God, Science, And Imagination Analysis

Superior Essays
Every four years the American people crowd television sets and listen in to mostly predictable Presidential debates. The Republicans preach their conservative and religious based values while the Democrats call for more liberal changes. Congress has suffered because of the conflicting viewpoints, as hardly any middle ground can be reached. The fundamentalist nature of the two political parties has stymied the country from reaching resolutions on abortion, or the right for women to choose. Wendell Berry argues against this strict fundamentalism in his essay, “God, Science, and Imagination”, where he discusses that reaching a balance between the two extremes of science and religion is important to eliminate the bigotry the world faces. Zadie …show more content…
In her essay “Speaking in Tongues”, Smith discusses the importance of having multiple voices, or having knowledge of both sides of an argument. This relates to Berry’s essay because being well informed leads to a better understanding of another person’s point of view. Ultimately, as more citizens become educated, the fundamentalist nature of politics and religion should slowly cease to exist. Overall, the ability to compromise and make concessions with each other is critical to ensure the world is united behind a common set of values. The fundamentalism of politics starts with the ongoing and controversial debate of creationism versus evolution. The religious right of the political spectrum believes with absolute certainty that God created our existence, while the scientific left supports the gradual evolution of life resulting from the Big Bang Theory. Wendell Berry adds his opinion and says, “There is no objective or empirical or experimental evidence on either side. The argument, as such, is by definition hopeless- a piece of foolishness and a waste of time” (22). Science states that matter …show more content…
Both the scientific community, and religious faithful forget the truthful fact, that neither side can ever be correct. Science is mostly based around theories that are constantly changing, while religion is based on teachings from the Holy Book. Science today features possibilities of genetic engineering and other ways to alter life that religious followers view as unethical. The lack of long term studies should lead to a healthy skepticism of the future of scientific discovery, as there could exist potential repercussions for altering life. Furthermore, the religious community should learn to embrace the possibilities that science holds, because it, like religion, preaches hope for a better tomorrow. Berry mentions Paul’s letter to the Romans on his definition of hope when he says, “For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it” (24). The ability to compromise and make concessions with conflicting viewpoints should be easy, because we all live hoping for a better tomorrow. Neither religion nor science can be concrete in their assertions of how life was created and came to be, but both ideologies can come together in an effort to build hope for a better

Related Documents

  • 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
  • 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
  • Superior Essays

    While the author criticizes about Prof. Weinberg’s opinion, he overlooks the achievements and progression human passed through from scientific discoveries. It is always better to cite anything with third person prospectus. The author condemns the way Weinberg talked about religion while mentioning that he didn’t want to hurt anyone but fairer view recognizes that Weinberg, being as a physicist, has more to contribute to science than religion and his approach not to hurt the feeling of theists is appreciable. Why would a physicist support about the unknown fact about…

    • 945 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    A society based solely on religious beliefs will not be able to answer how the world works and how better to prepare for the world. A society based solely on science cannot give meaning and purpose to the world and the individual cannot have any hope for what is beyond the physical world. Pain and evil are byproducts of a sinful world and God uses them as a means of drawing people back to him by calling into question finite nature of life. John Piper is right in the sense he can find God in tornadoes, but I do not and see his commentary as a political statement on the ills of the United States as a…

    • 1056 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Science Vs Religion Essay

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages

    (Townes, 1966). Faith is essential to both science and religion. Faith is the foundation for religious opinion; however, scientists do not even realize they are utilizing faith as their foundation as well. For a scientist to begin searching, they must believe, or have faith, in their mind that there is a universal order, assuring their self of obtaining an understanding of this order in an attempt to find answers. Additionally, Townes compares the method of discovery between the two; further explaining both use great revelations.…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Plantinga says that science and religion are compatible, but he switches the argument to focusing more on Evolution vs. Religion. Christianity says that God made man, but evolution says everything happens by random chance. Out of all of Plantinga's theories I like the one that says the evolutionary process is wasteful, God would not permit this sort of process. People don’t believe in God based on an argument.…

    • 853 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He was a deist, which means he believed in God but he did not believe in Christ. Paine combined religion with science. He believed that there were scientific answers for all that the Bible and Christians believed. In his writing, “The Age of Reason”, he renounces the stories of the Bible and compares them to “heathen mythology” (pg. 655).…

    • 498 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The article published by Jerry Coyne, titled, Science and Religion Aren’t Friends, is one that demands that science and religion are incompatible, and he makes an attempt to destroy any possibility of compatibility between the two. He claims that religion is merely a fog of superstition that needs to get out of the way of scientific progress. “ And any progress- not just scientific progress- is easier when we’re not yoked to religious dogma.” Coyne argues for the value of science, a value that doesn’t have various religions arguing with one another about which one is right, there is simply one scientific truth. “In contrast, scientists don’t kill each other over matters such as continental drift. We have better ways to settle our differences.…

    • 754 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This embodies the ideas that presented later that discuss the relationship between fundamentalist views and religious views to God and faith. In the fundamentalists view, modern science has an obligation of providing empirical proof that backs up the hypothesized statement on any issue that is under scrutiny, this lacks from many scientists studies. They state that there is no existence of a God or the explanation of faith with no adequate back up to their claims. This is the same with Christians who have a strict devotion to their faith when in fact they are not familiar with what they keep their faith…

    • 1012 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Historical Conflicts of Science and Religion Evolutionary biology is a relatively modern scientific subject which has appeared to rouse great conflict with organized religion. This paper seeks to use properties of NOMA to dispel the alleged conflict between science and religion, and it will also attempt to pinpoint how such conflicts may be prevented. To accomplish this, the definitions of science & religion will be clarified, the feud between evolutionary biology and religion will be discussed, and an argument will be made that creationism and fine-tuning arguments improperly overstep their magisterium. The fundamentals of science and religion must be reiterated before a proper argument can be made. First and foremost, science is the pursuit…

    • 1345 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays

Related Topics