The Language Of God Analysis

In the article “Redefining Myth and Religion: Introduction to a Conversation,” Dr. Loyal D. Rue discusses how science, religion, and myth are related and how they coexist. Some people may argue that science and religion should not coincide and that they are opposites. However, Rue argues, “…In an ideal world, the vocabulary of science would inform the myth that binds together the culture.” In this statement, Rue claims that science can be used to help explain the supernatural phenomena that religion and myths describe. Science is not anti-religion; it helps us to explain religion in ways that humans can understand.

Intelligent Design is the idea that living creatures on Earth are so complex that, they could not possibly have been created through the natural selection. It is the belief that there must be an ?intelligent designer? that created us all. This creator is usually referenced as God. However, it may also be

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.

Journal Entry 1, Pages 1-15 Starting off, I can already predict this book is going to be very controversial with the whole topic of whether or not science should be allowed to “play the role of God”. So far I believe Charlie is a very likable and friendly character. I also believe due to his mental state he is very vulnerable. I agree strongly with Prof Nemur when he said, “We will use Charlie.

ABSTRACT: The dispute between fideists and rationalists seems intractable since those who argue for faith alone claim that they are offended by the use of reason in religion. The advocates of reason claim that they are equally offended by the appeal to faith. This dispute may be resolved by showing that those who rely on faith may be seen as engaging in an experiment of living, so they can become part of a rational experiment without having to alter their practice; in contrast, those who use reason to justify religion can be seen as addressing a spiritual need. From an evangelical point of view, it would be wrong to disparage the mathematician’s use of the mathematical proof of God’s existence (such

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

Faith Matters. (2010, April 02). Scholar says that religion and Science can coexist. Lab Activity: Chapter1. Podcast retrieved from

Throughout Collins’s book he goes through many topics that have been a barrier between science and religion for a long time. I agree with many of Collins’s viewpoints when stuck in-between science and religion. This includes his view on the origins of the universe.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but it is a religion. It does not qualify as a science because it fails to be part of any general theory of how the natural world operates, instead it offers a supernatural causation. Intelligent design postulates that there are structures that are so complex that they had to be designed rather than have evolved by natural processes. In other words, if something is ‘irreducibly complex’ it was a product of intelligent design. Although such a contention alludes to a designer (god), supporters of intelligent design are cautious not to mention anything about the designer or why he/she work. The opponents of intelligent design have valuable argument to prove that it falls on a religious stance.

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 and religious faith seem irreconcilable because they are both attempting to uncover the ultimate question of humanity, ‘What is the meaning of existence?’ Each establishment has confronted this task using very different methods and, thus far, both have yielded very different answers. Some, however, see the two disciplines as complimentary. For instance,

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

Since the beginning of time the debate between the coexistence of science and religion has been an issue within society. There are many arguments about their relationship as a whole. Such as science and religion being conflicted, lacking interaction, or being harmonious. Despite what many would assume, the two do not work against each other. Science and religion are complementary to each other and for that reason the two have majorly impacted society and humanity positively. Though there are many different aspects that could help define each, neither science nor religion has one simple or concrete definition.

It seems that science and religion stand to ask two sides of a very similar question: How does the world work? Science, on the one hand, looks to answer this question with evidence of the way the physical world works as it can be ardently observed by human eyes. While on the other hand, religion offers an account of why the world stands the way it does from the perspective of one all-powerful God. The different perspectives that science and religion employ in answering this grand question are part of the reason that both are necessary in their own standing. Because when it comes down to it, answering these questions and thinking about their implications is an extremely important aspect of being human and being alive.

ABSTRACT: Curiously, in the late twentieth century, even agnostic cosmologists like Stephen Hawking—who is often compared with Einstein—pose metascientific questions concerning a Creator and the cosmos, which science per se is unable to answer. Modern science of the brain, e.g. Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind (1994), is only beginning to explore the relationship between the brain and the mind-the physiological and the epistemic. Galileo thought that God's two books-Nature and the Word-cannot be in conflict, since both have a common author: God. This entails, inter alia, that science and faith are to two roads to the Creator-God. David Granby recalls that once upon a time,