Modern Science Vs Religion

Improved Essays
People who believe the truth comes from faith and people who believe the truth comes from science have been butting heads ever since someone dared to question the divine. The relationship between the two belief systems has been problematic since the beginning. The only reason for the conflict is a lack of understanding of what is the truth. What people fail to understand is that it is possible for faith and modern science to co-exist and explain how and why we are here. Faith and modern science have been opposing forces from the very beginning of their development. Although faith and modern science have opposing beliefs on many topics, the age old debate between these forces has focused on the origin of the world and the origin of mankind. …show more content…
Those who are strong in their faith usually have a hard time accepting that there is a possibility that God or Gods did not create the world how it is today. Those who strongly believe in scientific discoveries and progress also have a hard time accepting that there is a possibility that a God or even multiple Gods created everything living as it is today. There is evidence supporting both belief systems, as pointed out in the texts from which they originate. What the extremists from both parties do not realize or accept is that both ideas can explain the origin of the world and humankind. This non-acceptance of the truth is the result of centuries of religion being in control of society. The problematic relationship between faith and modern science stemmed from this power that, specifically, the Catholic Church had and the fear people had about questioning their faith. Creationism was a largely believed to be the only truth by many for a long time and doubting this was seen as rebelling against the majority of society. That is why the idea that faith and modern science both contribute to the reason mankind exists is doubted still by many …show more content…
In fact, Islam, one of the largest practiced religions in the world, accepts philosophy has part of the religion. This idea was made clear in a writing by Ibn Rushd titled The Decisive Treatise Determining the Nature of the Connection between Religion and Philosophy. In this writing, Ibn Rushd argues two main points in two full chapters: “The Law Makes Philosophic Studies Obligatory” and “Philosophy Contains Nothing Opposed to Islam”. (Rushd) In these chapters he explains that the understanding of philosophy is essential if one is to follow Islam and that philosophy does not contradict Islam. Philosophy concerns logic, not unlike science. Understanding this, why should science be considered wrong when philosophy is seen as

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Religion Vs. Science

    • 1922 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Religious leaders started to worry that as science progressed, its discoveries would discredit the Lord. Thus, a misunderstanding of science arose. In reality, science answers the “important” questions of life while religion deals with the “hard” question. Important questions such as “what does it take to sustain life?” are different from hard questions like “what is the purpose of life?” Science can provide information which can be used to help make a decision but frequently cannot tell you what to decide. Humans have spiritual needs that can be dealt by religion but not by science.…

    • 1922 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Both creationists and evolutionists must use historical science when theorizing on our origins. However, evolution is taught today as observational science; an observable proven fact. Ken Ham, a christian scientist and creationist, explains this problem, and the limitations of historical science, in his book The Lie, “Most people have the wrong idea about what the creation/evolution/age of the earth questions involve. Instead of perceiving the real issue, they have been deceived into believing that evolution/millions of years is science and that the Bible’s account of origins is religion. But this is not so...There is a big difference between knowledge gained by observation(ie the knowledge that helps to build our technology) and…

    • 714 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Life of Pi tried to make a significant argument of why God did exists. Thomas Aquinas showed me different sides to many arguments about God. Finally, my conversation with Olivia helped confirm my opinions. I do not believe that God exists because there is no higher power that has enough control to influence the entire world. I completely disagree with everything that the book Life of Pi states because…

    • 1472 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Atheism Vs Religion

    • 760 Words
    • 4 Pages

    This essay intends to prove the idea that atheism would eventually trump over religion. These arguments for the dominance of atheism can be categorized under philosophical, historical and social perspectives. One of the chief reasons is the lack of empirical proof of the existence of god. People have overtime assumed this existence based…

    • 760 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Essay On Falun Gong

    • 1369 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Science may not have a claim in being named a pure objective knowledge, since nonetheless of scientific progress, the puzzle of the entire word outlook is still not formed. Science includes knowledge which is taken as an axiom of different theories. As contrast to this statement, religion has statements which call for faith, but also has those which are based on argumentation and is supported by evidence. Of course there are differences between the two. Firstly, science does not arise from absolute truth; it is attributable to critical view on that what is happening in its field; the pressure of new evidence may lead to a revision of previous statements.…

    • 1369 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Science Vs Religion Essay

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The difference between the two are the absolute qualities. Religion teaches absolute truth, despite the ability to prove or be proven wrong. Science stresses the potential ability to, over time, explain everything. However, the inability to prove certain aspects causes strain on both interpretations. The great difference between the two are the impression of scientific laws diminishing the space for divine action.…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    It is possible to prove that truth exists but belief is almost impossible. A belief can be explained in many different ways like the different religions do in explaining the existence of God, but truth can only be explained in only one way, what the proponents of this theory expect. The concept of God’s existence is a belief proposal and not a truth. A belief proposal is not a knowledge whereas a truth is based on the knowledge. When the proponents of the theory of conflicting truths argue against the existence of God, they seem to interpret it as a knowledge and not a belief proposal, and when they fail to find the knowledge to support the existence of God, then they discredit the same existence.…

    • 1726 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Science can be separated into two groups: science and pseudoscience. For science to be scientific, the theory must be testable, and can be proven false. While religion explains the supernaturals; it’s also about having faith and trust in our religion. There have been arguments for and against Gods in our society. However, people can’t win arguments against God because they can’t disprove it.…

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Throughout history, Religion and belief in God have been deeply rooted in culture. To question God’s existence was considered shameful. In early ages, questioning God’s existence was considered personally insulting to many people and their religions, therefore few people broke away from the norm. However, with the introduction and advancement of science into cultural, individuals gained a groundwork for they're questioning. With factual evidence arising, providing proof for the creation of the earth and the development of natural disasters, many ideas people viewed as “God’s miracles” were disproved.…

    • 1672 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    POPPER, KUHN AND LATOUR'S EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENTS Popper's philosophy is based on falsifiability, thus he would side with Lennox. There are a lot of gaps in the science when it comes to evolution and the origin of life. There are also a lot of phenomenons that Dawkins cannot explain by using pure science, because he believes that the specific explanations have not been discovered yet. Lennox uses falsifiability as his main argument in many situations to counter Dawkins' theories. Lennox uses God to explain all of these phenomenons and because God cannot be falsified by using science, Popper would side with Lennox rather than Dawkins.…

    • 1563 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays