H Religion Improves Science example essay topic

The Supremacy of Faith, The Supremacy of Reason The history of science has long been in conflict with religion or! SSorganized ignorance!" as Dr. David Starr Jordan called in his book Science and Sciosophy. In this conflict history would reveal that science always prevailed. At times this victory was won at the cost and / or suffering of the individual who earth the nerve to present their finding to the world as court. Obstructions have been raised by men who thought the little they knew of the works and ways of the Creator was all that there was to be known. However, this insensitive response to the essential Christian Concepts provides inadequate recognition of the fact that Science and Religion may work to the same end but take different routes.

My holistic view of the issue of science and religion has changed over the past 6 weeks. I realize that there is a certain harmonization of science and religion that gives humanity the abundant life engineered by Jesus Christ in the Gospel. This blending of my ethnocentric religious beliefs and the reasoning of empirical thought allowed a reinventing of viewpoint allowing my position to be transformed into something new. Which I believe would be an objective to this disciplined study. The selection of this book Science and Religion Opposing viewpoints allows the reader to take a glance at this conflict from five areas. Great Historical Debates on Science and Religion, Are Science and Religion Compatible, How did the Universe Originate, How did Life Originate and Should Ethical Values Limit Scientific Research?

For the sake of brevity we will cumber you with a skeletal version of the text. The author is very clever in presenting information to provide a deeper understanding of the material and come away with an appreciation of the complex nature of the issues debated. The author was careful to mention Pitfalls to Avoid:" h Regarding one's own opinion as being common sense and the most rational stance and the viewpoint of others as being only opinion and naturally wrong". h To close one's mind to the opinion of others they disagree with. Seek to understand rather than to be understood. The author emphasizes the following typology to develop basic reading and thinking skills:" h Evaluating Sources of Information "h Separating Fact From Opinion"h Identifying Stereotypes"h Recognizing Ethnocentrism Lastly, the author presents a recognized opinion or theory and allows the prevailing points of view to speak plainly and passionately on the subject. The final opinion rendered is left with the reader.

1. Great Historical Debates on Science and Religion. "h The Church Should Not Have Final Authority in Science! V Galileo Galilei an Italian astronomer who supported the Copernican Theory as factual and incurred the wrath of the Roman Catholic Church. The Reasons Galileo Galilei gave for reliance upon observations instead of Scripture when describing the universe were basic grammatical errors, inconsistencies, contradictions and propositions found in the Bible. Contributing greatly to his position was the audience who read and / or had the bible read to them was very limited and controlled. The discussions of physical problems of the scriptures are the very heart of his argument.

Clearly from the context of scriptural authority there was no doubt that starting from there would lead Galilei nowhere. But from sense-experiences and necessary demonstrations is where inroads would be made. For the Holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word, the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the later as the observant executrix of God's command. Galilei argues that nature is immutable and unchanging, that she never trespasses the laws imposed upon her.

For that reason alone nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes ought to be called in question much less condemned. He went on to speak on behalf of Copernicus adding that suppression of the truth by banishing the opinion of Copernicus would serve no useful purpose only cause men of lessor estate to views the skies and heavens as they do. "h The Church Should Have Final Authority in Science! V The Roman Curia! The medieval Inquisition was an office in the Vatican charged with defending and advancing the Roman Catholic Faith. The Inquisitors argue that science is in fact a matter of faith, therefore the authority of the Bible is extended over all human writings. The earth indeed stands still and the sun revolves around it.

The earth is in the center, surrounded by concentric, glass like spheres on which the sun, the moon and the other planets revolve. There is a fine distant sphere, which holds the stars. Besides all of this there was a patent violation in which Galilei had violate by the publication of the book! SS Dialogues of Galileo Galilei on the Two Principal Systems of the World, the Ptolemaic and the Copernican!" . In this the Roman Curia accused Galilei of presenting only one side of the story allowing readers to come to only one conclusion. In a nutshell!

SS the proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical. Not conclusive evidence was issued; he was duly imprisoned for the balance of his life. 2. Are Science and Religion Compatible? "h Science Improves Religion!

