Religion vs Science Essay

This essay has a total of 1538 words and 8 pages.


Religion vs Science





This paper will examine the scientific view verse religion. I feel their support for the
big picture is shallow and untenable. I believe in science but I also have faith.

Scientific research has lead to dramatic and more humane treatments of persons suffering
from mental disease, depression, and physical injury. The reputation of scientists has
reached an all-time high. Majority of Americans have said they trust the scientific
community more than almost anyone, including the Supreme Court, organized religion,
Congress, teachers and the U.S. military. Many of these Americans believe that these
scientific advances are leading them to a better world.

The questions: What is man? What am I to do? What am I to hope for? A number of
scientists and their fans seem to consider these questions to be the clearest
manifestations of the human spirit or our nescient childhood. The scientists said “
Now that we are scientists, we can put away childish things, including the concepts of
God, the human soul and the moral responsibility.”

An advocate of this view, M.I.T. Professor Steven Pinker, argues that science is itself an
evolutionary development of the brain. He claims the mind evolved to provide just
experimental accounts of the world. He believes that questions of religion and philosophy
about the meaning of the world and human existence, are not truly meaningful ones. Pinker
said, “ religion and philosophy are but the primitive responses to the
unknown.” (Common Wealth p15)

There are alternative theories that involve science and religion. For example,
Raymo’s “new creation story.” According to this story, nature did its
own creating through unintelligent material processes, particularly the Darwinian
mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. He believes that God was only
involved in the beginning, in setting up the laws and thereafter nature runs by itself.
Raymo viewed humans as the universe becoming conscious of itself through evolution, while
prayer consists of miracles, and giving praise and thanksgiving to nature. (National
Review p32)

Scientists begin to worship their own concepts, proclaiming limitless philosophical
systems rather than concentrating on what the data is really showing. Scientists cannot
prove that known natural forces can produce complex biological organisms. No one has
demonstrated that chemical evolution cannot even begin to account for the information
content of the simplest organisms. There is no actual evidence of natural selection
having substantial creative power. The only examples available are those of variations
in fundamentally stable populations.

In scientific perspective, molecular revolution has revealed an unforeseen domain of
complexity and interaction more consistent with technology than with the mechanical
viewpoint. Scientist have come to realize that cells thoroughly protect themselves
against the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are
the sources of evolutionary variability. The current knowledge of genetic change is
fundamentally at variance with hypothesis held by neo-Darwinists.

Everyone is in search of the their truth. Understanding, the very rich and varied world,
in which we live, the need for these insights of both science and religion are necessary.
Each is in search of the truth however; they survey different aspects of experience.
According to J. Polkingborne, “scientific facts are never plain, unvarnished
observations; to be interesting they must already be interpreted.” That
interpretation requires an interweaving of fact and opinion.

Religion on the other hand, is concerned with the search for motivated belief. Faith does
not involve closing your eyes and believing impossible thing because some unquestionable
authority tells them to do so. It is the quest for an understanding of human experience
rooted in worship, hope and the history of holiness represented by the great religious
figures of world history.

Science limits itself to treating the world as an object, which can be manipulated and put
to the experimental test. Religion is concerned with personal encounters, which can only
be treated as their own reality. The scientific testing has to give way to trusting in the
unforeseen.

There are many questions, which arise from science but which go beyond its narrow power to
answer, which seem to many of us to point in a religious direction. Scientists are
extremely impressed by the wonderful rational beauty of the physical world as it becomes
revealed through their investigations. Science is possible because the universe is a
creation, and we are made in the image of the creator. (Omni p4)

Body-soul dualism resides as the core of our culture. The majority of Americans believe
the in an immaterial self that comes into the being whole and entire conception and
survives the physical erosion of the body. It is extremely enjoyable to believe that we
reside at the link of a chain of material creation. Science instead offers, a speck of
self, formed from cosmic dust in a meaningless world. (3)

Science is not going to go away. It is far too fruitful a way of knowing to be denied by
human curiosity. Even if driven underground from its established position, it will
survive. There is little chance that science will be suppressed by the dominant culture;
it is way to useful. Who is prepared to turn over their medical and technological
establishments to revivalists. The source of our intellectual malaise is not science but
Continues for 4 more pages >>