To better understand and answer the question of whether the two sides really do conflict we will look at: my view on the subject, the definitions of both science and religion, basic arguments of both sides, scientific evolution, differing religions and religious views, the compatible versus incompatible argument, how religion has influenced science and views from t...
Also, Mr. Barash does little to prove his claim that science and religion cannot be reconciled. It all depends on how science and God are defined. Science, without religion, becomes its own belief system. We would benefit to embrace science as a valuable, though limited approach toward understanding the multidimensional mystery of life.
However, even though the scientific approval of his theory was close to becoming worldwide, there have been countless opposition groups, predominantly amongst the religious believers.
While integration seems attractive (especially to theologians), it isdifficult to do justice to both the science and religion aspects of agiven domain, especially given their complexities. For example, PierreTeilhard de Chardin (1971), who was both knowledgeable inpaleoanthropology and theology, ended up with an unconventional viewof evolution as teleological (which brought him into trouble with thescientific establishment), and with an unorthodox theology (with anunconventional interpretation of original sin that brought him intotrouble with the Roman Catholic Church). Theological heterodoxy, byitself, is no reason to doubt a model, but it points to difficultiesfor the integration model in becoming successful in the broadercommunity of theologians and philosophers. Moreover, integration seemsskewed towards theism as Barbour described arguments based onscientific results that support (but do not demonstrate) theism, butfailed to discuss arguments based on scientific results that support(but do not demonstrate) the denial of theism.
[tags: Religion vs Science Essays]
He identified science’s areas of expertise as empiricalquestions about the constitution of the universe, and religion’sdomains of expertise as ethical values and spiritual meaning. NOMA isboth descriptive and normative: religious leaders should refrain frommaking factual claims about, for instance, evolutionary theory, justas scientists should not claim insight on moral matters. Gould heldthat there might be interactions at the borders of each magisterium,such as our responsibility toward other creatures. One obvious problemwith the independence model is that if religion were barred frommaking any statement of fact it would be difficult to justify theclaims of value and ethics, e.g., one could not argue that one shouldlove one’s neighbor because it pleases the creator (Worrall2004). Moreover, religions do seem to make empirical claims, forexample, that Jesus appeared after his death or that the early Hebrewspassed through the parted waters of the Red Sea.
Science is based on observation and what we can prove.
Religion tended to the answer to all these questions with the stories of gods and godesses and other supernatural forces that were beyond the understanding of humans.
Part VII: Cognitive Science and Religious Belief
Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict betweenreligion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertiononce again on an essential point, with reference to the actual contentof historical religions. This qualification has to do with the conceptof God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution humanfantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of theirwill were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenalworld. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favorby means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught atpresent is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphiccharacter is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the DivineBeing in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.