The Relationship Between Religion And Science

In today’s world there is an ongoing debate between faith and science. The extraordinary advances of science have sometimes led to the belief that it is capable of answering by itself all of man's questions and resolving all his problems. Some have concluded that by now there is no longer any need for God. It has been said that one must choose between faith and science: either one embraces one or believes in the other. People seem to have faith belief in God as creator of life and some have scientific beliefs in the spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter (Wright 111). Between faith and science there will always be conflict. A scientist who is committed to scientific research no longer has a need for God and vice versa is

In both premodern and modern times, priests and religious figures have felt threatened by the growing field of science. What they failed to realize is that science and religion don’t answer the same questions. Society needs reason, a logical and practical understanding of the world, to answer the question “hows” of life. Yet, it also needs tradition, faith in religion or other core belief system, to answer the “whys.” As shown in Maimonides’ Intro to Mishnah Sanhedrin Chapter 10, “Sacks, the Great Partnership,” and the debate between Rabbi David Wolpe and Christopher Hitchens, reason provides explanations for the processes that allow the world to work the way it does, while tradition provides meaning in life and an understanding of purpose.

The question whether advancements in science and technology make the religious explanations of reality is one of the big question and has triggered heated discussions and debates (Tremlin, 2012). I support the great work of world’s top higher learning institutions and universities in the fields such as theoretical cosmology, physics, cognitive science, evolutionary biology and social science that relate to forgiveness, love, purpose, creativity, nature and origin of religious beliefs. I encourage the informed and open-minded discussion between theologians and scientists as they relate themselves to the most profound issues their specific discipline. And in a more particular way I seek to motivate fresh thinking about the creation of wealth and developing the world, programs that are aimed at cultivation talents of the gifted, and character education in Universities and schools. In this paper, I will explain why the primitive theories still hold despite the advancements in technology.

As man's capacities in logical revelation developed, despite the fact that science as a discipline was at first intended to be an investigation of God's Creation and along these lines God Himself as said by Romans 1.20, eventually man’s confidence began to overtake his need for reflection upon God or even the need for God to answer what questions man was unable to answer. Man got himself more capable

Before the scientific revolution, controversy, alienation, and even imprisonment was what many new developing thinkers faced. Proposed ideas that challenged the teachings of the churches sparked controversy. Their early negative response has since then led many to believe religion clashes with science and obstructs the understanding of the natural world. However, faith and knowledge have been wrongly separated into two different groups and their cohesiveness has been over looked. This will be examined through selected texts. Both science and religion provide different ideas that together, contribute towards the better understanding of the natural world.

The relationship between science and religion is an arguably rigid one, the two topics presently posing contrasting ideas in modern society. However, this relationship has been varied over the course of time, in particular the nineteenth century. We can put forth the argument that it was not necessarily as simple as the two being mutually exclusive concepts that continuously opposed each other; rather the two held a complicated relationship. These apparent conflicts between science and religion can often be resultant of more complex debates, for example concerning political power. It can also be seen that there was a continually shifting boundary between the two subjects, making it merely reductionist to say the two were in conflict. Science and religion were in conflict to the extent that both these concepts were adapting to the contemporary world, sometimes causing them to clash.

In The Convergence of Science and Religion, Dr. Charles Townes asserts that as the success of scientific discoveries increases, so do the conflicts between religion and science. Dr. Townes, who opposes the common widely held belief that science and religion significantly vary in their natures, claims that in making this decision an individual will approach the matter in a predictable way. Some individuals he proclaims view the two as separate in nature and as such he claims that individuals will separate the two by their intents and their methodologies so that neither can discredit the other (Townes, 1966). In much of the same manner, he asserts that others will be drawn closer to one viewpoint, be it science or religion, and ultimately regard the other with little value or in some instances “potentially harmful” (Townes, 1966). Lastly, as Dr. Townes does, a distinct sect of individuals may be of the opinion that the two belief systems are universal and in many ways rely on many of the same

Famous cosmologist Carl Sagan once said, “Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.” In modern culture, science has been turned into a religious rulebook that “helps” guide people to a perfect world, free from pain and suffering. This is, however, not true, as the Bible is the only rulebook and guide that can help guide a person to righteousness and to true perfection. In the book, Scientific Mythologies: How Science and Science Fiction Forge New Religious Beliefs, the author James A. Herrick looks to dispel several common myths related to science and how it conflicts and complements Christianity.

