Are Science and Religion in Conflict - Essay Example

Are Science and Religion in Conflict? and number submitted Are Science and Religion in Conflict? One of the most controversial topics that continue to pervade contemporary society delves into trying to answer the question: are science and religion in conflict? Not only is this issue being discussed and reflected on in theological discourses, but also in diverse scientific disciplines. A quick glimpse of the topic, conflict in science and religion, using the online search engine generates more than 52 million results. This information could not clearly establish though, if indeed, conflict exists between the two divergent disciplines. The complexities by which the term religion is defined have proven the vast encompassing elements that go into its pursuit. Robinson (2011) for example, after evaluating a host of disparate definitions, arrived at this conclusion: “religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview" (p. 1). The simplicity by which science, on the other hand, clearly is indicated as “knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world” (Science Made Simple, Inc., 2006) already signifies brewing conflicts in terms of the possibilities of overlapping issues. In this regard, the objective of this essay is to confirm through supportive arguments from various authoritative sources that indeed, science and religion are not in conflict despite supposed overlapping and contradicting issues. Arguments Supporting Science and Religion are not Conflict From the overview of definitions of both science and religion, it is already eminent that conflicting issues exist due to their disparities in disciplines. According to Robinson (2009), science and religion are based on different foundations where “science is ultimately based on observation of nature… (while) religion is largely based on faith” (p. 1). This fact is validated by Ecklund and Park (2009) when their findings supported “the idea that religion and science are in completely different spheres” (p. 290). Science deals with different areas ranging from natural sciences (study of the natural world) to social sciences (study of human behavior and society). Religion, on the other hand, has indicated from the abovementioned definition that it is a system of beliefs that encompasses a broader range of beliefs including philosophies of life and different perspectives of worldviews, depending on cultural factors and value systems. Since these two disciplines propose divergent theoretical foundations, there is no way that conflicts in interests could exist. Another supporting argument that attests that no conflict exists between science and religion is the fact that there are studies that reveal the existence of scientists with defined religious orientations who do not believe that conflicts between the two disciplines exist. In the study written by Scheitle (2011), to prove that no conflict exists, “the assumption is that, because they are the most knowledgeable about scientific matters, scientists will be most likely to demonstrate some conflict with religion if such a conflict exists (Wuthnow, 1989, p. 143). If scientists are less religious that nonscientists, then the inference has been that there is an inherent conflict between scientific knowledge and religious belief” (Scheitle, 2011, p. 175). More importantly, and consistent with Scheitle’s study, the findings generated by Ecklund and Park from their study of Religion Among Academic Scientists (RAAS) which was completed over a three-year period from 2005 through 2007 revealed that “in contrast to research that has argued there is not an actual conflict between the knowledge framework of religion and that of science, on the basis that social scientists are less religious than natural scientists, we have shown that such differences are not a significant predictor of whether or not scientists will perceive conflict” (Eckland and Park, 2009, p. 290). These contentions prove that even scientists have religions orientations that do not preclude them from practicing the scientific theories of observation and experimentation to determine, describe and explain natural phenomena. In this regard, these arguments likewise support that no conflicts exist between these two disciplines and even from the perspectives of those professional practitioners in each endeavor. Counter-Thesis and Counter-Arguments Despite the arguments supporting that no conflicts exist between science and religion, still, others contend that science and religion had been in conflict since the origin of science (Draper, 2007) due to opposing beliefs and divergent teachings. His lengthy discourse that traced the conflict between the two disciplines since the invasion of the Persian Empire, four centuries before the birth of Christ and finally concluded that religion must surrender to science, to wit: “faith must render an account of herself to Reason. Mysteries must give place to facts. Religion must relinquish that imperious, that domineering position which she has so long maintained against Science” (Draper, 2007, p. 367). In its entirety, the arguments indicate that reason and knowledge conquers religion, as each discipline “taught opposing beliefs” (Robinson, 2009, p. 1). In a famous quote cited by Robinson (2009) of Albert Einstein, the following statement was revealed: “After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated, they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge" (Robinson, 2009, p. 1). Likewise, as acknowledged and cited by Scheitle (2011), “the predominant narrative surrounding the religion and science relationship has been driven by the assumption that these institutions are engaged in an unavoidable conflict resulting from their contradictory claims to truth (Evans & Evans 2008)” (p. 185). These disclosures validate that science and religion have been in conflict since the existence of science. Robinson (2003) indicated that there are areas of overlap and conflicting issues between religion and science in the following concerns: cosmology, geology, astronomy; medicine; linguistics; religious practices and events; and even in homosexuality. This information was supported by Platinga (2010) who contended that there is emient “conflict between theistic religious belief and science with respect to several areas: evolution, divine action in the world, the difference between the scientific attitude and the religious attitude, evolutionary psychology, and historical biblical criticism (HBC)” (Plantinga: Naturalism and Science, 2010, par. 1). As Robinson (2003) emphasized, the conclusive evidence attesting the conflicting issues between science and religion are validated by the following: “When religious claims are evaluated using scientific methods, they are found to be false. When scientific claims are evaluated using the methods of faith, they are found to be false.” (Robinson, 