Comparing God, Science, And Imagination By Wendell Berry

Through the analysis of the major televised debate, held February this year, between the popular science communicator, Bill Nye, and the US-based Australian creationist, Ken Ham. It has come to light that through careful analysis and research it is my belief that scientists should not be involved within any debates “scientific” or otherwise regarding topics pertaining to creationism or any other religious perspective. The inappropriate use of the loose definitions of science and religion lead to the intertwining of the two subjects that are extremely different in methodology, leaving the audience up for misinterpretation. While the debate did bring about the topic to the forefront of the public, which in itself was a positive, I do not believe that the post debate result was a win for science. Bill Nye’s derogatory demeanour represented post debate towards Ken Ham was in turn a representation of institutional science. Leading to which the validity of the debate and post debate could be brought into question.

Wendell Berry’s Another Turn of the Crank is about sustainability of the environment. He believes that you must first start at a local level then sustainability can be accomplished at a global level. This is the same idea that was expressed at the start of this course, “think globally, act locally,” which means the consequences of our actions effect the world. As I address the some of the chapters in the book I will associate how Berry’s ideas link into the material discussed in this class.

From the very beginning the author puts forward his disagreement with Professor Weinberg’s argument and refuted his claims. The author says even when Weinberg is saying he doesn’t mean to humiliate the association of people with religion his argument is indeed a humiliation. Standing in the middle of fundamentalists of science and fundamentalists of religion, the author censures Weinberg’s act – trying to disturb the orderness among those who value religion. Referring the example of life after death, Berry reproduces and questions the citation “more and more of us know that after death there is nothing”. If anyone doesn’t know, does it mean there is nothing? In Berry’s words Weinberg tries to power his opinion like those politicians in the battle of chair, or in the field of technology, science and religion. The author denounces Weinberg’s act of total humiliation to the fundamentalists of religion. He believes the argument must be conducted in absence of material evidence which stands as proof in lab or court and it can neither

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

Memes not only affect the group(s) that they target, but also the group that creates them. They reflect and construct norms for the creator group’s behaviour, and Fleishman and Smith effectively illustrate this in the case of neo-Nazis. For example, one behavioural norm that is reinforced within the neo-Nazi community is the belief in the intellectual superiority of Nazis. The echoes themselves are intended to critique the Jewish community in an intellectual way, as “The Right Stuff” uses symbolism and pseudo-philosophy to explain the “damaging” effects of Jewish people in society. People who use the echoes meme also demonstrate this belief in the intellectual superiority of Naziism: one tweet calls journalist Johnathan Weisman a “fool”

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.

Wendell Berry is a well known author of over 40 books of poetry, fiction, and essays. As a young man he spent time in California, Europe, and New York City, before returning back to his hometown in Kentucky. After many years of teaching at the University of Kentucky, Berry switched gears and decided to pursue his love for farming.

In the “Introduction,” Verschuuren introduces the supposed conflict that some believe exists between science and faith. He immediately questions this belief by suggesting that some atheists tried to use evolution to discredit Christianity, and in response, some Christians simply rejected

Will Langas The first speaker I agree with is Whitney Harris, whose essay, “Human Existence Is In Peril,” touched on many ideals concerning God, the human condition, and our ultimate destiny. The first point he made that I agreed with was that one can be balanced between their faith and science and religious beliefs. Although he does not say much about the role of science in religion, he personally found a way to incorporate both ways of life into his own set of beliefs.

For Christians, science is almost the realm of the forbidden while for non-Christians, religion is the realm of the absurd. So many of my friends and family were surprised that I was going to attend a Christian college and major in biology. I was and still am asked about how JBU covers evolution and I have been blessed to be able to disprove the stereotype and prove how much JBU has helped shaped by views about science and religion. Between Collins and Venema, I have been given the opportunity to show others great Christian scientists and try to follow their

Bill Greene’s personal essay “Science Nourishes the Mind and the Soul” informs us about the authors experience with science. His mind-opening story starts off by him going to a planetarium when he was a young kid. He realized that the universe is so big and wondered if his life held any significance. Then years later, the issue still on his mind, he decides to take action and to teach kids about the universe and how it functions. With the reactions of the now educated kids, Bill Greene found it to be very important to be aware of our universe then to feel uninformed. He also found that it is better to live on this planet and understand the universe's’ laws so you can appreciate your live upon it and know that it is more than

It is widely accepted by both believers and atheists that humans have a moral obligation to do good and avoid evil. These moral obligations are objective facts and are based on duties that arise from the way things are and not from desires of a person. The moral obligation is viewed differently by both atheists and believers (Jeff, 2013). Since atheists do not believe in the existence of God and believe that the universe came into form through chance, the question always presented to them is on what grounds are the moral obligations developed? On the other hand, the religious view sees that moral obligation is grounded in the Creator, and it is further rooted in the fact that humans were created with a purpose. The religious view is more compatible than that of atheists. It is more acceptable to state that moral conscience is God?s voice within the soul as moral values exist in a person?s mind and will. The idea of moral principles somehow floating on their own apart from any person sounds impossible. The compatibility of moral obligation to the creator of the universe is easily acceptable than that of materialism and belief in objective values (Peter & Ronald, 1994). Therefore, the moral argument provides evidence for the existence of God as it states that the moral obligation of human can not originate from a random collision of particles but rather from the creator of the

New Atheism is becoming more popular every year with more people openly joining the movement. The term new atheist refers to the activist atheist organizations that are having recent growth around the world. As well as people who argue that religion is dangerous and needs to come to a halt (Cuthbertson, lecture 1, week 11). To some new atheism can be looked upon as a non-religious organization and as to others is it not. The term fundamentalist is hard to define as there are many interpretations of it but a basic one is, fundamentalist defends core principles of a particular area or subject. In this paper, the main background for the definition of what fundamentalism is will come for the work of Marty and his article Fundamentals of Fundamentalism. In Marty 's article, he goes over twelve basic principles of fundamentalism; I will draw on these to support my evidence throughout the paper. Even though that I will be drawing from Marty’s work there are other definitions and interpretations of fundamentalism that could contradict Marty’s. With these different interpretation of fundamentalism, it is up to an individual and how they interpret the different definitions and then categorizes new atheism.

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

A. Flew says that we must go back to the definition of a miracle, and