Science Vs Religion Research Paper

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

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

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.

The conflict between science and religion is often seen as a clashing of ideologies, rather than a power struggle over public authority, due to the generalization and lack of clarification among the common people regarding the nature of the conflict. As mentioned in Viney’s lecture, individuals important to the field of science, such as William of Ockham, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Galileo Galilei, were not attacked by the Church for their views on creation, but for the threat their scientific findings posed towards the Church’s authority.

Religion and science are two subjects most would choose not to discuss in the same vicinity. History has shown how quarrelsome doing so can be. However, as history has progressed into the modern world both science and religion have become more accepted by their somewhat rival. Might this suggest, after the centuries of debate and controversy, that science and religion have somehow grown to be congruent? Perhaps not all religions, for not all religions can agree with one another, let alone science. Despite past differences, the more science and Christianity are studied and compared, some might see similarities. Ultimately, both science and Christianity very well could be attributed to one another, even if some in the two communities would beg

With modern advancements in science, many people believe that science will be the death of religion. They would say that eventually, science will discredit enough aspects of religion that it will either disprove religion altogether, or it will cause enough people to question their faith that religion will no longer be necessary and will no longer exist. I believe, however, that while science may disprove certain aspects of religion, it is very possible for science and religion to coexist.

Scientism is the belief that science is the only means of acknowledging reality, it is a philosophical thesis that focuses on facts. On the other hand, religion and spirituality involves the belief in science (to an extent) but also embraces the idea of God’s creations. The tension between scientism and religion, in my opinion, falls exclusively on the fact that science fails to explain absolutely everything. There are some things that just cannot be proven with facts alone. This gives the opportunity for religion/spirituality to fill in the gaps regarding morals and ethics. It is my belief that, as humans, we are simply terrified of the unknown. We feel the need to have an explanation for absolutely everything. When science falls short, religion/spirituality

The question over the compatibility/non-compatibility of Religion and Science is one topic whose relevance transcends space and time; this is partly due to the evolution of the subjects of Science over the years. Although there are about 4,200 Religions in the world, while there are about 6 Subject areas within Science; it is not uncommon to compare both as though they were single entities. Such comparisons are possible owing to the fact that the different Religions/Subject areas in Science have certain fundamental values common to them. While Religion is based on Faith and a belief system, Science relies on experimental evidence from which inferences are drawn.

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.

While many have been inclined to consider that science and religion complement each-other, things were different several centuries ago when people considered that it was irresponsible for someone to dare to put across scientific thinking that was in disagreement with religious legislations. Christian fundamentalism is responsible for a great deal of conflicts, taking into account that fundamentalists lobby in regard to how God created the world in six days and concerning how society emerged as a consequence of the fact that a couple was cheated by a talking snake. Even with this, religion has started to express more accepting attitudes concerning science during the recent years.

The relationship between science and religion is a difficult one and the two sides have tested each other and debated each other in many forums. Some believe there are major differences in science and religion and that the two can never coexist while others believe that science is in fact evidence that religious views are correct. To better understand and answer the question of whether the two sides really do conflict we will look at: my view on the subject, the definitions of both science and religion, basic arguments of both sides, scientific evolution, differing religions and religious views, the compatible versus incompatible argument, how religion has influenced science and views from the modern day scientist.

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