It seems to me that the most complete and satisfying understanding of the world must take into account both scientific ideas of reason and rational progress in synthesis with some religious conception of a divine designer, infinite in power and scope. The reasons for this insistence for both shall become clear in the following pages. Science, as I will take it for the remainder of this essay, encompasses the various fields known as physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics and most of philosophy. It is a rational system based on a combination of reason, intellect, and empirical observations. Religion, as I will use it, refers to a specific outlook on Christianity developed in the eastern

Scientific information can have a tremendously negative effect on theological thoughts. Yet, it can also have a positive impact on theological thoughts. It depends on how it is used. Still to this day, great controversy is amid the link between science and theology. It is indeed one of the most challenging studies today. Some people believe that science explains the why and how behind the creation of life. While others stand firm on reasons in reflection of theology.

Question:1. Compare and contrast religion with science from a sociological viewpoint. Is science just another form of religion, with people like physicist Stephen Hawking among its high priests or mullah? Are science and religions simply both similar social constructions? In your response to this question, specifically consider both how irrational social factors influence everything, and the relationship between faith and proof.

We return to the works of Winter, who wrote on the subject of science being the “how” to religion’s “why” (Winter 36-37). And with this view, a lot of obstacles can be overcome. I believe that there had to be something more, in the beginning, to say “Go”, and then it all began. It may be that the beginning of all life WAS as simple as a natural incident, but that clearly does not answer all the questions. To attribute it all to coincidence simply doesn’t make scientific sense; if it was that simple, why wouldn’t we be sure of it already? To believe that there was something more, something great and powerful, to kick it all off, fills in these blanks that science simply cannot. To me, it is beyond mere comfort, knowing that there is something more to life, and someone out there to meet us when we die. It is a way for us to better understand the world around us, by trying to understand that which can’t be explained, by leaving it up to faith.

Science and religion have, since the Enlightenment, been part in a constant struggle and debate based on their legitimacy and their coexistence. Mostly Christianity has been criticized in this discussion due to the extreme positions some followers might have, but also most scholars still today have a Christian background or still follow the Christian cults. The coexistence of science and religion poses an ethical problem since many deeply believe in the absolute truth science can provide on the long term and fill the gaps of unknown knowledge the scientific community has right now. On the other hand, religious people believe in a holy book that states to know the solutions and how to fill these gaps since they trust a holy spirit that has created and managed the world. Faith followers also think that religion help them to have a greater sense of community and gratefulness through religious practice. It is clear that science and religion provide answers to different questions which make them non-overlapping magisteria. This paper will argue and defend the fact that science will not make religion obsolete since they provide different answers. To support this argument, the first part of this paper will be an exposition of the argument and how scientists have perceived the issue, followed by a second part consecrated to a critical evaluation of the problems as well as opposing points of view in order to finally conclude.

he relationship between science and religion is a very interesting and complex one, and has changed quite a lot over the course of human history. In order to competently understand this relationship, it is necessary to have a rudimentary knowledge of the fundamental methods and aims of each discipline. Though the relationship between science and religion has changed a lot over time, what has not changed is the fact that the two disciplines are diametrically opposed to each other in many ways, having very different goals. Science has always attempted to uncover the truth about our physical universe, based on facts and empirical evidence that come to light via the scientific method – things that we can measure, verify, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the chief aim of religion is to control humanity by any means – this often means through fear, coercion, and preying upon their ignorance of the real world to subjugate and pacify them.

Contemporary society assumes a conflict between science and religion regarding moral issues. Since antiquity, mankind has sensed a need for moral order and sought guidance from organized religion to establish that order. But accepting the precepts taught by an organized religion often entails faith in the next world. Therefore, not everybody, even in good conscience, can accept this guidance, at least from what they perceive as a man-made religion. And so, a second source of guidance emerged in approximately the 15th century - namely classical science. A discipline that entails measurement and observation of natural phenomenon, and especially the ability to reproduce experimental results is easier for mankind to accept because it is provable. Thus in contemporary society, the temptation is heightened to turn to something they can trust – namely “science” to find the answers to the perplexing problems of life.