V Bertrand Russell. A philosopher and mathematician Russell won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1950. Russell views science as a rational tool that has improved the lives of millions. The author begins his saga outlining the duality of science and religion how they socially travel down the same road. However, there is a distinct difference in how each concludes it thoughts. On the one hand you have science whose rambunctious flavor is accomplished through observation and testing and retesting.

A collage of facts thrown sometimes haphazardly, sometimes with motion into a vast pot cooked or incubated over periods of time, finally served only after a long painstaking process. Science is the attempt to discover, by means of observation, and reasoning based upon it, first, particular facts about the world, and then laws connecting facts with one another and (in fortunate cases) making it possible to predict futures occurrences. Religion however is a more complex social phenomenon it has three aspects the Church, a creed, and a code of personal morals. These all combine to present an obstacle to science with creeds leading the way because of the intellectual source of conflict.

Yet the bitterness of the opposition has been due to the connection of creeds with churches and with moral codes. There is an implied since of order and rule with religion any violation thereof may cause division, and weaken society, therefore, it was with great reason that rulers would be weary of anything that would upset their applecart. The men of science did not ask that propositions should be believed because some important authority had said they were true. On the contrary, they appealed to the evidence of the senses and maintained only such doctrines as they believed to be based upon facts which were patent to all who chose to make the necessary observations.

Not my Fathers religion with the spread of the less than traditional churches as well as the need to rely on a higher standard of medicine and research and development science is not viewed as the rabble rouser it once was. Parternerships in medicine has replaced blind faith in the hospitals. People are not willing to accept the death of a loved one at 3 score and ten following the scriptural command of life expectancy". h Religion Improves Science! V Mary Midley Author of many books Mary Midley was formerly the senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of New Castle upon Tyne in Great Britain. A traditionally accepted argument os that science depends on reason and religion relies on faith and there is conflict inherent in this assessment. Mary Midley says that this assessment of science / reason and religion / faith is to simple, both are far more complex to be pigeon holed in that manner.

The Left brain verses right brain has come into serious discussion for at one point there was thought to be dominance from one side over the other however recent discoveries about the functions of the brain hemisphere has changed that. A context must be created for science to progress. Darwin's theory of evolution the majority of the data was available long before Darwin's time. The theory itself became the context for progress and this was driven by his inward desires, emotions if you will. The evolvement of science has become dependent on two areas one head knowledge which is empirically driven and heart knowledge which is mystically revel ant in creating the context of expression.

Long before mysticism which covers the wide range of human faculties or science which covers a range of inquiries fall into action it must pass the limits of common sense, transcended experience, and begin to ask in faith. 3. How did the Universe Originate? "h God May be the Creator! V Robert Jastrow! V An American scientist who has become widely know through his writings on subjects related to science and nuclear arms. Jastrow suggests that God may be the cause of the Big Bang, which brought the universe into being.

The actual beginning no person can give an accurate account however, the Big Bang theory has been the most logical at about 15 to 20 billion years ago. All matter in the universe was compacted in a dense mass at temperatures of several trillions of degrees. Then all of a sudden a great cosmic atomic explosion occurred the instant this happened marked the birth of the universe. The essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.

In 1965 at Bell Laboratories Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered that the earth was bathed in a faint glow of radiation that could not have generated from itself rather it came from the universe. "h God is not the Creator! V Isaac Asimov is a prolific science writer. Asimov argues that the Bible and astronomy have nothing in common. The bible says that the universe and the earth were created at the same time. The astronomers conclude that the universe is 15 billions years old and the earth 5 billion. His argument is point counterpoint the bible says this and the astronomers say that.

4. How did Life Originate? "h Evolution Best Explains the Origin of Life! V The National Academy of Sciences, an honorary organization of scientist that advises the Federal Government on scientific issues. There is no significant scientific doubt about the close evolutionary relationships among all primates or between apes and human. Science basically calls for systematic organizations of what the universe and it parts are. There are processes that must be achieved and answered through the collection of information, which is streamlined and verified.

