Two Opposing Powers

Day to day, different theories of evolution are combated and criticized through the highly intensive backlash and ideologies that results from the conflict that arises between the tension of science and religion’s constant battle. The many different conspiracies that explore and analyze the conflict that surrounds science and religion, such as the “Monkey Trial” in 1925 to even the current debate about school teachers and the forbidding of teaching theories of evolution, have challenged the ways in which we view whether it is science or religion that has had a more influential factor in explaining and conceptualizing theories of evolution (Coyne, p.3). Many people assume the position of one who believes in accommodationism and the tolerance of both science and religion equally contributing to theories of evolution, however some bluntly disagree. Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible by Jerry A. Coyne is an enlightening book that aims and challenges the idea that science and religion are compatible as author Coyne believes that the methodologies, and ways of assessing the reliance of these methods that are used to generate knowledge about reality differentiate greatly between the realms of science and religion. In fact, author Coyne believes that many of the methods and ideologies that relate and support religion’s claims towards reality are falsely justified as evidence to support faith is difficult to produce. Many different readers of Coyne’s book have

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.

In a letter addressed to Phyllis Wright, a sixth-grade girl, Albert Einstein somewhat effectively accomplishes his purpose of answering her question as to whether scientists pray, and if so, what they pray for with the use of logos and inattention to the audience. Einstein was thought to be the greatest scientist of the twentieth century, so people turned to him for thoughtful explanations. When Einstein begins to answer Wright’s question, he employs the use of logos to support his theories presented. He presents all angles of the situation to properly develop the response to Wright’s question. Einstein claims that science is a sort of religion on its own to a certain extent, and is “quite different from the religiosity of someone more naïve”.

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.

Throughout the history of science and religion there has always been a feud. People have been always told that this feud has lasted for centuries. Since the beginning of the scientific revolution there have a countless number of times in which science has presented a new idea about life that seemed to conflict with religion, and it almost every case religion combats it and ends up being wrong. All of these claims are basically common knowledge in today’s current day and age. Yet, is this common knowledge true? Many times, these conflicts have just been told to people as children by their teachers and parents and the children just blindly believe in these ideas just like their elders did before them. However, once scholars did more research

     Recently, education appeared as the truth. Perhaps people in the science field and I wanted facts, proof for the truth. Charles Darwin had come up with the idea of natural selection and the theory of evolution in the 1800’s. The questions and answers offered by science are more plausible. Scientists struggle with these questions every modern day. Open-minded people question and look for answers. Science suggests that religious ideas are incorrect.

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

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

Dr. Connie Bertka’s essay, “A Primer on Science, Religion, Evolution and Creationism,” expands on Kingsolver’s idea that science and religion have cohabited by explaining how science and religion are formative elements that shape society and serves to contribute to the common good. The relationship between science and religion can be described as a conflict approach which means that “science sets the standard of truth to which religion must adhere to or be dismissed or religion sets the standard to which science must conform.” On the other hand, science and religion can form an interactive relationship in which ideas converge from a scientific and religious perspective. Dr. Bertka mentions that religion and science can be taught in a classroom, since their interactive relationship can constructively benefit from engagement, since they both lead to individual insight and communal discernment.

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.

The Dawkins chapter speaks about the debate between religion and science and how religious people refuse to even give science teachers and professors the time of day. Most of the time people will refuse to listen to what has been proven due to their religious beliefs. Evolution professors have even been threatened with the loss of their jobs. Even though, many professors have tried to explain that evolution is a fact and one of the greatest of God’s works, still their time is wasted. The pope and educated priests and professors of theology have been known to no longer have a problem with evolution because they understand that evolution is a fact and not intended to be an anti-religious study.

Whereas ideas and beliefs are generally stunted in their growth and often tend to be passed down from one generation to the next. Intellectuals should never become shackled by their beliefs to the point it stands in the way of their quest for academic wisdom. Being well educated, one should always explore learning beyond the boundaries of their individual views. One of the more dogmatic topics of debate has always been religion versus science. Galileo, “the father of modern science”, was ultimately condemned for heresy by the Roman Inquisition for his lust for knowledge. Fortunately, times have changed and science and religion have learned to co-exist. Nonetheless, there is still a sense of social stigma associated with some of the topics that teeter on religion, such as Darwin’s Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory. Some of the greatest contributions to our world throughout the ages have been fueled by free thinkers that dared to venture outside the scope of their

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.

Science has been growing in importance since the advent of the scientific method as the main method of research; but, as science becomes more important within our lives and stretches into more vague and extreme subjects, the opposition towards science becomes stronger and more resolute. One of the largest groups within this community of skeptics is the many religious groups that are present throughout the world. These groups tend to recoil when science produces information that may contradict the very specific ideas present within these religions. For example, many Americans believe Christianity and the Bible in a very literal sense (2006). To prove this notion, a survey done in 2004 showed that upwards of 60 percent of Americans responded with a belief in Biblical accounts of history such as Noah’s ark that went beyond a simple metaphorical belief (2006). This pattern pervades through many modern cultures; so, the effects and patterns of this opposition are of extreme importance because they show how people are responding to the omnipresence of science within our society and future. This pattern does seem to have a large discrepancy; many great scientists of the past and the present, such as Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, show religious tendencies (2010). So, since there is a discrepancy in this pattern, the purpose of this study is to look into this correlation of scientific skepticism to test its validity. So, the

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.