The Myth of Conflict Between Science and Religion - Essay Example

? The Myth of Conflict between Science and Religion of The Myth of Conflict between Science and Religion Generally, science is understood as the study of empirically observable things in the world, while religion entails mainly to what is unobservable and immaterial and they cannot be detected by senses (Harrison, 2010). All arguments and evidence on these two subjects have shown that there is a very strong rivalry between them. Conflict seems to be the most common interaction between religion and science. The two seem to conflict on nearly everything including conclusions such as the origin of man, the origin of diseases, and heliocentric solar system, as well as on how they arrive at their respective conclusions (Brooke and Numbers, 2011). Their conflict seem to emanate from what they rely on for their respective beliefs; religion relies on authority of supernatural being and truth that is supposed to be eternal and universal, while science relies on authority whose source is reasoning and evidence that are subject to challenge. It is this nature of conflict that informs the assertion by Ronald Numbers that the greatest myth in the history of religion and science holds that they have been in a constant conflict state (Numbers, 2009). There has been a raging debate regarding this assertion, with some agreeing with it, while others disagreeing. This essay will discuss how the history of religion and science has been in a state of constant conflict as argued by Ronald Numbers. The argument will be supported through a discussion of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin. The brilliant work of Isaac Newton in the seventeenth century gave rise to issues that strained the relationship between religion and science at that time and in subsequent years (Harrison, 2010). Newton’s arguments have been used by many scientists in their works and have been some of the greatest causes of the conflict between science and religion. Newton modeled the celestial bodies (the sun, earth, and moon) behavior through means that are largely mechanical by posting that the force of gravity was the only force responsible for terrestrial phenomena (Newton, 1953). His model postulated that terrestrial phenomena like the falling of heavy bodies to earth and celestial phenomena like the orbit of the earth around the sun was as a result of the force of gravity. He brilliantly combined his observation with mathematical model to formulate three famous motion laws: that a force of strength applied to a mass body leads to acceleration; that every action is paired with an opposite and equal reaction; and that a body at rest will always stay at rest, while a body in motion will keep being in uniform motion, unless an external force acts on it (Newton, 1953). The powerful and comprehensive work of Newton significantly contributed to the field of science as his principles account for a number of natural phenomena. Although he frequently argued that in the absence of a materially-mediated force, God might be directly responsible for gravitational force, he never categorically stated that the system of nature required God (Brooke and Numbers, 2011). His success and continued success in the field of success is viewed by many scientists as an argument for atheism. According to most of them, no one has any reason to believe that God exists, if God is not needed to explain the world’s behavior since mechanical and scientific principles can. However, religious arguments conflicts the science arguments as postulated by Newton (Morris, 1974). Contrary to Newton’s arguments, religion holds that God exists and he is the force behind everything including the terrestrial and celestial phenomena. Also, religion is of the view that the behavior of the world in the past and in present times can only be understood by inferring to a Supreme Being and not science. Besides, religion conflicts Newton’s arguments by arguing that the world’s complexity spoke in favor of the existence of God (Numbers, 1993). The argument that that religion and science have been in a constant conflict state is also supported through the analysis of Albert Einstein. Einstein recounted that the conflict between these two often occurred. He observes that natural events cannot be caused by the divine will. He argues that the doctrine of personal God interfering with natural events can only take refuge in the domains that the scientific knowledge has not ventured into (Einstein, 1982). Also, he observed that religion and science are in constant conflict because scientists can barely believe in prayers to Supreme Beings. This view is informed by the fact that science is based on the notion that everything that happens are determined by natural laws, and as such this very fact holds for people actions (Moore, 2009). It is for this reason that scientists would scarcely be inclined to believe that actions and events can be influenced through prayers. Additionally, Einstein argues that a personal God concept is the primary cause of the constant conflict between science and religion. In this respect he questions the omnipotence of God by arguing that it is not possible to hold men responsible for their thoughts and deeds before him if he is responsible for human every thought, feeling, aspiration, and action (Brooke and Numbers, 2011). The myth in history of religion and science that holds that they are in constant conflict