Similarities Between Science And Science

There will always be a battle between religion and science, it is a truth universally acknowledged. Galileo attempted to make the two compatible by suggesting that the truth can only be sought out if the notion under consideration can be accurately tested and if the opposing view can be founded as false. Galileo’s goes into depth about the truth of scripture and the sciences, intertwined with the reason of man, in his letter to Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of

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.

In this paper, I will discuss how three influential scholars in this order: Augustine, Aquinas, Galileo, delimit science or the bible and the ways their beliefs overlapped or didn’t.

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

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

"water-tight compartment" system which, even at the present time, is frequently extolled or considered possible."(Boutroux, 406) Two powerful forces that coexist yet each of them deny one another, but yet they define one another. The perfect paradox within the world of both, two opposites that attract and one cannot exist without the other. Most people fail to understand that; they fail to realize that without science there is no religion and without religion there is no science. On one hand, science studies and examines every form of life and thing of known existence. On the other hand, religion studies the pure feeling and knowledge of a higher being, the omnipresent god who created all that is known. And on the hand that no one likes to see, you have science that fills in the gaps of religion, and religion that fills in the gaps of science. By examining a literature work titled "The star" By Arthur C. Clarke, a work based off science and religion in itself. I will show you the juxtaposition of science and religion.

For instance, several philosophers, such as Albert Einstein, have elaborated upon the compatibility and similarities of the two fields (Chaffee, 2012, p. 354). Science and religion both attempt to answer very difficult ontological questions about the world, including the origins of existence, various features of the world, and the laws established by a divine creator. Both fields attempt to answer questions regarding the past, for religion emphasizes stories of creation to explain the commencement of the world, whereas science promotes the big bang period and the evolutionary process to explain the beginnings of the world and the origins of life. Both fields also perpetuate answers regarding the future.

Whereas ideas and beliefs are generally stunted in their growth and often tend to be passed down from one generation to the next. Intellectuals should never become shackled by their beliefs to the point it stands in the way of their quest for academic wisdom. Being well educated, one should always explore learning beyond the boundaries of their individual views. One of the more dogmatic topics of debate has always been religion versus science. Galileo, “the father of modern science”, was ultimately condemned for heresy by the Roman Inquisition for his lust for knowledge. Fortunately, times have changed and science and religion have learned to co-exist. Nonetheless, there is still a sense of social stigma associated with some of the topics that teeter on religion, such as Darwin’s Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory. Some of the greatest contributions to our world throughout the ages have been fueled by free thinkers that dared to venture outside the scope of their

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

The common narrative surrounding science and religion is that they are contradictory. People believe science is just a way to prove religion wrong, and so far science has remarkable accuracy. But science does not work against religion, rather science defends religion, and in some cases helps create deeper understanding of religion. When questioning religion, using science can help answer questions not found in the Bible, helping to further human understanding of both science and religion, and seeing how the two can build on each other.

Through the use of the two quotes by Galileo and Pope John Paul II, Postman proposes that the use of religion and science can provide the bases for morality and human improvement should one be free from dogmatic judgement towards religion or science. Postman further emphasizes this common theme present in the quotes by juxtaposing the two figures, Galileo being an important contributor to the fields of science and Pope John Paul II holding one of the highest positions in the Catholic Church, the two figures of which are almost antithetical to each other given their roles. Following the essay’s theme of religion and the new age of information being similar through the use of blind faith, this juxtaposition further accentuates the religion/science

Religion and science have always been conflicting studies. Religion, being based on faith, relies on the supernatural to explain life and being. Science, on the other hand, cannot do this. Scientists need to eliminate the possibility of the unexplainable in order to maintain and control group by which to measure other groups. The unexplainable I refer to are the miracles that are commonplace in all supernatural religions. Galileo lived in a time where church was state. The land was ruled according to the words of the bible, and anyone in opposition would be in contempt. Galileo's scientific findings were therefore strongly shunned by the church. In 1615 Galileo attempted to explain how these findings came to be

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.

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