Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religionand science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to thesequestions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and,indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt thatin both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negativeanswer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that whilemost people readily agree on what is meant by "science," theyare likely to differ on the meaning of "religion."
Christian authors in the field of science and religion continue todebate how these two books interrelate. Concordism is the attempt tointerpret scripture in the light of modern science. It is ahermeneutical approach to Bible interpretation, where one expects thatthe Bible foretells scientific theories, such as the Big Bang theoryor evolutionary theory. However, as Denis Lamoureux (2008: chapter 5)argues, many scientific-sounding statements in the Bible are false:the mustard seed is not the smallest seed, male reproductive seeds donot contain miniature persons, there is no firmament, and the earth isneither flat nor immovable. Thus, any plausible form of integratingthe books of nature and scripture will require more nuance andsophistication. Theologians such as John Wesley (1703–1791) haveproposed the addition of other sources of knowledge to scripture andscience: the Wesleyan quadrilateral (a term not coined by Wesleyhimself) is the dynamic interaction of scripture, experience(including the empirical findings of the sciences), tradition, andreason (Outler 1985).
Science and Religion Cannot Be Reconciled | HuffPost
From 1757 to 1947, India was under British colonial rule. This had aprofound influence on its culture. Hindus came into contact withWestern science and technology. For local intellectuals, the contactwith Western science presented a challenge: how to assimilate theseideas with their Hindu beliefs? Mahendrahal Sircar (1833–1904)was one of the first authors to examine evolutionary theory and itsimplications for Hindu religious beliefs. Sircar was an evolutionarytheist, who believed that God used evolution to create the currentlife forms. Evolutionary theism was not a new hypothesis in Hinduism,but the many lines of empirical evidence Darwin provided for evolutiongave it a fresh impetus. While Sircar accepted organic evolutionthrough common descent, he questioned the mechanism of naturalselection as it was not teleological, which went against hisevolutionary theism—this was a widespread problem for theacceptance of evolutionary theory, one that Christian evolutionarytheists also wrestled with (Bowler 2009). He also argued against theBritish colonists’ beliefs that Hindus were incapable ofscientific thought, and encouraged fellow Hindus to engage in science,which he hoped would help regenerate the Indian nation (C.M. Brown2012: chapter 6).
Debate religion vs science essay
The results were unambiguous. Among those who were mentally depleted, the ones with religion on their minds persisted longer at the impossible task—suggesting that the religious priming restored their cognitive powers—and their patience in the process. They performed basically the same as those who were never tired out in the first place. The scientists take this as strong evidence for the replenishing effect of religion on self-discipline.
Short essay on science vs religion - …
While the conflict model is at present a minority position, some haveused philosophical argumentation (e.g., Philipse 2012) or havecarefully re-examined historical evidence such as the Galileo trial(e.g., Dawes 2016) to argue for this model. Alvin Plantinga (2011) hasargued that the conflict is not between science and religion, butbetween science and naturalism.
A complex God: why science and religion can co-exist
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.