Religion vs. Science Essay

The development of the scientific method in the late 1500’s to the early 1600’s was a crucial stepping-stone in the science community. The scientific method is based upon observations, hypotheses and experimentation. The concept is rather simple, and can be applied to many areas of study. Once an observation is made, the observer can make a hypothesis as to why that phenomenon occurs and can then design an experiment to prove whether or not that hypotheses is valid. Although the scientific method has been extremely useful in the discovery of various things from usages of medications to studying animal behavior, there are still those who question the usage of this tool. These critics claim that since

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.

Natural science and religion are two areas of knowledge that perceive knowledge using ways of knowing differently to pursue its knowledge, an example of that would be Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection and evolution. In natural science, the theory of natural selection is derived from studying the common features in the bone structure of vertebrate limbs despite its varied use. Therefore, using deductive reasoning, they established the evolution theory which states that humans evolved from apes due to the fact that human and apes have similar features and that human has evolved due to adaptation and survival of genes. However, religion, using not only intuition and emotions but also reason disagrees with the claim of evolution.

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

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

The opposite of science is commonly regarded to as religion. Scientific discoveries have been challenging the established religions throughout history and have played a severe role in science's influence in multiple generations. For example, during Copernicus's time, society was amidst an era of reformation and rebellion where catholic authority was being questioned, especially with important figures such as Martin Luther and astronomers such as Copernicus having such a power voice to society. the famous astronomer, Galileo, was shunned by the Catholic church for endorsing the theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Centuries later, Charles Darwin's ideas of evolution clashed with the ideas of the majority of religious people. This lead to the

The impact on today’s society has shown us how far science has come. From the release of the evolution theory in 1859, to today, science has changed phenomenally. The effect on society back in the 19th century was the outstanding criticism that was brought out by this theory. It changed people’s beliefs, views and their overall thought on the world. Today many things have changed; there have been investigations into the evolution theory, discoveries of bones and many more things which have also changed many people’s perspectives.

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).

     “Where do I come from?” This is a common question that all children ask their parents at some time in their lives. Usually they are given a simplistic answer. However, as one gets older the answers get more complicated. One must decide whether to believe in science or religion. Religion is based on faith and the supernatural. Science is knowledge obtained and tested through the scientific method. Many people believe the science or religion explanation to know from where they come. However, there is no concrete answer. Many different views have been debated and remain in question today. This paper will focus on each viewpoint. Growing up in New Jersey, I was

Ever since the 1560’s, when Galileo Galilei disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church due to their teachings of the Tychonic teachings, religious individuals and realists have been bickering. Despite their differences, they both strive to answer one question: how did our universe come to be? Though these two areas have radically opposite explanations, they both have extensively detailed answers to this question. The natural sciences provide evidence to their response through the fields of Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, and Biology. Religion is very different. There are a variety of religions in our world, all of which have very different beliefs. This conflict between religion and natural sciences creates a remarkably different environment within each of these areas. In science, each theory that is created is supported by at least another area of knowledge. For example, the interaction between science and mathematics. The fields significantly impact one another, especially in physics. To find the acceleration or velocity of an object hurtling through space, a physicist would have to use integrals and derivatives to make sense of the problem. The opposite occurs in religion. There are such obscure differences in this area of knowledge. For example, the notion of monotheistic faiths and polytheistic religions. This debate has been going on for centuries, only because each person believes that there is a singular higher being or multiple. Despite these stereotypes, there are

Nowadays, as soon as the smoothening word ‘religion' is uttered people conjure images calculating created by the media, often this is associated with injustice, discrimination and distortion: they think of ‘distrustful Muslims', the 9/11 incident, which despite media reports and so-called ‘evidence' has not yet verified that Muslim ‘terrorist' elites were the culprits of such a crime; they also think of the London bombings which again have accused ‘terrorising Muslims' to be the suspect of. Furthermore, the media: they illustrate a common suspect of a suicide bombing who barbarically and

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.

Science, in Albert Einstein’s words, “describes what is.” “Such a description consists of certain laws of nature, which summarize observed patterns, and theories” (Peshkin 46). Science and religion are the main components of the ongoing national debate about the teaching of evolution in our public schools (Peshkin 46).Various religions reject or ignore the contributions of science, arguing that science displaces God, questions religious belief, and degrades morality (Molloy 547). Others disagree, appreciating science and the important information that has broadened our knowledge by providing explanations for natural phenomenon, and continuously enriching our lives. In some religions and traditions, science poses ethical questions. Does

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