Religion or Science? Essay

The question whether advancements in science and technology make the religious explanations of reality is one of the big question and has triggered heated discussions and debates (Tremlin, 2012). I support the great work of world’s top higher learning institutions and universities in the fields such as theoretical cosmology, physics, cognitive science, evolutionary biology and social science that relate to forgiveness, love, purpose, creativity, nature and origin of religious beliefs. I encourage the informed and open-minded discussion between theologians and scientists as they relate themselves to the most profound issues their specific discipline. And in a more particular way I seek to motivate fresh thinking about the creation of wealth and developing the world, programs that are aimed at cultivation talents of the gifted, and character education in Universities and schools. In this paper, I will explain why the primitive theories still hold despite the advancements in technology.

The opposition amongst science and religion is observed between those who attend to find the absent pieces of the puzzle through means of mythology and those who use the scientific method of research. Miller noted, “If faith and reason are both gifts from God, then they should play completer, not conflicting, roles in struggle to understand the world around us”. (Miller 267). Some groups who would typically appreciate and tolerate the views of both studies are those nestled in the roots of the rabbit’s fur. Theology and science both should play a part with each others, but it is very difficult to understand.

The relationship between science and religion is an arguably rigid one, the two topics presently posing contrasting ideas in modern society. However, this relationship has been varied over the course of time, in particular the nineteenth century. We can put forth the argument that it was not necessarily as simple as the two being mutually exclusive concepts that continuously opposed each other; rather the two held a complicated relationship. These apparent conflicts between science and religion can often be resultant of more complex debates, for example concerning political power. It can also be seen that there was a continually shifting boundary between the two subjects, making it merely reductionist to say the two were in conflict. Science and religion were in conflict to the extent that both these concepts were adapting to the contemporary world, sometimes causing them to clash.

The relationship between religion and science has been a subject to numerous debates, earning its place in multiple forums and dominating the news. Disputes arise because science and religion are two very different disciplines. For instance, science is ultimately based on observation of nature while religion is largely based on faith. Conflicts between the two have existed for hundreds of years and will continue to do so, because of their different concepts of “truth”. Nevertheless, reaching a consensus between science and religion is generally impossible and difficult to achieve, because each are certain of the validity of their own beliefs.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” This quote by famous scientist Albert Einstein shows how there are those who believe that the coexistence of Science and Religion is possible despite the overwhelming majority of the population that that believes the quite opposite to be true. However, there is a scientist that takes this clash and puts it into a better way of understanding. Francis S. Collins’, who wrote the New York Times bestseller, “The Language of God”, explains in this text many arguments and counterarguments that bridges the gap between science and faith, whist arguing that they can coexist, contrary to many misconceptions. In the novel, he explains his own personal journey from atheism to a steadfast belief in God and His word then proceeds to address scientific ideologies such as, Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution and their connection to faith.

Since the dawn of consciousness, humans have strived to understand the world around them and their place in it. From the first naturalistic surveys of the flora and fauna of the earth painted on the rocky walls of fire-lit caves millennia ago to the enormously complex investigations into quantum physics ventured at today’s particle accelerators, human curiosity has known no bounds. By way of organizing the countless questions posed and answers sought, broad conceptions of "science," "reason," "philosophy," and "religion" have been created and debated by humankind for centuries. Beginning in earnest during the Age of Reason following the Renaissance, two distinct ways of understanding the world seemed to form. On one hand,

Scientia, the Latin noun meaning “to know” is the etymological root of the modern English word science (Merriam-Webster, 2016). It is perhaps fitting that many of the greatest minds of our time consider science to be the ultimate source of truth, knowledge, and understanding. Famed chemist, professor, and author Peter Atkins (1995) believes “science is the best procedure yet discovered for exposing fundamental truths about the world” (Atkins, 1995, p. 97). This paper will challenge that assertion and argue that science is not the only source of truth, that there are deeply philosophical and metaphysical questions that science cannot fully explain. This paper will explore the idea of truth as a subjective, non-quantifiable phenomenon that is not wholly consistent with the scientific process. Finally, this paper will briefly explore the divide between science and religion.

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.

Scientific information can have a tremendously negative effect on theological thoughts. Yet, it can also have a positive impact on theological thoughts. It depends on how it is used. Still to this day, great controversy is amid the link between science and theology. It is indeed one of the most challenging studies today. Some people believe that science explains the why and how behind the creation of life. While others stand firm on reasons in reflection of theology.

In this issue, the author writes a hard-hitting paper that strikes right at the heart of the conflict of science and religion. He gives balanced weight towards both sides of the view of science and religion offering alternative towards resolve of the conflict. The author provides views from both institutions and suggests changes in how God is viewed and how Science is viewed, however he does state that neither are going away anytime soon.

Science and religion have a complicated relationship in modern society. In this paper, I argue that science and religion are non-overlapping; science is the pursuit of truth in the natural world, and religion is the pursuit of value and meaning. This position is based largely on Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA, and it seeks to address weak areas of his argument. In order to properly defend this position, I will define science and religion, establish that they’re exclusive to their domains, present an argument for the necessity of both, and demonstrate that conflicts between the two arise only when they make illegitimate claims of the opposite domain.

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.

The ability to understand logically the always-changing scientific ideas has been compromised due to some hard-headed religious people. Walter Eugene Clark wrote in the Harvard Theological Review that, “Religion is not all human life” (Clark 101). Although people do have the right to practice religion, there are many other factors that are in play, including science when it comes to the world around us. Science is ever-changing and should be acknowledged and understood. This can be done by many religious people while staying true to their faith.

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

In the brave new world that we exist in today, science, above everything, is revolutionizing the shape of our world with paramount magnitude. From medicine, to entertainment, to transport, science and technology has migrated humanity from a world of entropic disorder to a facilitated existence of order and civilization. However, in our crusade to evolve into the most scientifically sophisticated race in the universe, we are beginning to lose grasp with the essential attributes that have allowed us to survive and flourish over millennia. Consequently, the “muzzling” of science is mandatory as it directly stultifies human individuality, patronizes human relationships, and can mentally weaken the human body.