Relationship Between Science And Religion

“Darwin and Evolution” and “Creationism and Intelligent Design,” Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction (pp. 58-103) by Thomas Dixon

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.

Humanity has always struggled with the controversy of how the universe was created, since it is a question without a definite answer. People tend to look to science and religion to solve this problem. Christianity is the most followed religion, and evolution is the most popular scientific belief. Christians claim there is a greater being (God), who created the universe.

During the seventeenth century, many philosophers formulated new ideas that would consequently change the beliefs of the common man. The "thinkers" of the Renaissance Period have the way 17th Century man to the current world. In short, the world viewed religion, philosophy, and science in a very different way by the end of the seventeenth century because of these great philosophers.

There is a long documented history of conflict between religion and science. As two institutions that have a considerable effect on society and global opinion, and ones that are based on very separate principles, conflict seems almost inevitable and history proves this. But in the modern age will it ever be possible for us to reconcile the ideas of two things that create and explain the foundations of our society?

Science is the process which discovers knowledge, knowledge in turn is power, and power is said to bring about corruption. Therefore, through the transitive property, that implies that science will only lead to corruption. Not necessarily a corruption of one’s actions; for instance, science won’t make a politician accept a bribe. However, some would argue that science will lead to a degradation of morals. For example, contemporary science may lead to a woman viewing her unborn baby as naught but a ball of cells, similar to a tumor, which can be removed from her body with no moral dilemma. The converse to this is the impediment of science due to humanity clinging to its archaic values. This can be shown by the opposition to stem cell research and genetically modified embryos in the name of morals and the inviolability of life. The stark contrast between following morals and advancing science creates a juxtaposition that often manifests itself as a debate between religion and science. Certain members of both the scientific and religious communities blindly adhere to their own opinions and ideals. This butting of heads helps no one. As a result, a middle road must be found, one in which neither progress nor morality are ignored. The polarity between these two forces is encapsulated by the differences that Bertolt Brecht draws in his play Galileo between Galileo and the clergymen. This play, when contrasted with the reality of Galileo’s

“Please God, take anything, take my life, but don’t take Yourself away from me, don’t tell me I haven’t known You at all.” What happens when science and religion clash in a fiery battle of interpretations? In Waking Life Sister John suffers an internal battle between fact and faith, and attempts to discern between a powerful religious experience and the mere side effects of an epileptic disorder. However, instead of separating the two, she mediates by allowing “science” to deny her of what she had been experiencing without giving up her faith in God. In this essay, I will take a stance that explains how science and religion dynamically work, but at the same time question why science has the power to deny religious experiences. What about science nulls these religious experiences that appear so real to the individuals that host them?

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.

Humans do not engage the world in a neutral way. Instead, we see world through the reality that our culture creates. Without culture, humanity would have to continuously reinvent the wheel, perhaps even literally. It casts a web of reality over us that is inescapable. We are constantly in the grip of our culture. Therefore, it isn’t surprising to find societies with cultures which differ greatly from ours who come to very different conclusions about what reality is. When we are confronted with these differences in world views, we are often quick and confident to assert that our way of life is superior to others.

Question:1. Compare and contrast religion with science from a sociological viewpoint. Is science just another form of religion, with people like physicist Stephen Hawking among its high priests or mullah? Are science and religions simply both similar social constructions? In your response to this question, specifically consider both how irrational social factors influence everything, and the relationship between faith and proof.

The constant struggle between science and religion is immense, the constant debated question being whether the two can coexist. To this, I agree, the two can coexist if both respect each other’s opinions and do not impose their own beliefs on the others. However, questions that require answering either through science or religion are how we determine reality, how should we live in this world, and what is our ultimate purpose. Either a mixture of the two or one can be chosen, this is determined by the individual and are personal to that individual alone.

In today’s world, most of the population is split between two opinions as to where we as people came from as a species, and how our planet was formed. Was it just happenstance, a series of coincidences that formed the perfect conditions to sustain us? Or was it something more than that? Could it be that we were shaped and given our planet by a more powerful being? Most only take one side, but is it possible that there could be compromise? Could the answer be some mix of the two? David Brian Winter believes that is a definite possibility. His interpretation is that we were in fact put here by a higher being, but that science is not wrong. Instead, he sees science as a “how” to religion’s “why”, and believes that a lot of what the Bible says

“We might speak of a pure religious science as we would speak of a pure natural science, which means the study of natural causes. We might speak of pure religious science as that branch of science which studies the natural principles; the nature of Mind and Consciousness. Then we could think of applied religious science as the application of this principle in human needs for practical purposes, and this is where one encounters the study of the nature of prayer, of faith, and of mental actions and reactions.”

The bond between religion and science has not always been an easy connection. Many have debated whether religion and science should interact. Some believe that religion and science are compatible while others believe that religion and science are conflicting. Throughout this paper, both religion and science will be explained. The subject, definitions, and and the basic arguments of both sides concluding with my personal opinion of how religion should interact with science.

Is it possible for science and religion to coexist? In both The Day The Earth Stood Still and The Man Who Fell to The Earth, the idea of science versus religion is questioned. The films show that our world is rapidly changing and how society reacts to events during those specific times by questioning spiritual faith. Certain sounds that are heard throughout both movies allow us to feel the tone that each movie tries to relay. These sound effects help the viewers understand moments of tension, fear, desperation, peacefulness, to name a few. In addition, certain cinematic techniques that portray quick cuts, long and complex scenes, and much more allow viewers to explore the relationship