Essay on The Black and White of Science and Religion

In a 2010 article titled, “Science, Reason, and Catholic Faith”, Stephen M. Barr, a Catholic professor of physics at the University of Delaware, briefly defends the Catholic Faith with regard to science and explains how science does not conflict with theology. Barr describes describes a recent experience in his if when he was asked to preview a textbook on science and religion that was to be used in Catholic and colleges. At first, he recognized the obvious danger that could come with such an undertaking. He acknowledged the fact that discussing science and faith together could prove to be precarious especially since often both science and religion are blended together to form something that is neither scientific nor Catholic. However, after discussing with the author, Barr was enthused by by the idea and wrote this article to describe how, despite popular belief, Catholic Faith and modern scientific discovery can coexist and do not

theism versus science. During the beginning of this century and the next religion and science

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.

The conflict between science and religion has always been existed. In many religious institutions, especially Muslim and Jewish, belief in Darwinism or other scientific theories is forbidden (Ferngren, 2002). Therefore, scientific studies in faith schools subsequently differ from normal school one’s. For example, Dawkins (2006) argues that faith schools tend only to teach children in a religious way, avoiding such important curriculums such as science and humanism. Similarly, Cush(2005) states that faith schools provide limited choice of scientific and sociological subjects. The knowledge of science basics is compulsory for every decent citizen in the age of new technologies and scientific humanity progress.

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.

When it comes to Christianity and science, neither side is truly at piece with the idea of an agreement. This feud between the two sides is usually applied by people who are atheists or don’t believe in any kind of spirituality and it applies to science as well. Christianity and spirituality produce unfathomable feelings in people. By speaking to peoples’ most profound values it makes practicing science difficult and they must be careful to approach these processes with familiarity, compassion and precaution. Unfortunately, it is rare people in the profession of science take into consideration these values. Although it isn’t their

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

Understanding the book requires a semi-vast knowledge of vocabulary and laws, and is clearly intended for an audience that has studied the subject of Christianity versus Evolution before.

Science and religion are often viewed as two diametrically opposed practices where one is used to refute the other, or one is held in a higher regard. Science is modernity; progress, enlightenment and cold logistics while religion is spiritual, traditional, and perhaps archaic. Rarely are the two viewed through a ‘both-and’ lens in which neither is greater or lesser, or more true or false. The 1997 film Princess Mononoke, deals with the relationship between science and religion and effectively shows that the two must coexist or face inevitable mutual destruction.

I remember it well as if it were yesterday, but it over 40 years ago when I walked into Dr. E’s. Office asking for his opinion about something; that I needed help having to do with correctly responding to the interrelationship between Science and Christianity. I had my own discernment and interpretation on this topic, but I wanted a practical, realistic way to approach this discussion when asked, even if it was a couple days later, or during a confirmation class. Though I did not have Dr. E as a professor, or took one of his courses in geology, I knew that he could help me in a constructive way. Dr. E. was my mentor and sponsor and he was always receptive to anything that I had to ask whether it was a simple or complex question of the day. On that day, I wanted to know his understanding of God’s creation of science, its separation from, but more so to its correlation to the theology of Christianity. At times, I was puzzled by some people’s insistence that the two shall never meet. Where I was coming from the standpoint and still hold true, that Jesus, Son of God is the Great Physician as recounted in the healings parables and based and John 5:1-9. I also believed and have no problem seeing that science and medical advances were beneficial and true blessings from God. Another vital point of understanding that I base this reflection upon is the profound belief that that God works his power and purpose through the means of science as wisdom and hard work is expressed

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.

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

1); also, science “confers no special authority to answer a nonscientific question” (pp.1). Scientists claim that science is attacked from two sides, the fundamentalism of Christianity, and the humanities. Nevertheless, for the humanities to respect and distinguish the sciences is not enough, they need, “the humanities to submit to the sciences and be subsumed by them” (pp.3). If God exists, is for philosophy to determine, not science. Traditional religions and cultures influence believer’s interpretation of understanding and are traditions of value. As a result, the relationship between value and fact in these traditions is so strong that values often overpower facts. The study of greater ideas about life are common in science, but these ideas cannot be only based or accepted completely on scientific grounds; a scientific viewpoint may not be as broad as many think. Scientists cannot note the way natural sciences and humanities differ, since humanities would have to be explainable by science. Besides, humanities do not advance, progress, or study the way sciences do, the humanities are a study of the sciences inwardness. The central goal of scientism is the transformation of non-scientific dialogue into scientific dialogue. Meanwhile, respected

In our modern age of scientific revolution there seems to be a growing tension between the scientific and religious understanding of this world. This tension is not surprising as the two worldviews exist on different realms in many ways. The Christian faith, grounded in the revelation of God through Christ for humanity’s salvation, clashes with science on many levels especially concerning human nature, as well Divine authority, as compared to the scientific rational and mechanistic understanding of matter. However in this age of scientific revolution there has been a more concerted effort to develop ways to integrate the scientific and Christian

Science and religion might be translated as different impressions of a similar source, and it is distortions in those reflections that prompt to chaos and misery. Religion and science both have defects that can imperil human progress if they do not acknowledge each other’s elementary principles. "Religion is not only dangerous and misleading but…sentient beings are generally too weak-willed to reject it” (269). When one acknowledges either science or religion with no endeavor to accommodate the two productively, the final result is normally disastrous. At the point when scientists and theologians take part in battle for the absolute entirety of people, nobody wins, but when they engage in dialogue, the fruits are enormous.