science and religion: is there a conflict?

Question

i need to write an essay, can you give me an idea for me to start my composition. tnx!

Answer 1

Science and religion are the two great seekers of truth. There can never be a genuine conflict between scientific truth and religious truth, because no genuine truth, regardless of its source, can conflict with any other genuine truth, regardless of its source. When there is an apparent conflict, it is an indication that one or the other view is not genuine truth. Usually it is the religious viewpoint that is faulty. A well established scientific theory supported by a vast accumulation of evidence over a period of centuries is very unlikely to be wrong. On the other hand, there are thousands of Protestant denominations, each with beliefs that conflict with the beliefs of the others. We know that many of these beliefs are definitely false because, again, truth cannot conflict with truth. Science can make mistakes of course; but there is nowhere near the chaos in science that there is in denominational religion, which greatly favors the scientific data over some individual denomination's particular guesses about the meaning of a Bible passage.
.

Answer 2

Here's something to start with:

"Science and religion [are] no longer seen as incompatible."
--The Daily Telegraph, London, May 26, 1999.

Reconciling Science and Religion
- An Enduring Quest
- - Accept the Limits
- - Let the known facts speak
- - The Creative Days--24 Hours Each?
- - Faith, not credulity
- - Respect science; acknowledge belief
- - Has Science Taken the Moral High Ground? http://watchtower.org/e/20020608/article_01.htm

Answer 3

No, religion is spiritual.
Science is physical.
It is like apples and oranges.
Most prominent scientist have been religious. Christianity is a search for the truth, a quest for salvation. Each religion is basically this, just in other ways. Science is just methodology and human explanations about things. Do not mind the arrogance of some who would tell you that science is somehow virtuous and religion is not. How you live your life, has no effect on a chemical reaction.

Answer 4

Only when religion conflicts with science. Specifically, the supernatural aspects of religion (divinity, afterlife, etc.) are pure conjecture, because there can be no evidence of the super-natural in nature. Sure, there are also many aspects that deal with human nature (morals, behavior, etc.), but the social sciences are not as percise as physical nature. So our direct observations of nature should supercede any assertions the don't agree in scripture. Hope this helps.

Answer 5

Science is about nature and has nothing to say about anything supernatural.

Theology is about the supernatural and should have nothing to say about science.

Science used to be called "natural philosophy" and when we say "science" today we mean natural science.

"Religion" derives from *ligare*, "to bind," as in "ligament". It does not need to be connected with any god or book. However for those who believe in a supernatural God, their religion *binds* them to their god.

The concept of nature, distinct from the supernatural and open to study by natural science, was invented by the Greeks of the Ionian colony, such as Thales of Miletus, a few centuries before the time of Socrates.

Since that time there have always been some people who have a hard time accepting that things in the natural world operate by cause and effect, not by "hands on" micromanagement by supernatural entities.

Answer 6

I don't think there is a conflict, I think a conflict is being manufactured by some people. Some individuals are incorrectly being told that they have to choose either science or religion and that if they choose science/evolution they are turning their backs on god etc.. I think this is totally false.

Answer 7

i think of that each little thing you're saying could make experience if in basic terms the 1st element you probably did wasn't to easily assume that the bible is evidence of god. development an entire argument in this assumption skill you ultimately finally end up incorrect. you're saying that there is obviously evidence for god and the bible, yet I fail to work out that evidence. the only "evidence" i've got ever heard from theists is that we don't be attentive to some issues. They take this no longer understanding as evidence of god, whilst all it is is the absence of evidence of something else. and that i've got not heard a theist then connect those bits of lack of understanding relating to the universe to the will that their god is the the main suitable option one. base line is the medical technique inevitably tells us that faith and technological awareness are incompatible on a elementary point. the 2d step of the medical technique is posing a hypothesis in step with a question you have. the subsequent steps contain sorting out that hypothesis. The hypothesis isn't everyday as certainty till it particularly is been examined and the test replicated. No such medical rigor has been utilized to faith. non secular people in simple terms arise with a hypothesis (actual, non secular people hundreds of years in the past got here up with it utilising their particularly limited wisdom of the international), settle for it as authentic, and then pass and consider out to discover techniques they are able to teach that it is authentic. suitable-down reasoning. won't be able to abide by skill of that.

Answer 8

Depends on where you intend to go with the composition. Is your thesis yes or no? Or are you intending to give the facts and let others come to their own conclusion? A little more detail would help us help you.

Answer 9

Science and religon agree on a lot of things. They agree that we are here, the earth exists, something caused the universe to be the way it is. If they agreed on everything, there would be no purpose for both to exist.

Answer 10

There is indeed. You see, as our level and depth of scientific understanding grows, we find that god is being pushed further and further out of the universe. That is, god is running out of places to hide. For example, before science had given us a satisfying theory of Earth's history, we resorted to supernatural explanation of an event that was really quite (relatively speaking) simple.