2003, p. 1). Response to Counter-Thesis After having evaluated the counter-arguments to one’s contention that science and religion are not in conflict despite supposed overlapping and conflicting issues, one is more convinced that these apparent conflicting issues only present respective views and perspectives to areas that have been respected and accepted by supporters of each discipline. As Robinson (2009) stressed, “actually, science and religion are often not in conflict. Theologians dont care much about the tensile strength of steel when they have church buildings built. Scientists are generally not particularly interested in the functions of a soul. But sometimes science and religion overlap. Each then generally puts forth conflicting beliefs on the same topic” (par. 1). The fact that these two disciplines base their foundation from divergent orientations: science from observing and validating natural causes; and religion from faith, it is therefore not possible to have clashing issues due to utterly disparate concerns. Whatever supposed overlap in identified areas are simply results of expressing each discipline’s beliefs and understanding on the subject matters and do not actually intent to impose one’s theories upon the other. As aptly concluded by Plantinga (2010), “there is conflict between naturalism and one of the chief pillars of contemporary science. Insofar as naturalism is a quasi-religion by virtue of performing the cognitive function of a religion, there is a sort of religion/science conflict—not between theistic religion and science, but between naturalism and science” (last par.). Further, science practitioners do not see or perceive any conflict between their views and that of religion. In fact, the findings from the study conducted by Ecklund and Park (2009) revealed that “our results showing that scientists do not see religion and science as in conflict may help religious members of the general public adopt a more positive attitude toward science and scientists. This finding is particularly important because the population of scientists studied here work at top universities; they are likely to be thought leaders and have an influence on the public acceptance of science through the students that they teach and—for some—their role as public spokespersons for science… (Further), scientists who are religious conservatives may have a special role in convincing the American public that science and religion do not have to be in conflict because the most religiously based opposition to science seems to come from religious conservatives” (Ecklund & Park, 2009, p. 291). The findings have thereby validated that no conflict exists between science and religion despite presence of opposing beliefs and teachings that seem to overlap on identified areas. Their respective views are well respected in academic fields of endeavor as both support their arguments with the theoretical frameworks from which each discipline is premised. Conclusion The essay aimed to confirm through supportive arguments from various authoritative sources that indeed, science and religion is not in conflict despite supposed overlapping and contradictory issues. By validating through authoritative sources on the subject, one has effectively indicated that science and religion are based on different foundations and studies have revealed the existence of scientists with defined religious orientations who do not believe that conflicts between the two disciplines exist. The counter-arguments emphasized presence of opposing beliefs and divergent teachings; as well as identified areas of overlapping and contradicting perceptions on cosmology, geology, astronomy; medicine; linguistics; religious practices and events; and homosexuality; in conjunction with topics that discuss the evolution, divine action in the world, the difference between the scientific attitude and the religious attitude, evolutionary psychology, and historical biblical criticism (HBC). The response to these counter-arguments further strengthened the thesis of the essay by indicating that the very foundation of each discipline’s basis for systematic practice and application are significantly different making them impossible to clash and be in conflict with each other. Further, through the acknowledgement of scientists as practitioners and firm believers in religion, they have validated that no conflict is seen and perceived between science and religion, in general. Despite the apparent contention that conflict has existed between these two disciplines since the origin of scientific revolution, both exist firmly in strong conviction and commitment for their respective beliefs. The paper was therefore able to support that science and religion are not in conflict as they do not impose one’s values, preferences and beliefs on the other. Each discipline exists to support and sustain their respective objectives to further their crafts and fields of endeavor for the benefit of mankind. References Draper, J. (2007). History of the Conflict between Religion and Science . Retrieved October 2, 2011, from Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library: http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DraHist.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1 Ecklund, E., & Park, J. (2009). Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 28, Issue 2, 276-292. Evans, J., & Evans, M. (2008). Religion and science: Beyond the epistemological conflict narrative. Annual Review of Sociology, Volume 34, Number 1, 87–105. . Plantinga, A. (2010). Religion and Science. Retrieved October 5, 2011, from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/#WheTheCon Robinson, B. (2003, October 10). The Conflict Between Science and Religion: A more detailed overview. Retrieved October 4, 2011, from Religious Tolerance.org: http://www.religioustolerance.org/scirel_ov.htm Robinson, B. (2009, August 26). Science and/versus Religion: Introduction. Retrieved October 4, 2011, from Religious Tolerance.org: http://www.religioustolerance.org/scirelintro.htm Robinson, B. A. (2009, October 17). Conflicts between science and religion: A brief overview. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from Religious Tolerance.org: http://www.religioustolerance.org/scirel_ov1.htm Robinson, B. A. (2011, February 13). Definitions of the word "religion". Retrieved October 1, 2011, from Religious Tolerance.org: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn3.htm Scheitle, C. (2011). U.S. College Students’ Perception of Religion and Science: Conflict, Collaboration, or Independence? A Research Note. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 50, Issue 1, 175 - 186. Science Made Simple, Inc. (2006). Science Definition. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html Wuthnow, R. (1989). The Struggle for Americas Soul: Evangelicals, liberals and secularism. Grand Rapids, MI: WB Eerdmans. Read More

