Scientism Vs Religion

Scientism is the belief that the best or only way to have knowledge of reality is be means of sciences (Moreland and Craig, 2003, pp. 246-350). In other word, scientism is calming that the only way to gain knowledge is through science, therefore every other knowledge that is not form science is either opinion or false. There is no thought that science has made a different in the society, but that does not make science the only way to knowledge. There are some inadequacies of scientism, it should be noted that moral, ethical, and religious claims all involved normative claims about the way the world ought to be (Grand Canyon University [GCU], 2015).

When comparing science and religion there has been a great rift. As long as humanity has believed in a creator there as always been thinkers trying to quantify and evaluate the truth behind religion, trying to disprove or prove a supernatural force.

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

It is hard for me to fathom blind faith, or that there was nothing until God created it. One thing that stands out for me, is that God said let there be light on the first day, yet he created the sun on the fourth day. It is a big contradiction and not the first one either. I also do not believe in talking snakes, but there is one in the bible. My belief lies within science, and the big bang theory rather than the creationism that takes place in the bible. While the big bang theory is as much of a theory as it is 100% fact, I am perfectly content in the ignorance of the science behind the big bang. Not knowing something does not necessarily mean I need an explanation to it. Alternatively, it seems as if any religious mystery, there is a deity that overlooked it to avoid not having any explanation it seems. From an outside perspective, it does certainly look obvious that this world and everything in it would have an ultimate designer, like God. There are some similarities between scientific and Christian worldview in my opinion too. Both creation and evolution are just as much of miracles as the other. Science and religion can and do co-exist with one another, our calendar was developed by Jesuit priests hundreds of years ago, and the Vatican has its own astronomer. However, the main reason I hold my scientific views is because this world is too convincing to me that there is an absence of any God. The universe and God are both

Science and religion have, since the Enlightenment, been part in a constant struggle and debate based on their legitimacy and their coexistence. Mostly Christianity has been criticized in this discussion due to the extreme positions some followers might have, but also most scholars still today have a Christian background or still follow the Christian cults. The coexistence of science and religion poses an ethical problem since many deeply believe in the absolute truth science can provide on the long term and fill the gaps of unknown knowledge the scientific community has right now. On the other hand, religious people believe in a holy book that states to know the solutions and how to fill these gaps since they trust a holy spirit that has created and managed the world. Faith followers also think that religion help them to have a greater sense of community and gratefulness through religious practice. It is clear that science and religion provide answers to different questions which make them non-overlapping magisteria. This paper will argue and defend the fact that science will not make religion obsolete since they provide different answers. To support this argument, the first part of this paper will be an exposition of the argument and how scientists have perceived the issue, followed by a second part consecrated to a critical evaluation of the problems as well as opposing points of view in order to finally conclude.

A fabulous woman struts down the streets of New York. Her chin is angled skyward and she is garbed in a type of luminescent empowerment. Her heels click against the pavement, resounding a message of, no, not oppression, but instead an awareness of one’s value and strength. Her eyes don’t frantically scan the crush of people rushing to and from wherever in a daze of paranoia, her gaze is direct and fearless. She does not wonder who her next assailant is, she only seeks out fulfilment that in another time would be vehemently denied her. Weaving an untouched and unimpeded path, she stops at a gently-hipster building designed to appeal to a 21st century woman such as herself. “Now that’s new and certainly progressive” she thinks.

We return to the works of Winter, who wrote on the subject of science being the “how” to religion’s “why” (Winter 36-37). And with this view, a lot of obstacles can be overcome. I believe that there had to be something more, in the beginning, to say “Go”, and then it all began. It may be that the beginning of all life WAS as simple as a natural incident, but that clearly does not answer all the questions. To attribute it all to coincidence simply doesn’t make scientific sense; if it was that simple, why wouldn’t we be sure of it already? To believe that there was something more, something great and powerful, to kick it all off, fills in these blanks that science simply cannot. To me, it is beyond mere comfort, knowing that there is something more to life, and someone out there to meet us when we die. It is a way for us to better understand the world around us, by trying to understand that which can’t be explained, by leaving it up to faith.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published his biological book: The origin of Species (Wyhe). This book sparked controversy over science and religion. The book claimed creation must have taken a much longer time to develop than the bible claimed it did. Many religious institutions were hostile to the publication, but many scientist welcomed the idea of evolution through natural selection. The book divided England between the religious and the scientific. Individuals often found themselves contemplating between God and science.

Science is defined on Merriam-Webster as, “knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.” People love to study and execute science, whether they get a job as a scientist, or they just examine a bumblebee in their backyard as a child. Science has an attractive pull to all human beings. Christians especially, are interested in the beautiful world around them created by their wonderful, powerful God. Man is sinful. Therefore, all people who study science without a biblical worldview will come to the wrong conclusion about the world and God. Christians, with the help of the bible and their own observing, will come up with the correct conclusion. First science and Christianity have differing

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

Historian Richard G. Olson describes scientism as “efforts to extend scientific ideas, methods, practices, and attitudes to matters of human social and political concern” (Burnett, n.d. para.1). Religion and science are frequently seen as opposite poles in our comprehension of the world. Science has not replaced religion entirely, and that is on the grounds that there is something that religion offers which is outside the extent of science. “Religion offers a system of values, right and wrong, good and evil, a code of morality, and that is why even many

Accepting the compatibility between science and religion is a tactic used by those who instinctively fear that a manifest conflict between the two areas would endanger the future of science. They are worried about the possibility that scientists would not receive any financial support or that science classes in schools might be replaced with hours of religion. A huge number of atheist scientists are aware of the negative role, that they have irrational ideas supported by the religion of the future of science. If there is an unreported truth, is that science and religion are incompatible, not in the sense that they cannot coexist in the human mind, but in the sense that there can be no consistency between the two forms of addressing reality. However, attempts to reconcile science and religion do not stop, and that is because the reconciliation never really occurs.

First of all, There are a number of debates about the similarities and differences between religion with science from aspects of sociological. Then, in my opinion, is not just the science with people who are the physicist or high priests and mullah shaped to religion. Religion can be forming of culture, identity, relationship, practice, power and so on. Also, in the social constructions, science and religions are two different territories to illustrate contemporary society. And then, there are various unreasonable social factors influence science, religions and everything. Lastly, I think that faith and proof are mutual, reasonable, independent.

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.

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.