Are Science and Religion Searching for the Same Thing - Research Paper Example

Your Full Here Prof. _____________ 9 Jan Are Science and Religion Searching for the Same Thing? As to the relationship between science and religion, an old excerpt from the British mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead seem to be relevant even to this present day: When we consider what religion is for mankind and what science is, it is no exaggeration to say that the future course of history depends upon the decision of this generation to the relations between them. We have here the two strongest general forces … which influence men, and they seem to be set against the other – the force of our religious institutions, and the force of our impulse to accurate observation and logical deduction (qtd. in Haught 2). From the opening quote, and generally speaking, there is a tendency for people to opine that that science and religion may be likened to two opposite poles of a magnet (Draper 5; Haught 9; Greene 19; Raven and Neeham 30). There are, therefore, substantial resources which are more likely to buttress the argument that science and religion are not seeking out for the same thing. As early as 1910, Draper put forth his observation of a falling out between science and religion: “ecclesiastical spirit no longer inspires the policy of the world. Military fervor in behalf of faith has disappeared” (Draper 5). Gone are the days when knights set out for war in defense of the principles that the church espouse. In these times when religion and the church chastise the scientific community for what the latter considers as breakthroughs in their sphere, there is good reason to believe that science and religion are setting out for distinct explorations depending on each own interpretation of the truth. Haught, on the other hand, felt that most people see a stormy relationship between science and religion. Historically, however, Haught maintained that the relationship is not just conflict, and views the association between science and religion in four ways: a conflict, a contrast, a contact and a confirmation. As a conflict, the conviction is that science and religion are irreconcilable. As a contact, Haught sees a method consisting of dialog, interfacing and agreement between the two, with science providing the inspiration for religious and theological understanding. As a confirmation, the association between science and religion is sometimes looked upon as a matter of religion underpinning and nurturing scientific endeavors. And finally, as a contrast, there may actually be no real conflict between science and religion because each of these two addresses different questions (9). The contrast relationship between science and religion will be the theme of this narrative: science and religion can not be searching for the same thing, since “each are responding to radically different questions” (Haught 9). Contrasting principles between science and religion may, also be focused on “the possibility of knowledge and the reliability of various ways of knowing” as Greene postulated (21). Raven and Neeham, however, believed that nature (representing science) and grace (representing religion) should have been rigidly separated in the first place. While the natural sciences inculcated appreciation of the beauty and wonder of God’s creation, Darwin’s theory of evolution delivered the first dent on the very fragile solidarity between science and religion of the old. On the basis of Warren’s examination of God’s word, the goals of Christian living may be summarized into five points: pleasing God, fellowship with God, emulating Christ to ward off temptation, serving God, and sharing God’s message through a purpose-driven life (Warren 63, 117, 171, 234, 281). The purpose of religion, as represented by the church, is then to guide mankind as the “instrument of the communion of God and men” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 180). Taken in this context, religion searches for fellowship with God believing in the truth about God’s plan for mankind. Based on a survey of relevant literature on the topic of narrative, science has a completely different set of purposes. For Proctor and Capaldi who supports the concept that “reality exists independently of the mind of the knower, and the purpose of science is to discover the nature of this independent reality” (121). Hempel and Oppenheim argued that the purpose of science was explanation, whereas, Driver, et al. gathered among younger individuals that the purpose of science is simply addressing technical problems instead of offering convincing explanations (qtd. in Szostak 6; qtd. in Reiss 121). Others believe that the goal of science is prediction, or to respond the mankind’s questions regarding the natural universe (White 122; Gerhart and Russell 187). Yet, in spite of the many purposes conjured to accommodate scientific inquiry, there is every truth to the statement that “science had nothing to say about morality, justice or higher purpose” (Wells, Panshin, Panshin and Cook 81). Many people believe that a God is the Supreme Being who created all things. Christians and followers of other religions believe and worship a God, through faith without question. Science with all the intricate methods, processes and equipment can not extract a proof of God’s existence. Indeed, science and religion are searching for different things, because they have different purposes. Christians, Catholics and Protestants all hold on to the truth through faith that God created man in his own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). Beholden to this truth by faith, religions searched to help their followers towards a higher purpose - to live by God’s word through the Bible. Darwin’s search for scientific proof about the beginnings of mankind revealed that man evolved from apes – an accolade which Darwin enjoyed only until the time that Denton claimed Darwin’s theory is a myth, a mere conjecture (Ember and Ember 39; Gouyon, Henry and Arnold 