Another supporting argument that attests that no conflict exists between science and religion is the fact that there are studies that reveal the existence of scientists with defined religious orientations who do not believe that conflicts between the two disciplines exist. In the study written by Scheitle (2011), to prove that no conflict exists, “the assumption is that, because they are the most knowledgeable about scientific matters, scientists will be most likely to demonstrate some conflict with religion if such a conflict exists (Wuthnow, 1989, p. 143). If scientists are less religious that nonscientists, then the inference has been that there is an inherent conflict between scientific knowledge and religious belief” (Scheitle, 2011, p. 175). More importantly, and consistent with Scheitle’s study, the findings generated by Ecklund and Park from their study of Religion Among Academic Scientists (RAAS) which was completed over a three-year period from 2005 through 2007 revealed that “in contrast to research that has argued there is not an actual conflict between the knowledge framework of religion and that of science, on the basis that social scientists are less religious than natural scientists, we have shown that such differences are not a significant predictor of whether or not scientists will perceive conflict” (Eckland and Park, 2009, p. 290). These contentions prove that even scientists have religions orientations that do not preclude them from practicing the scientific theories of observation and experimentation to determine, describe and explain natural phenomena.

In this regard, these arguments likewise support that no conflicts exist between these two disciplines and even from the perspectives of those professional practitioners in each endeavor. Counter-Thesis and Counter-Arguments Despite the arguments supporting that no conflicts exist between science and religion, still, others contend that science and religion had been in conflict since the origin of science (Draper, 2007) due to opposing beliefs and divergent teachings. His lengthy discourse that traced the conflict between the two disciplines since the invasion of the Persian Empire, four centuries before the birth of Christ and finally concluded that religion must surrender to science, to wit: “faith must render an account of herself to Reason.

Mysteries must give place to facts. Religion must relinquish that imperious, that domineering position which she has so long maintained against Science” (Draper, 2007, p. 367). In its entirety, the arguments indicate that reason and knowledge conquers religion, as each discipline “taught opposing beliefs” (Robinson, 2009, p. 1). In a famous quote cited by Robinson (2009) of Albert Einstein, the following statement was revealed: “After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated, they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge" (Robinson, 2009, p. 1). Likewise, as acknowledged and cited by Scheitle (2011), “the predominant narrative surrounding the religion and science relationship has been driven by the assumption that these institutions are engaged in an unavoidable conflict resulting from their contradictory claims to truth (Evans & Evans 2008)” (p. 185). These disclosures validate that science and religion have been in conflict since the existence of science.

Robinson (2003) indicated that there are areas of overlap and conflicting issues between religion and science in the following concerns: cosmology, geology, astronomy; medicine; linguistics; religious practices and events; and even in homosexuality. This information was supported by Platinga (2010) who contended that there is emient “conflict between theistic religious belief and science with respect to several areas: evolution, divine action in the world, the difference between the scientific attitude and the religious attitude, evolutionary psychology, and historical biblical criticism (HBC)” (Plantinga: Naturalism and Science, 2010, par. 1).

Read More