Scientific Naturalism Versus Christianity

The age of the earth has been debated for centuries. Many people believe in evolution that it took billions of years for everything and everyone to form. Others believe that God created the earth in seven days and that the earth is young. Secular scientist and Christian scientist both use different methods for determining how old the earth is. For example, Secular scientist look and use the layers of rocks to help them, while Christian scientist uses the Bible and look at historical data from other cultures to help them. Doesn't looking at archeological data seem more accurate than looking at rocks? If the earth is truly billions of years old, then why is there little sediment on the sea floor? Or how can secular scientist explain finding soft tissue in a fossil if the earth is old? The most logical explanation is that the earth is young. Many people believe something just because people say that it is true, sometimes it is good to investigate for yourself and see if it is good for you.

Science and religion are two different words in different disciplines, which are grounded on different foundations with different concepts, perspective and values. Science is built on surveillance of the Mother Nature, but religion is basically founded on faith. Religious people have faith and believe that God exists. Scientists agree that the real of the world can be learned and revealed, which can be concluded with the practice of the logical technique. It is true that science and religion are two different disciplines, but these two discipline can work together perfectly for better health outcome in the health care. It is true science emerges, but without God’s knowledge for the scientist, they cannot have the knowledge that it entails to discover Mother Nature. Different standpoints could emerge with the people who have strong basis for religion or science, with different beliefs and standards. Religious beliefs

Groothuis, Douglas R.. Christian apologetics: a comprehensive case for biblical faith. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic ;, 2011.

The Christian worldview is compatible with the Scientific Method. The Christian Worldview promotes faith in works and the Scientific Method promotes human intellect to search through God’s works. According to Draper (2003), “The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of

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 society today there are two worldviews that tend to be complete opposites, the ideas of scientific naturalism against Christianity. These worldviews are incredibly opposite, but there may be areas that the two opposing sides could meet on. Both views have valid ideas to contribute to the argument. We strengthen our beliefs through ideological conflict with others. Both view-points are strengthened when compared to each other rather than presented separately with no alternative view to oppose it.

First of all, I appreciate Barbour’s praiseworthy and toilsome effort to put theology and science in a meaningful and fruitful dialogue, by seriously taking account of both continuities and discontinuities between scientific metaphors and religious metaphors. For Barbour, because both disciplines have continuities and discontinuities they can contribute to our more comprehensive understanding of the reality of our experiences in the world through their metaphorical relationship. While scientific models, theories, and paradigms are focused on the explanation of natural phenomena, the religious counterparts are more focused on the human experience of their natural/social environments and evoking moral and attitudinal responses, while religious affirmations do not exclude truth claims like the scientific claims do. Also, like religion, scientists also hold on to their traditions in their observation and interpretation of natural phenomena; hence, they are not neutral. In that sense, I agree with Barbour that science and religion bear significant similitude, while they can complement each other in our holistic understanding of our world.

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

Provided that science still requires repeatable and measurable outcomes, the thought that eukaryotes produced sophisticated human life capable of high functioning individuals when they could not even develop the most basic features is preposterous.

There are quite a few differences between Christian Science and Scientology. For instance, Christian Science started in 1879. It was founded by a poor woman named Mary Baker Eddy who became rich from her new founded religion. Scientology was founded in 1953. Unlike Christian Science, Scientology is an independent religion. It was founded by a man named L. Ron Hubbard. Christian Science is based off Christianity. It is a new interpretation of the Bible. Scientology is a religious responds to therapeutic help. Christian Science centers on the idea of God. Scientology focuses on a person in need of help. Christian Science sees God as the only creator. Scientology believes that the creator is a person completely free. God has no importance in Scientology.

Christian Science is a set of beliefs and practices belonging to the metaphysical family of new religious movements. This family, known also as 'New Thought' in academic literature, stresses the need to understand the functioning of the human mind in order to achieve the healing of all human ailments. ... Metaphysics/New Thought is a nineteenth-century movement and is exemplified by such groups as the Unity School of Christianity, the United Church of Religious Science, Divine Science Federation International, and Christian Science.”

Science doesn’t and can’t show that there’s a separate supernatural world, or some sort of immaterial stuff that’s categorically different from what it discovers as part of nature. So, if one takes science and evidence-based empiricism as a way of knowing, it will lead to naturalism. Of course, to be a scientist isn’t necessarily to be a naturalist. Naturalism goes beyond science in recommending we never resort to faith or other non-empirical ways of knowing when deciding what’s real. But of course many folks, including many scien¬tists, often resort to faith, depending on what’s at

In the 20th century the question of natural theology was under deep debate. While the enlightenment had a deep confidence in gaining knowledge of God through observation of the natural world, this attitude was deeply criticised in both philosophy and theology. On the one hand Heidegger criticized this project as deeply ontotheological confusing the distinction between beings and the Being of beings. Moreover as a result of this enterprise, one was left with the philosopher’s God at best, a god to which one could not praise, pray to or sacrifice. On the other hand Barth lambasted it as denying the subjectivity of God, and submitting God to the same kind of being as humans, reducing the creator to the realm of the created while simultaneous denying the finitude and falleness of human rationality. For Barth there could be no “point of contact” and the analogy of being of the medieval period must be scrapped for the analogy of faith, an inbreaking from the top down miracle of grace . But while Barth claims Natural theology as an irrelevant for revelation, Natural theology is the condition of possibility of the human side of revelation. This will be shown through a critical examination of Barth’s doctrine of revelation, an appropriation of Jean-Luc Marion’s phenomenology of revelation and an exploration of Pannenberg’s theological method.

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.