Are science and religion in conflict - Essay Example

? Are science and religion in conflict? and number submitted Part One – Introduction of the Thesis Modern science began taking its true shape in the 16th century, while religion was around for a much longer period. The relation between these two great forces at times proved to be confusing, many-faceted and tumultuous. The real authority of religion lies on person or tradition or books. Truth behind religion is treated as universal and eternal, essentially a question of faith, and widely accepted and not challenged or questioned in general. In case of science, the authority is based on evidence and reasons. It is always open to challenges, it tries to arrive at a conclusion to a question by findings and evidences and application of pure logic. The most significant question that is answered in this paper is whether science and religion are at conflict or at concord. (Religion and Science, 2010) Science made it possible for human beings to have a different outlook, where questions are asked and attempts are made to answer them. But religion always remained unquestionable to all. For example, when it comes to the precious gift of life, it is argued whether it has been designed by the almighty or just emerged from evolution – that can be explained by science by putting forward various scientific theories. Christianity lies at the forefront of Western Civilization, which at times has been successful in discarding the scientific rationale behind the evolution of life. The undeniable and reasonable explanations of science often challenge religious ideas – the later is an expression of social emotion and as such much more sensitive. Science indicates advancement in terms of progressive thinking for the betterment of life but religion remains as a faith, deeply rooted in the society and the minds of many human beings (Padgett, 2007). In terms of the fundaments and the basic essence science and religion are in conflict. Part Two – Argument A number of philosophical, scientific and historical evidences demonstrate that the two concepts of science and religion are often in conflict with one another. Science is the study of the nature based mainly on evidences, whereas religion deals with faith, the powers of deity. So it can be said that one is dealing with faith and the other is dealing with logic often lead to contradiction of ideas. In the case of the “Galileo affair”, the acceptance of geocentric model by the Roman Catholic churches and their consequent opposition to heliocentrism which resulted in the death of the great philosopher and scientist is a burning example of the conflict between science and religion that occurred ages back. The concept clashed with the religious story of Joshua, but his antecedent Copernicus found more evidence and tried hard to prove it but little acceptance was possible at that point of time as this was a contradiction to the concepts preached by the churches (Levinson, 2006, pp.423-424). Another example that highlights this tension is the burning in the stakes of Giordano Bruno, because of his insistence on the correctness of heliocentric model of the universe. Again as per Charles Darwin’s epochal on the origin of the species, three important features were pointed out by him – common ancestry, specification through variation and natural selection. Being in contradiction to the preaching of the biblical authority, the theologians rejected to accept Darwin’s ideas. The concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ was seen as an undercutting to morality in human relation. Contrary to the popular opinion, it was found that the religious leaders were divided among themselves on the reception to Darwinism. A number of religious minded leaders supported Darwin as his theories were consistent to the Biblical teachings of mankind have a common ancestor. But the conservative theologian continued with their version, and could never agree to the concept that human race evolved from beasts. This conflict in accepting the Darwinian Theory again proves that there remains a strong difference between science and religion. (Levinson, 2006, p.425-426) For the last two hundred years, science and religion have traversed in opposite directions in terms of status, authority and professionalization. Scientific activities maintained by professionalization granting a much greater authority than the religious activities which became diffused by its decreased authority in the modern world. Christian theologies provided significant institutional support for the study of the natural world in the earlier millennium. The Scholastic tradition was important for the advancement of science, and the founders of the modern sciences such as Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and Boyle were devout religious believers. Historical perspective emphasizes facts and allows in engaging ourselves in potential valuable discussions about science and religion on a more thoughtful and productive level (Levinson, 2006, p.428). Part Three – Counter-thesis and counter-argument The counter argument to part two is that, with the assistance of science and religion a better society can be created. The two concepts can co-exist in an intellectually supportive and dynamic environment and help mankind to understand and use the concepts wisely for further advancement and betterment of mankind. St Augustine abandoned Christianity in the fourth and fifth century as the teachings were uncertain and illogical, and was filled with contradiction as per his opinion. But later, after studying classical philosophy, he found an intellectual approach in Christianity. This finally convinced him to be baptized in the later years of his life. The fundamental points highlighted by Augustine where science and religion peacefully interact with one another are – The doctrine of unity of faith (where the contradiction of science and religion can be resolved through use of reasons), Doctrine of the two books (where religion and science are revealed through scriptures), Doctrines of exegesis in terms of pursuit of resolving the issue of religion versus science (where religion gains supremacy and science assists it to gain from it) (Levinson, 2006, p.22). Earlier the Bible was considered to be the sole source, where it is shown that the universe and the earth were merely a several thousand years old. Later in eighteenth century, references from the Bible were taken to carry out further researches to estimate the Earth’s age. Hence from this we can see both the concepts may be made to work parallel to each other. (Levinson,2006, p. 425) . Science and religion often share a common path and are driven by certain number of guidelines that forms the basis in understanding the world at large. In religious teachings, we find the concept of God, who remains invisible to all and guides the world at large. The existence of almighty remains a mystery as we cannot see him. Again according to the concepts of science, sub atomic particles cannot be seen or perceived though normal eyes. So it can be said the existence of god as well as sub atomic particles cannot be seen but only they are assumed to create concepts applicable in the real world. This comparison of God to sub-atomic particles highlights a scenario where science and religion can be looked upon as going hand in hand (The conflict between science and religion, n.d). Part Four – Response to counter-thesis Both the concepts of science and religion claim a fake existence of each other. Science emerges with its dynamic concepts and logical reasoning, and scientific ideas and concepts are subject to change, meaning science