanding of humanity and its role in the world. Should this understanding encompass both science and religion (Dialogue and Integration) or favor one or the other rather than some synthesis of both (Independence and Conflict)? How a specific philosophy answers these sets of essential questions determines how science and religion will interact and the role of each in a greater understanding of the world.

What is the relationship between religion and science? In his book, Consilience, Edward O. Wilson aims to find a unified theory of knowledge. Consilence also seeks to show how science is superior to and can replace religion. In this paper, I intend to show how Wilson understands this relationship and science as well as how. as well as show John Stuart Mill would agree or disagree with Wilson.

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

"Great is our fear of the unknown." Titus Livius made this statement in a time when science and religion were one and the same; a time when pagan mysticism gracefully intertwined itself in the sparse gaps of scientific knowledge. The two have since diverged and people-- society-- have had to make a choice: will science, or religion, sate the innate curiosity borne by human beings? This is a question that haunted me for the first fifteen years of my life, a question I constantly pondered.