“It would be misleading to think that all these factors influenced all scientists to the same degree. However, a major component of anyone’s theoretical outlook is his religious worldview (which could be atheism or agnosticism, as well as a traditional religion). Worldview had a far more significant influence on the origin of old-earth geology than has often been perceived or acknowledged. A person’s worldview not only affects the interpretation of the facts but even the observation of the facts. Another prominent historian of science rightly comments about scientists and non-scientists: ‘men often perceive what they expect, and overlook what they do not wish to
Before talking about the incompatibility of science and religion, it is necessary to answer questions such as what is science and what is religion? The science is a tool by means of which it is possible to receive true knowledge of the world. How there was a Universe or how life has appeared? Very deep and difficult question. While none of these issues have precise answers, but there is a scientific methodology, which is the best of what people can approach to them.
The research and testing is done to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. This research is used to make a prediction and a theory as to why something happened is developed. Dr. E. Stanley Jones states “Prior to the age of science, truth was determined philosophically, by debate. But the scientific method has brought the search for truth out of the lecture hall and into the laboratory.” (Christianity.com 2013). However, the scientific method is only a way of seeking the truth.
This backs up his answer by him giving evidence to back up his claim. Albert Einstein’s final use of emotion in his answer is shown when he puts his own opinion in his answer by saying that scientist do have a sense of faith because they have to believe in something with the laws of nature which gives a feel of religion but he also states how different it is from the “religiosity of someone more naïve” he uses claims based on how he feels rather than rationale behind his claim, And it appeals to emotion. Albert Einstein not only just answers her question, but he uses ethos, logos, and pathos to make it more effective and understandable for Phyllis. He gives a reason to believe him and shows both sides of the claim. So in the end she can form her own opinion or argument about the whole thing.
The relationship between religion and science has been a subject frequently discussed and studied in the modern world. While some, such as Abdus Salam (1984), argues that religion and science are cooperative, while others such as Neil deGrasse Tyson (1999) believe that the two aspects are fundamentally conflictory. In actuality, the relationship between religion and science is highly complex, but given the historical ties between the two (especially within Christianity and Islam, which will be discussed in this essay), I am inclined to believe that two are largely mutually complementary and even reliant upon one another, as Einstein's statement may suggest. Firstly, Einstein's statement that ‘science without religion is lame’ implies that progresses
Although many internet "trolls" as they call them, are open minded and exceed the expectation of varied beliefs on multiple different areas of politics and religion, both science and religion have begun to use these same methods of education for their own purposes, keeping the ignorant people of their belief all the more ignorant. But the thing is, they CAN get along. Objective thinking leads to an open mind that allows science and religion to be reconciled. First one must know what these things are. Religion is a set practice of beliefs in a moral code and rituals, often including some sort of salvation or enlightenment from doing such, and a belief in certain myths.
Butterfield (1965) author of “The Origins of Modern Science” persuasively argues that what materialized in the 16th century and subsequent years was not necessarily the results of new information, but transformed minds. Helweg, (1997) explains that other cultures have made significant findings to the human race; i.e., the Hindus introduction of zero and the Muslins contributions to algebra. Christian also contributed an exclusive set of expectations required by science. Many Christians were not only scientist but researchers that validated that we existed in a methodical universe. They understood that revealing such knowledge would prove powerful in evidence that such a universe was shaped by a methodical
“Science is right & religion is wrong.” I personally, believe that this statement is not correct. This is because, there are some phenomenons in this world and in this universe that science can’t explain but religion however can- an example of this is would be the Mayan civilization; They predicted many of the natural disasters that came to be and they were far more advanced than us. This clearly proves that science is not always right and religion is not always wrong. Most Muslims would contradict this statement. This is due to the fact that Muslims believe that we (Humanity) are in the progress of learning and that we will come to understand the truth one day.
Genesis 1-2 can show us that God is all-powerful and all-loving. As far as Genesis 1-2 goes, it is more important to understand the scripture, rather than prove it to be factual. “Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavor, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization” (Ferngren, 2). Genesis 1-2 is the cause of much unnecessary tension between the religious and scientific communities. The writers of Genesis 1-2 wrote it in a way that presents the Earth’s creation as a factual account of God creating the heavens and the Earth.
For the Puritans, who have such a high influence in religion and in God, their science was meshed with religion as well. Winthrop believed that nature was created by God, and thus the Puritans' way of the science was more of an act of worship. On the other hand, Franklin was a discoverer. He wanted to find out how things work and how they evolve and end up. Franklin wants to understand the nature not the belief that God created nature ideas by the Puritans.