The Debate Between Faith and Science

Many people believe that Christians have to reject evolution in order to believe in the biblical account of creation in Genesis 1. Scholar and author John Walton, as well as physician, Francis Collins argue that this is not necessarily true. Walton reminds us that we have to read the Bible carefully, as it was not written for us but for the Israelites. Walton also argues that observing natural effects does not mean that we have to remove God from our thoughts. He cannot just reveal all the scientific details that were going to occur because the past generations would not understand. The Bible is the proof of His love and patience for humans, not a science textbook. Even though it was not for us, we still read it since the Scripture is

Science and religion have long been controversial topics of thought. Lawrence Krauss’ and William Lane Craig’s debate titled, “Has Science Buried God?”, explores both sides of the argument revolving around the question at hand. While both make strong cases, William Lane Craig gives his arguments without showing strong emotion, which can overall lead to a stronger case. That does not, however, mean that Lawrence Krauss’ arguments are weak, per say, but that his argument is more opinionated. Overall, William Lane Craig gave a more sophisticated and logical argument to the guiding question, “Has Science Buried God?”

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.

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.

As William Paley once wrote, “There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; arrange without anything capable of arranging.” In our world today, the ultimate designer, contriver and arranger would be considered God to many. Although the existence of God has consistently been debated throughout the course of time, the cause of debate has almost always returned to science. Considering the Design Argument and the Anthropic Principle, science can be seen to simultaneously support and go against the existence of God depending on one’s own perception of the topic.

John William Draper, in the History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, states, “The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other.” John William Draper brings up a strong truth behind the progression of science. Human faith inevitably conflicts with the progression of science. One may think that religion is the moral part of human belief and science is the advancement of intellect. It is inevitable that morals and the advancement of intellect would. Emotions and morals sometimes may overpower what the advancement of science would lead to. This concept is present in the ethical controversy involved with the Catholic Church and stem cell research. The moral and heart of many members of the Catholic Church easily disables the acceptance and support of stem cell research. This is unfortunate because stem cell usage and research has tremendous potential in helping those that suffer from disease. Stem cell research will advance medical fields and assist in finding cures for deadly ailments. Many followers of the Catholic Church view the science of stem cell research as killing innocent lives, however a sense of the faithful needs to come into action in order to look passed tradition and history to

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

The Language of God written by Francis S. Collins proposes a new synthesis, a new way to think about an active, caring God who created humankind through evolutionary processes. This book is a must-read for any individual wondering about the deepest questions that life has to offer: Why are we here? How did we get here? And what does life mean? In this book, Dr. Collins uses his previous profound and far-reaching accomplishments in the scientific field to try and answer these questions, along with how science and faith can actually work together to fill in many gaps concerning evolution, how the Earth came to be, and much more.

The relationship between religion and science is indubitably debated. Barbour describes four ways of viewing this relationship (conflict, independence, dialogue--religion explains what science cannot, and integration--religion and science overlap). Gould presents a case in which religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), that the two entities teach different things and therefore do not conflict. The subject of this essay is Worrall, who says that religion and science does conflict, and that genuine religious beliefs are incompatible with a proper scientific attitude. The former half of the essay will describe his argument, while the latter will present a criticism of his argument.

As a young believer who enjoyed the seemingly deterministic study of science, yet also greatly wanted to have free will, the issue of determinism often preoccupied me. While God’s sovereignty is assuredly a good thing, I hated the thought of not having control over my immediate actions, yet I also wanted God to be the guide. The argument told to me was the in God having created, he by necessity set things in motion in a certain way and now controls everything. In the Bible the relationship between creation and God is often established on the basis of the majesty of creation, such as in Psalms 19 where it is said that “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge” (Psalm 19 1-2 ESV).

The opposition amongst science and religion is observed between those who attend to find the absent pieces of the puzzle through means of mythology and those who use the scientific method of research. Miller noted, “If faith and reason are both gifts from God, then they should play completer, not conflicting, roles in struggle to understand the world around us”. (Miller 267). Some groups who would typically appreciate and tolerate the views of both studies are those nestled in the roots of the rabbit’s fur. Theology and science both should play a part with each others, but it is very difficult to understand.

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

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