Natural Science Vs Religion

The age of the earth has been debated for centuries. Many people believe in evolution that it took billions of years for everything and everyone to form. Others believe that God created the earth in seven days and that the earth is young. Secular scientist and Christian scientist both use different methods for determining how old the earth is. For example, Secular scientist look and use the layers of rocks to help them, while Christian scientist uses the Bible and look at historical data from other cultures to help them. Doesn't looking at archeological data seem more accurate than looking at rocks? If the earth is truly billions of years old, then why is there little sediment on the sea floor? Or how can secular scientist explain finding soft tissue in a fossil if the earth is old? The most logical explanation is that the earth is young. Many people believe something just because people say that it is true, sometimes it is good to investigate for yourself and see if it is good for you.

The scientific revolution established the new view of the universe. During this period people were finally beginning to define the scientific method and apply it to search for the truth. The scientific ideas of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries overturned many of the most fundamental ideas of the medieval worldview. New knowledge of the physical world provided occasions for challenging the authority of the church and of scripture. The new ideas then began to displace and reshape religious models of thought. Even though the scientific revolution exposed humankind to the truths of the world, the new science posed a potential challenge to religion.

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.

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.

Scientific Naturalism and Christianity are possibly the two most contradictory worldviews that are in our culture today. They are also the two most difficult to understand by one another. There is very little about these two worldviews that they have in common. They are a vast amount of ideas and beliefs held by adherents of each that are different. In order for these two worldviews to successfully co-exist in society, it is important to understand, accept, and learn from each one.

John William Draper, in the History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, states, “The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other.” John William Draper brings up a strong truth behind the progression of science. Human faith inevitably conflicts with the progression of science. One may think that religion is the moral part of human belief and science is the advancement of intellect. It is inevitable that morals and the advancement of intellect would. Emotions and morals sometimes may overpower what the advancement of science would lead to. This concept is present in the ethical controversy involved with the Catholic Church and stem cell research. The moral and heart of many members of the Catholic Church easily disables the acceptance and support of stem cell research. This is unfortunate because stem cell usage and research has tremendous potential in helping those that suffer from disease. Stem cell research will advance medical fields and assist in finding cures for deadly ailments. Many followers of the Catholic Church view the science of stem cell research as killing innocent lives, however a sense of the faithful needs to come into action in order to look passed tradition and history to

Summer for the Gods concentrates on the Dayton, Tennessee Scopes trial, or "Monkey Trial," of 1925. The trial was over a Tennessee law that banned teaching evolution in public schools. The American Civil Liberties Union protested the law with teacher, John Scopes, who agreed to help. The"trial of the century" brought together two famous political enemies, William Jennings Bryan, who led the anti-evolution crusade, and Clarence Darrow, who was known as the best criminal defense lawyer and evolution supporter. The author presents the history of controversy that led to the trial. Fossil discoveries, the rise of religious fundamentalism, and increased attendance in public high schools influenced the anti-evolution movement due to the

Is there a conflict between religion and science, or are both items compatible? This question is addressed in the debate that is written about in the book Science and Religion, Are they Compatible, by Daniel C. Dennett and Alvin Plantinga. Alvin Plantinga thoroughly debates the topic by covering the compatibility of Christianity and science. He continues his argument by stating the issue of naturalist and science harbor the conflict not the theism. Plantinga goes into detail how some scientific theories without the help of theism has conflict and should be considered falsifiable because of the contradictions they possess. While Alvin Plantinga does make a prominent effort to illustrate how religion and science are compatible, there are also

The relationship between religion and science is indubitably debated. Barbour describes four ways of viewing this relationship (conflict, independence, dialogue--religion explains what science cannot, and integration--religion and science overlap). Gould presents a case in which religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), that the two entities teach different things and therefore do not conflict. The subject of this essay is Worrall, who says that religion and science does conflict, and that genuine religious beliefs are incompatible with a proper scientific attitude. The former half of the essay will describe his argument, while the latter will present a criticism of his argument.

An abundance of people eloquently ignore laws of science to follow their faith; naturalism trampers with many religions because of the deep kinship with science. Naturalism is the belief that life arises from natural properties and causes, it’s also the belief that there is immoral souls that will live forever after we die. Furthermore, there is no explanation of afterlife so it does not correlate with a spiritual world. Although not every concept I agree with, naturalism set of beliefs are closest to mine. one reason is it coexists with science. Exceedingly everything has scientific reasoning and naturalism fits parallel with these concepts. People tend to turn to religion when a loved one dies, including myself, so lately I have had

According to the first unit we studied this semester, we have defined the question of who we are and where we come from through studies in the religious, mythological and scientific evolution. They each have differences and similarities in their definition of the question and yet, they all believe and are in consensus to the notion that there is something else behind, which is God.

Frankly, at the beginning of this course, I was most excited to tackle this question. In my chemistry classes, it is interesting to see how my professors integrate faith in seemingly contradistinctive topics. And now, I was interested to see it done from a philosophical standpoint. As a child, I remember the first time Scientism (a much milder form than what we discussed in class) was introduced as an alternative to Christianity. I remember laughing at it and thinking, this is crazy. Obviously, God created the Earth, not some big bang. However, the older I grew, I somehow felt more wrong. I heard more and more arguments supporting Scientism that sounded so valid that I began to compromise my faith. I began thinking that maybe God caused the

What is the relationship between religion and science? In his book, Consilience, Edward O. Wilson aims to find a unified theory of knowledge. Consilence also seeks to show how science is superior to and can replace religion. In this paper, I intend to show how Wilson understands this relationship and science as well as how. as well as show John Stuart Mill would agree or disagree with Wilson.

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