Speech on God vs. Science

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 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

Everything should not be based on science, if a patient does not have faith in God that created heaven and earth, the science will mean nothing to this patient and even such an individual will not understand the theory of science. Giving medication to a patient that does not believe in that medication will not make difference in the condition of that patient. Science and religion needs to work together in order to achieve better outcome. Science and religion need learn from each other, both because science is implicitly religious, and also because religion, especially theology, can assist by learning to turn into imagination and truthful as science in the search of

With the rise of industry and technology, we no longer look to God for answers to questions which seem unanswerable, we look to our own science. But can this science be trusted in the way we trust our God? If our own science can answer these questions, how does God play a role? Are we our own God?

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.

many religious still work in and research in science fields. Now that the history has been

Alvin Plantinga begins his side of the debate by using Christianity to demonstrate the how science and religion do not possess a problem together. The items that are used to illustrate the point that is being made is the different doctrines used in the different types of Christianity, such as the Apostles Creed. There is not a conflict between the scientific fields of chemistry, physics, or the religion Christianity. He choose to use the theory of evolution to compare religion against because the theory of evolution does not state whether it is a guided or unguided process of creation. Plantinga creatively debates the comparison between the two by using different religious

Science and religion were based back in modern days to be the answer to everyone, and society as a whole to handle their issues through the church majority of the time, until science came along and changed the perspective of everyone’s outlook on how they were to solve their conflicts. Within the world today they both still exist and are still being put to use for its main purpose which is to create answers to things we face that need a solution.

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

Although science explains much about life and the universe, some people choose to believe religion.

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.

Throughout a majority of history up to this present date, we have come to rely on science as a means of explanation behind the reasoning behind many things: mathematics, chemistry, physics, and biology. When regarding the subject of a greater entity or supreme being, the quote “Where science ends, religion begins” can be used to explain that there are things in which science cannot possibly hold the answer to, and the only reasonable explanation behind these things point to a greater being. Acquiring this newfound knowledge has altered my viewpoint on God, going on to strengthen my faith and belief in God now that I had been presented with scientific proof that God must have existed. There have been times throughout my life where curiosity had overcome me and I found myself asking whether or not God had actually existed, and now that I have been presented proof that he exists, all of my doubts have been washed away. There are three major areas in our universe that science cannot provide an explanation for, and can only be proven to be possible if a greater being had come into play. These topics included: the beginning of the universe, the design of the universe, and the complexity of our DNA.

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