is flexible, while on the other hand religion is faith oriented, consistent and supreme. In the middle ages, there was lack of evidence to establish that the ages of the Earth and the Universe were more than merely a few thousand years. Even in the oldest texts, there was no evidence to suggest otherwise, or, complement its Old Testament chronology. But, in the seventeenth century, a Danish convert to Catholicism, Nicholas Steno, examined strata and fossils in Tuscany, and it prompted him to put forward geological theories for their formation. Towards the latter half of the seventeenth century, attempts were made to interweave biblical and geological concepts into theories on the formation of earth. This conveyed signals that science and religion may be made to coexist. But, then, in the eighteenth century, Georges Lois Leclerc Comte De Buffon and Pierre Simon Laplace came up with new theories for the birth of our planet. According to their common opinion, the age of the Earth was much more than what the Holy Bible suggested. This resulted in a schism in the opinions of the elite and the mass. The more learned crowd implemented “higher criticism” (the use of standard textual mechanisms to ask questions concerning authorship, original context, influences, etc) to the Bible and consequently they were able to incorporate the geological findings to biblical philosophies. But the less learned mass discarded such explanations and were insistent on a literal following of the Genesis. This is an example of the conflict between science and religion even in the eighteenth century (Levinson, 2006, pp. 424-425). In 1859, Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species was published and The Descent of Man was published in 1871. The theories of Darwin were impactful on the belief preached by Bible – that there exists a pattern in the visible world and subsequently an entity responsible for creating the pattern – was worn out by the theories of “random variations” and “natural selection”. The origin of human beings from lower organisms was looked upon as potentially materialistic. Religious heads were separated in their receptions to Darwinism. One conservative theologian, A.H. Strong, came up with an argument that humans are no less human even if humans evolved from apes. (Levinson, 2006, p.425-426) Many Christian fundamentalists still embrace a literal interpretation of the creation account mentioned in the first two chapters of Genesis and subsequently they find incompatibility between the Darwinian evolutionary theories and the Christian faith. (Religion and Science, 2010) Thus, it clear that even in the nineteenth century, there was much conflict of religion with science, worth mentioning and even alarming. Even though the Big Bang theory of the Earth’s origin was originally hypothesized by a Belgian priest in 1927, indicating that science and religion can coexist, still the gap between scientific and religious ideas widened in the twentieth century and the number of contradictions increased. There is the comparatively new but fast growing discipline of evolutionary psychology. It aims at explaining distinctive human traits in terms of our evolutionary origin and history. In this case also, there exist theories incompatible with religious belief (Religion and Science, 2010). The situation in the twenty first century has become such that science and religion go in completely opposite directions and they practically exist on diametrically opposite poles. Thus in today’s world, if science and religion are made to forcibly coexist, there will be utter chaos and immense and even violent conflicts and contradictions. Thus St. Augustine’s initiative to unite science and religion has been proven to be futile as because the concepts of science are so opposite in nature to those mentioned in the Bible, and this is especially even more true regarding the more recent scientific concepts that have developed. Also, sub-atomic particles can now be seen through powerful microscopes but God still hasn’t been seen even with the help of any technological advancements. So the similarity existing between God and sub-atomic particles which may sway one’s mind to think that the concepts of science and theology can go together has been utterly vanquished. Conclusion The most crucial conflict between science and religion lies not in their conclusions — such as evolution, the heliocentric solar system, or the origin of species — but in the methodologies used in arriving at the conclusions. The fundamental disagreement that comes is in how, apart from in what. A scientific exploration begins with a question, and attempts to reach at a conclusion by discovering evidence and implementing logic. A theological analysis, on the other hand, starts with a conclusion, and attempts to squirm around any obstacles of evidence and logic in order to defend that conclusion. (Pearlstein, n.d) The increase in religious fundamentalism has been reflected by a rise in scientific fundamentalism. Intelligent Design vs. Evolution has become a theatre of war, with each side drawing lines in the sand, reluctant to take a backwards step. According to the media, the split between the two extremes is too extreme to be breached. Underneath the hype surrounding Creationism and Stem Cell research, there are distinguished scientists and theologians, trying to settle the differences and promote the belief that science, religion and philosophy can work hand in hand. Many scientists are pious, and lots of religious heads are scientists. For example, an Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel, first proposed the basis of heredity. Some argue that the religion vs. science debate surrounds only a few extremists who make every effort to shout louder than everyone else does (Shuttleworth, 2008). Around 40% of scientists state their belief in a God or Supernatural force (Collins, 2006). Thus there still remains an overwhelming majority of scientists to whom science and religion will fail to coexist. Regarding the topic of Darwin’s theory of evolution, the extremist Christians, mainly in the U.S., have prevented the application of rationality. To summarize, religion and science have always had a troubled bond, with one side or the other more often than not playing the dominant role. Throughout the annals of modern history we have observed time and again that the concepts of science are at conflict with the concepts of the Bible, and as such difficult to reconcile. References Collins, F. S.,(2006) The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Retrieved January 2, 2011 from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=5656d3ff-251c-443e-b254-ddfa16770db1%40sessionmgr113&vid=2&hid=123&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=23079613 Levinson, M.H. (2006), SCIENCE VERSUS RELIGION: A EALSE DICHOTOMY?, pp.422-429, retrieved on January 2, 2012 from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=438a4032-bdbe-4ba5-962b-7b9b3d63281f%40sessionmgr113&vid=2&hid=106 Pearlstein, E., (n.d), Retrieved January 2, 2011 from: http://mwillett.org/atheism/relsci.htm Religion and Science,(2010), retrieved on January 2, 2012 from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/ Sickler, B. (2009),Conflict between science and religion, retrieved on January 2, 2012 from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/sci-rel/ Shuttleworth, M., (2008), Religion vs science, Retrieved January 2, 2011 from: http://www.experiment-resources.com/religion-vs-science.html The Conflict Between Science and Religion, (n.d.). Retrieved January 2, 2011 from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/scirel_ov.htm Read More