Some people believe that true knowledge can be based only on facts, and any idea which is not supported by a valid scientific argument should perish. Since religion cannot provide a reasonable answer to criticism, it is often beaten by anyone who identifies the inconsistency between the shared views of the church and gathered facts from science. But is there any solution to such a significant problem which will end the numerous and meaningless arguments?
During the 19th century the idea that there was a contradiction between the scientific knowledge and religious faith was widespread amongst the people. It is not a secret that science and religion are quite opposite especially in their explanations of why we must do things in a particular …show more content…
Since scientists cannot discover the field where the religion’s statements are held (they are beyond scientific research because they are based on dogmas which scientists cannot examine), they cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. But still they can argue about following religious statements which are trying to prove the existence of our creator.
There are 3 main arguments: the cosmological, the theological and the ontological.
The first argument states that nothing can come to existence by itself – that means that our universe was created by somebody, just like the existence of watches requires the existence of a watchmaker. The biggest flaw with this theory is that it leads to infinite regress. If the existence of anything relies on something to create it, this something needs a creator as well, and so on. …show more content…
Barash about this problem is not biased at all despite the fact that he is a biologist. What he says is that he is trying to understand his students who are in a struggle with contradictions between these two aspects. He says we should respect people’s religious feelings, but these feelings should not cross the perspective and successful road of science. Science has a zero tolerance towards statements which are based on dogmas which are assumed to be true by the religious community.
The future of the institution of the church is undefined. Either people will experience no need in the church or the government will get rid of religion’s source of power – it is just a matter of time. Many great scientists and philosophers even insist on destroying the churches’ principles. The great German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said: “God is dead: but considering the state Man is in, there will perhaps be caves, for ages yet, in which his shadow will be shown. And this shadow should be killed”. Possibly, there is no chance of thinking that rude way for a simple reason: the church is still functioning as a place of hope and happiness for some people. The co-existence of religion and science will survive as long as neither interferes with the other’s
During the 19th century the idea that there was a contradiction between the scientific knowledge and religious faith was widespread amongst the people. It is not a secret that science and religion are quite opposite especially in their explanations of why we must do things in a particular …show more content…
Since scientists cannot discover the field where the religion’s statements are held (they are beyond scientific research because they are based on dogmas which scientists cannot examine), they cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. But still they can argue about following religious statements which are trying to prove the existence of our creator.
There are 3 main arguments: the cosmological, the theological and the ontological.
The first argument states that nothing can come to existence by itself – that means that our universe was created by somebody, just like the existence of watches requires the existence of a watchmaker. The biggest flaw with this theory is that it leads to infinite regress. If the existence of anything relies on something to create it, this something needs a creator as well, and so on. …show more content…
Barash about this problem is not biased at all despite the fact that he is a biologist. What he says is that he is trying to understand his students who are in a struggle with contradictions between these two aspects. He says we should respect people’s religious feelings, but these feelings should not cross the perspective and successful road of science. Science has a zero tolerance towards statements which are based on dogmas which are assumed to be true by the religious community.
The future of the institution of the church is undefined. Either people will experience no need in the church or the government will get rid of religion’s source of power – it is just a matter of time. Many great scientists and philosophers even insist on destroying the churches’ principles. The great German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said: “God is dead: but considering the state Man is in, there will perhaps be caves, for ages yet, in which his shadow will be shown. And this shadow should be killed”. Possibly, there is no chance of thinking that rude way for a simple reason: the church is still functioning as a place of hope and happiness for some people. The co-existence of religion and science will survive as long as neither interferes with the other’s