This process of verification is necessary to ensure integrity of what is purported. This is not an overnight process and much of it is trial and error. Creation alist on the other hand wants to be authoritative and will go to extremes seeking anything that supports what they believe. They seek to reverse the scientific process, don! |t bother me with facts here is what really happened or here is the truth. Why? Because I told you so.

Evolution has turned out to be one of the significant keys of unlocking! SSorganized ignorance!" . One of the truly genuine areas where evolution raised the eyebrows of the world is in fossil research. The farther back or older the fossils are the less they resemble current remains.

The fossil remains provide compelling evidence of systematic change through time of descent with modification. DNA has unveiled the universality of the chemical basis of heredity; molecular biology has affirmed common ancestry. The evidence available to mankind supports evolution there is unobjectionable evidence in fossil research, DNA connectivity, as well as direct observable evidence of evolution in action. The claim that the universe, the earth, and life were made by an undetectable Creator using supernatural powers falls outside of science. It makes no predictions that can be tested. It cannot be negated by science if it could it would lose many of the advantages that it offers its adherents.

Evolution passes as science; creation science, by its own admission does not. "h Creation Best Explains the Origin of Life! V Donald E. Chit tick has a doctorate degree in physical chemistry from Oregon State University and has taught and lectured on creation science for the over two decades. Evolution is too weak and contradictory to be true and fossil evidence is far too sketchy to prove that life has evolved over centuries. By accepting the truth of Gods word, is the best way to understand life and nature. Darwin did not begin with data he began with an idea and he simply supplied the data to support it. 5.

Should Ethical Values Limit Scientific Research?" h Ethical Values Should Limit Scientific Research! V Liebe F. Cavalieri. Cavalieri is a member of the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and teaches biochemistry at Cornell University Medical College. Cavalieri argues that society faces several problems as a result of unbridled technology, genetic engineering, a deteriorating environment, and depleted resources. Adding to this dilemma are scientists who traditionally believe that they are not responsible. Scientist fail to take note of the possible ill effects that could follow from their works; they make the vague assumption that all science is good.

Hollywood is famous for its version of mad scientists from Frankenstein to Dr. Samuel Drew in his miscalculations of the earth's core causing great catastrophes. Sure these are stories purely for our entertainment's yet not out of the realm of the possible realities. Many scientist fall back on the notion that all science is good. The other side of the equation is where would humanity be without the advances of science. The industrial side of the equation must also be considered as long as there is a need or greed there will be resources available if it can be capitalistically manipulated. A common feature of technology is that they are the first to respond to the needs of the industrial structure that spawned them.

No one has taken the opportunity to calculate the amount of damage done to the ecological system or the planet itself. Scientist will have to develop a social conscience and spread this to all parties in the matrix of discovery and technological development. If this is at all possible. "h Ethical Values Should Not Limit Scientific Research! V Gerald Feinberg is a physics professor at Columbia University in New York who has also worked at the CERN laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland.

CERN is the principle European center for research in particle physics. Feinberg argues that religious values should not limit scientific inquiry. It is impossible to predict how most scientific finding will be applied. Ethical questions do not have answers in the sense that scientific questions do; scientist show good sense in not using science to try to answer them.

The role that science plays in society has changed over the last hundred years. At one point the scientist work covertly using their own limited resources and time many times against the urgings of family and at the peril of life and reputation. The stage has expanded to include scientific prestige, fame and fortune beyond measure is available. What is at stake is the very life of people, advances in medicine alone has turned the eye of even the most staunchest of opposition when a loved one has cancer or stem research may give hope to lifeless and unresponsive limbs. To restrain science or research for fear of something going amiss will hamstring progress. In the western culture this idea of relative is a goal that will never be achieved.

The very idea in which society social restraints are applied to may be the idea, which will do society the most good.

Bibliography

Bender, David L. and Bruno Leone. Science and Religion. Edited by. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc, 1988.
David L. Bender and Bruno Leone. Science & Religion Opposing Viewpoints. White, Edward A. Science and Religion in American Thought. Edited by. : AMS Press Inc, 1968.
Jordan, David Starr. Science and Sciosophy. Edited by. : Betterhealthgram, 1926.