45). From the aforementioned exemplars, it became apparent that although the mystery and majesty of God’s creation can never be proved nor disproved, the discovery of one scientist can always be supported and refuted by other scientists. In this regard, it may be said that science searches to serve its own ends. Other interesting areas which affirm the different issues that science and religion are attempting were noted in the work of Heinberg, who described how several religious leaders view the concept of tinkering with natural processes as evil and therefore reject concepts that seem to interfere with the divine plan. In 1983, religious leaders affixed their signatures on a statement which supports a ban on all forms of genetic engineering. The late Pope John Paul II denounced genetic engineering, citing the concept as a possible avenue for the violation of human rights and tramping on human dignity. However, the Vatican looks into genetic research to cure illness as a possible useful technology. Though the Vatican had initially aimed its sights on human reproduction issues, its scope has expanded to include other species, which is also part of the divine natural plan. Here it seems very clear that while religion seeks to protect human rights and dignity, science appears to be compromising them. Hence, as Wells, et al. claimed, the scientific way may be devoid of morality and justice, among others (81). The issue of human cloning sparked a congressional inquiry on suspicion that scientists are currently conniving to produce the technology necessary to clone human beings and that plans to clone humans are underway. However, scientists lament the fact that the inquiry was fuelled by science fiction rather than real science. This gave rise to fears that the government might impose unnecessary limitation on cloning research. While many theologians and religious leaders express their fears of human cloning research destroying the traditional concept of parenthood and human identity, it was pointed out that the issues at hand should be thoroughly evaluated first before censuring cloning research. The focus should move from the implausible ideas of totalitarian regimes using cloned soldiers to the more practical and realistic issues such as possible psychological and physical damage to children (Rantala and Milgram, 2-3, 143, 144). The foregoing comparison corroborates that, indeed, science and religion are serving different purposes Religion, through the church leaders, has also been critical about how science pushes birth control measures as a remedy for the population explosion. While the church does have a more liberal acceptance of natural family planning methods, the church counsels the need for a “Christian view of the human person and the conviction that couples can really attain, through God’s grace and commitment to the natural methods, a deeper and stronger conjugal unity (O’Rourke and Boyle 273). In this respect, as a matter of morality, religion seeks to prevent engagement in acts to “repress the possible beginnings of life” thereby preserving procreative good as stipulated in the Bible (Wuerl, Lawler, Lawler and Stubna 292). Science, on the other hand, through its support for condoms, oral and injectable contraceptives, surgical sterilization, Norplant implants, intrauterine devices, etc, disregarded both the divine procreation and the right to life. The two aforementioned paragraphs also sustain the distinctness of the purposes of science and religion. From the foregoing narrative, it is crystal clear that mankind utilizes science because of the high reliability of its methodologies. While scientific inquiry presents an excellent method of understanding the processes of the natural world and drives man to search for things which serve his own ends, it is the belief in the existence of a Divine Being which propels man through religion to serve a higher purpose than expedient worldly motives. This is why science and religion do not search for the same thing. Works Cited Catechism of the Catholic Church. Revised Ed. London: Burns & Oates. 1999. Print. Draper, John William. History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science. New York: Babylon Dreams. 1910. Print. Ember, Carol R. and Melvin Ember. Anthropology. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts. 1973. Print. Gerhart, Mary and Allan Russell. Metaphoric Process: The Creation of Scientific and Religious Understanding. Fort Worth, TX: TCU Press. 1984. Print. Gouyon, Pierre-Henri, Jean-Pierre Henry and Jacques Arnold. Gene Avatars: Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution. New York: Kluwer Academic. 2002. Print. Greene, John C. Science, Ideology and World View: Essays in the History of Evolutionary Ideas. London: University of California. 1981. Print Haught, John F. Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist. 1995. Print. O’Rourke, Kevin D. and Philip Boyle. Medical Ethics: Sources of Catholic Teachings. 3rd Ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 1999. Print. Proctor, Robert W. and E. J. Capaldi. Why Science Matters: Understanding the Methods of Psychological Research. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 2006. Print. Raven, Charles E. and Joseph Neeham. Creator Spirit. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger. 2003. Print. Szostak, Rick. Classifying Science: Phenomena, Data, Theory, Method, Practice. Dordrecht, NL: Springer. 2004. Print. Warren, Rick. The Purpose-Driven Life: What on Earth Am I Here For? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 2002. Print. Wells, Herbert George, Alexei Panshin, Cory Panshin and Paul Cook. The Time Machine: Annotated. Rockville, MD: Phoenix Pick. 2009. Print White, Morton Gabriel. The Philosophy of Culture: The Case of Holistic Pragmatism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2002. Print. Wuerl, Donald, W., Ronald Lawler, Thomas Cornerford Lawler and Kris D. Stubna. Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor. 2004. Print. Read More