Science And Religion: Right Or Wrong?

In the beginning God created the heavens with the Earth along with man in his own image. For over 1500 years, Christian followers were heavy believers of the bible, seeing it as the primary source for knowledge. Then came the scientific revolution in the 1500s, a movement which challenged the Christian view of the universe. It was a time when people were looking for a new way of thinking about the world. Since then and to this day, there has been several instances in which scientific inquiry and religious belief have collided in their ideologies.

I have chosen the article, Does Science Threaten Religion? (p. 497) as my focus for this tutorial. I strongly believe the article uses the structural-functionalism approach as well as scientific sociology.

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.

Throughout history we can find many instances where religion was strongly opposed to scientific research. For example, the Catholic Church’s objection to Galileo’s defense of Copernicus’ heliocentric model where he offered his observations that he felt furthered the theory that the planets revolved around the Sun. At that time, the belief that the Holy Scriptures were perhaps inaccurate was one thing, but attempting to confirm it as Galileo tried to do was a completely different issue and resulted in Galileo being forbidden by the Church to write or teach his findings. Another example is the opposition to Darwin’s theory of evolution by the majority of the

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

There are many topics that science and religion have opposing views on and continue to debate. One of these subjects that has received a great deal of attention and has placed an enormous wedge between the two realms is the varying opinions concerning the creation of the universe. For nearly a century, scientists have explained this phenomenon with the Big Bang theory, whereas spiritual thinkers have long placed their faith in the Genesis creation account. Both submit valid arguments, however, it is ultimately up to each individual to decide which testimony to accept as truth and to consider if it is possible that both opinions could co-exist.

When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers or Partners? In the book, When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers or Partners? is written by author Ian G. Barour. Barour studied both science and religion then found a balance between them. The primary subject and purpose of the book is to explain the relationship science and religion.

Since ancient times, religion and science are standing in the exact opposite of the two camps being. They are having a completely different understanding and interpretation for the origin of humans and all things. We cannot determine who is right or who is faults. In the book "The Magic Of Reality" by Richard Dawkins, the author hopes we are standing on his points of view and using the science to explain every thins real exist on this world.

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 worldview is a set of basic beliefs about the nature of reality. It affects the way a person behaves and responds to different circumstances. When young, our worldview is influenced by parents, who tell us what is right and wrong. However, as we grew up, our life experiences come to shape worldviews that we hold as adults. As scientists, our worldviews matter a great deal. Whether theist or atheist, it is critical to know what we consider to be our responsibility towards everyone and everything around us. In this paper, I talk about views of a number of scientists about God and creation and the impact of these beliefs on their approach to science. In addition, we will look at different natural phenomena and what they tell us about the Intelligence design behind them. I will also discuss the effects of human actions on the environment and what can be done to keep it clean.

Although science explains much about life and the universe, some people choose to believe religion.

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.

Throughout a majority of history up to this present date, we have come to rely on science as a means of explanation behind the reasoning behind many things: mathematics, chemistry, physics, and biology. When regarding the subject of a greater entity or supreme being, the quote “Where science ends, religion begins” can be used to explain that there are things in which science cannot possibly hold the answer to, and the only reasonable explanation behind these things point to a greater being. Acquiring this newfound knowledge has altered my viewpoint on God, going on to strengthen my faith and belief in God now that I had been presented with scientific proof that God must have existed. There have been times throughout my life where curiosity had overcome me and I found myself asking whether or not God had actually existed, and now that I have been presented proof that he exists, all of my doubts have been washed away. There are three major areas in our universe that science cannot provide an explanation for, and can only be proven to be possible if a greater being had come into play. These topics included: the beginning of the universe, the design of the universe, and the complexity of our DNA.

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

Is it possible for science and religion to coexist? In both The Day The Earth Stood Still and The Man Who Fell to The Earth, the idea of science versus religion is questioned. The films show that our world is rapidly changing and how society reacts to events during those specific times by questioning spiritual faith. Certain sounds that are heard throughout both movies allow us to feel the tone that each movie tries to relay. These sound effects help the viewers understand moments of tension, fear, desperation, peacefulness, to name a few. In addition, certain cinematic techniques that portray quick cuts, long and complex scenes, and much more allow viewers to explore the relationship