Knowledge Vs Religion

For purpose of this essay, religion will be defined as a collection of institutional beliefs and customs concerning humanity and the purpose of the universe [1]. Key beliefs within religion that will be explored, as well as there relation to reason, are:

We are only a brief second in the long history of the universe; many things have preceded us to make us the most complex creatures that ever walked the Earth. We are a “new level of complexity” which makes us different from all other creatures that have come before us. Our species has only been around for 250,000 years, a short time compared to the formation of the Earth at 4.5 billion years ago and the creation of the Universe at 13.7 billion years ago, but the time we have had on this Earth has greatly affected the outcome of history. In an attempt to provide an overview of human history in his book This Fleeting World, David Christian introduces it in the context of the history of the universe and then systematically breaks it down

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 science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. It is based on observations and experiments and these realities shape their knowledge and understanding. In our readings, it is pointed out that “Scientists can learn from theologians and theologians can learn from scientific thoughts” (Albl 98). Theologians learned from science that the “sun [does not] revolve around the Earth” (Albl 98). Theologians must learn to respect the nature of their particular task, as it corresponds to the living God who is the purpose of scientist’s study.

The book uncovers the genuinely bewildering extension and force of logical request, drawing on thoughts from science, brain research, neuroscience, logic, and the physical sciences. A numerous deal more than the narration of breakdown of the conventional soul, this book explores from where the soul convictions originate, why they are so across the board socially and verifiably, how subjective science proposes a naturalistic distinct option for religious originations of psyche, and how hypothesizing the presence of a spirit adds up to building a logical case. (Musolino) Schools in general don’t really pay attention to the religious aspect as other people in the world.

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

The Soul defines my interpretation the closest for what happens after death. As Steven Cave states the soul is "the idea that we can leave our body behind and live on as a soul", I found it best aligned with my beliefs that the soul leaves the body and joins the rest of my ancestors in an afterlife. I also found it interesting the way Cave tied the story of the soul to downloading our conscience/soul into a computer. As Cave states "particularly neuroscience, it suggests that your mind, your essence, the real you, is very much dependent on a particular part of your body, that is, your brain." That our brain is the responsible part for the our essence of us, which uploading could have a plausible outcome considering humans would then be using

There are over seven billion people in the world. Seven billion pairs of eyes with a story behind them, waiting to be told. This number, however, is comprised only of the Earth’s current population. If one were to take into account all life throughout history, since the dawn of time, this number would grow dramatically. Some of these stories may seem simple, and others may seem almost too outlandish to believe. Whatever the story may be, however, there is a lesson to be learned in each one. Of course, one cannot possibly hope to study every life. In order to attain the most knowledge, I believe one must search for the common factor that abides in all stories. Whether they realize it or not, there is one thing that the story of the Norwegian girl from the twenty-first century and the Chinese boy from the fifth century have in common: The Author.

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

Pope John Paul II once said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” (Fallible Blogma) Based on this significant and powerful quote, one can infer that faith and reason are directly associated and related. It can also be implied that the combination of faith and reason allows one to seek information and knowledge about truth and God; based on various class discussions and past academic teachings, it is understood that both faith and reason are the instruments that diverse parties

Life has continually perplexed and fascinated individuals since the dawn of mankind. The subject’s complexity is so great even over the course of human existence only a minute fraction of its mysteries have been unraveled. A phenomenon which has always intrigued scientists is the origin of life on Earth, and in recent years significant advancements have been made in the understanding of this enigma. This essay will briefly outline two theories regarding life’s origin on Earth to further comprehend why an explanation for this phenomenon has been so difficult to reach.

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.

The topic of knowledge and belief has been a subject of investigation and a primary field in philosophical research for centuries. Whether it was Aristotle or Descartes, multiple ideas on knowledge and belief arise, such as the epistemological theories of foundationalism or coherentism, which provide philosophical explanations to this debate. For the sake of this essay, and in my own opinion, knowledge should be distinguished from belief. Everyone is subject to different types of beliefs based on upbringing, however knowledge of basic items is universal, therefore it immediately becomes apparent that there is a clear distinction between the two concepts.

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,

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.