Philosophy Essays: The Difference Between Science and Religion
Several typologies characterize the interaction between science andreligion. For example, Mikael Stenmark (2004) distinguishes betweenthree views: the independence view (no overlap between science andreligion), the contact view (some overlap between the fields), and aunion of the domains of science and religion; within those views herecognizes further subdivisions, e.g., the contact can be in the formof conflict or harmony. The most influential model of therelationships between science and religion remains Barbour’s(2000): conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. Subsequentauthors, as well as Barbour himself, have refined and amended thistaxonomy. However, others (e.g., Cantor and Kenny 2001) have arguedthat it is not useful to understand past interactions between bothfields. For one thing, it focuses on the cognitive content ofreligions at the expense of other aspects, such as rituals and socialstructures. Moreover, there is no clear definition of what conflictmeans (evidential or logical). The model is not as philosophicallysophisticated as some of its successors, such as Stenmark’s(2004). Nevertheless, because of its enduring influence, it is stillworthwhile to discuss this taxonomy in detail.
Conflict between science and religion essay - …
Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.1 Furthermore, contrary to stereotype, one certainly doesn't have to be an atheist in order to become a scientist.
Physicians were more disturbed by cases where the conflict was not between science and religion but rather between "different worldviews," for example patients or families who insisted that "life in any form was better than death," and demanded aggressive treatment even when the doctors considered it medically futile.
Conflicts agreements between science and religion
There is conflict, of course, between Christian or theistic belief and the idea that evolution is unguided by the hand of God or anyone else. That idea is certainly inconsistent with theistic religion; it is not, however, part of the scientific theory of evolution. Many biologists believe and assert that the process is unguided; it doesn't follow that the scientific theory of evolution is a theory of unguided evolution. Even if most biologists thought evolution is unguided, that still wouldn't follow. (Even if most physicists thought the laws of physics were instituted and established by God, it wouldn't follow that, according to current physics, these laws were thus established.) The thought that evolution is unguided is a metaphysical or theological add-on, not part of the scientific theory in itself. The thought that evolution is unguided is a consequence of naturalism, the view that there is no such person as God or anything like God. The conjunction of evolution together with naturalism is inconsistent with theistic religion (as is the conjunction of naturalism with anything else-Greek mythology, quantum mechanics or the phonebook); but the scientific theory of evolution alone is entirely compatible with theistic religion.
Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of …
The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres ofreligion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is theaim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocalconnection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, orlaws of nature, absolutely general validity is required--not proven. Itis mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishmentin principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone couldbe found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to humanself-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able topredict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with greatprecision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of themodern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contentsof those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within thesolar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on thebasis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though notwith the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the modeof operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wirelessapparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.
Free science vs. religion Essays and Papers - 123HelpMe
I was asked to give a talk at the American Philosophical Association meeting in February of 2009, on the question whether religion and science are compatible; Daniel Dennett was asked to comment on my talk. I narrowed the topic to the question whether science and theistic religion (in particular, Christianity) conflict. I argued that in fact there isn't any conflict between classical Christian belief (defined, perhaps, by the intersection of the great Christian creeds) and the thought that the living world has come to be by way of an evolutionary process. More specifically, there is no conflict between Christian belief and the proposition that the main process driving evolution is natural selection working on or winnowing random genetic mutation. That is because, obviously enough, God could have directed, overseen, orchestrated, the whole process to achieve the end he proposed to achieve. For example, God could have caused the genetic mutations that form the raw material for natural selection; by causing the right mutations at the right times, he could bring about the sorts of creatures he intends to create.