Speech on God vs. Science

Todd C. Moody’s book “Does God Exist?” deals with a debate on God’s existence. This debate is done through a three-way dialogue between friends Sophie, David and Oscar. In the book, David defends God’s existence while Oscar defends the opposite position. Woody describes the burden of proof as being “on the person who claims anything that is either contrary to or beyond common sense,” (Woody 5). The idea of a God is indeed beyond common sense.

The scientific revolution established the new view of the universe. During this period people were finally beginning to define the scientific method and apply it to search for the truth. The scientific ideas of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries overturned many of the most fundamental ideas of the medieval worldview. New knowledge of the physical world provided occasions for challenging the authority of the church and of scripture. The new ideas then began to displace and reshape religious models of thought. Even though the scientific revolution exposed humankind to the truths of the world, the new science posed a potential challenge to religion.

Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.

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.

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.

"Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam."

There are many topics that science and religion have opposing views on and continue to debate. One of these subjects that has received a great deal of attention and has placed an enormous wedge between the two realms is the varying opinions concerning the creation of the universe. For nearly a century, scientists have explained this phenomenon with the Big Bang theory, whereas spiritual thinkers have long placed their faith in the Genesis creation account. Both submit valid arguments, however, it is ultimately up to each individual to decide which testimony to accept as truth and to consider if it is possible that both opinions could co-exist.

theism versus science. During the beginning of this century and the next religion and science

He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak: as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”[v] Though Jastrow treats the issue as settled and declares that scientists have finally been “defeated,” it is too early to reach any judgements on the implications the new cosmology has for both science and religion. Our image of the origin of the universe is not yet complete and further investigations must be conducted before the towel is thrown in. Science has still much to offer to help us understand how the universe came to be. Therefore, let us now attempt to solve the cosmic mystery of creation by referring to the great scientific minds as our guide. Let us now rewind the story of the big bang and look into the origins of the universe.

When “why” is asked overlapping of the two sciences occurs, serving as a reminder of the harmony between the laws of “nature” and “mind” and the intelligible order of the universe. While science searches for autonomous structures, theology searches for dependence upon Gods’ revelation and purpose in the historical. However, both are “observer-conditioned.”

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

“Does Science Make the Belief in God Obsolete?” by Kenneth Miller and Christopher Hitchens debate with no date of the discussion.

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