is further supported by Einstein’s proposition that learning science tends to end deep religiosity. He gives his own example by stating that his deep religiosity found a sudden end when he was twelve years old after reading popular science books (Einstein, 1982). Besides, Einstein asserts that the inerrancy of religious books particularly the Bible intrudes on the scientific sphere. He insists that the conflict between religion and science arises when a religion insists that all statements recorded in their books are absolute truth. This is contrary to science where all the statements and methods are subject to validity tests. Einstein’s view that religions are dogmatically fixed has additionally served to support the myth that religion and science are in constant conflict (Harrison, 2010). He points out that religious traditions are both symbolic and mythically and this puts religion in conflicting path with science. He says that this happens when religious ideas contain statements that are dogmatically fixed on subjects that belong to the science domain. He thus proposes that it would be of vital importance for true religion preservation if such conflicts would be avoided when they occur from domains that are not actually important in the pursuit of religious objectives (Einstein, 1982). Furthermore, the myth that holds that religion and science are in constant conflict is supported by Charles Darwin’s theories. The evolution theory developed by Darwin has been one of the central aspects in the conflict between religion and science (Brooke and Numbers, 2011). Religion claims that all kind of species were directly created by God in the manner that they exist in today. However, Darwin postulated dissenting views to this argument by arguing that species evolved from simple cell to complex beings (Darwin and Barlow, 1993). It is important to point out that Darwin’s theory has been attacked from the theological community and scientific community as well regarding some of its assumptions and arguments. While Darwin’s evolution theory insists that the world and all kinds of species evolved from simple cell, religion argues that the universe is a product of intelligent design by Supreme Being (Moore, 2009). Darwin’s theory has been of the most re-examined theories as theologians and scientists seek to find out the actual origin of man. Actually, some of the religious thinkers have re-examined their scriptural hermeneutical frameworks and theological commitments (Lindberg, 2008). Whereas there has considerable re-examination of the theory by scholars from either side, there seem to be a great divide over the subject as most of them have ended taking extreme positions regarding the subject of origin of universe. Many Christian fundamentalists have termed Darwin’s biology as unacceptable, and have cited the plain teaching in the book of Genesis in disparaging Darwin’s arguments. They have continuously asserted that God is the only creator and that there is nothing in existence that was not created by God (Brooke and Numbers, 2011). The enormous extent of conflict between religion and conflict is evidenced by various contests in societies across the world regarding evolution and creation theories. Some of these contests have been taken to court where advocates of either side have attempted to have their position represented in official curricula and school textbooks (Harrison, 2010). In conclusion, it can be observed from the discussion that the greatest myth in the history of religion and science that holds that they have been in constant conflict state is well-supported. Examination of the works and arguments of Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin reveal religion and science have been and continue being in a state of constant conflict. Their works and arguments tend to support the view that this conflict exists and provide the causes of the existence of this conflict. All of them indicate that the main source of the conflict lies in the inherent nature of these two subjects; science entails studying empirically observable things in the world, while religion entails mainly to what is unobservable and immaterial and they cannot be detected by senses. In addition, it is clear that the conflict will continue as long as both sides hold different views regarding various natural causations in the world, as well as conclusions. References Brooke, J. H. & Numbers, R. L. (2011). Science and religion around the world. New York: Oxford University Press. Darwin, C. & Barlow, N. (1993). The autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: With original omissions restored. New York: Norton. Einstein, A. (1982). “Religion and Science” and “Science and Religion”. New York: Three Rivers Press. Harrison, P. (2010). The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion. Cambridge University Press. Lindberg, D. C. (2008). When science & Christianity meet. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Morris, H. (1974). Scientific Creationism. Master Books. Moore, J. (2009). Religion and Science. Cambridge University Press. Newton, I. (1953). Newton's philosophy of nature: Selections from his writings. Whitefish, Mont.: Kessinger Publishers. Numbers, R. L. (2009). Galileo goes to jail: And other myths about science and religion. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Numbers, R. L. (1993).The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. University of California Press Read More