In this model the harmonizers position is that religion and science go hand in hand and that they coexist with each other. Harmonizers aspire to prove that science can point to or even prove the claims of religion. My stance on religion versus science is more or less along the lines of the perspectivalist's position. There are many things in this world that science alone does not answer for me. But in that same regard, there are many things that religion just doesn't completely cover as well.
However, the scientific method is only a way of seeking the truth. It does not in any way reach the truth. There is no way to test every single circumstance to know for sure that the results are completely factual. However, the scientific method is at least testing and research is being done. The old way of just debating a theory is the not a realistic means to the
When conducted honestly and thoroughly, the scientific method can and has provided valuable information about the world and the world’s people (Jackson, 2009). Though some people rely on other methods for gaining knowledge, scientists only accept knowledge gained through science to arrive at plausible truths (Jackson, 2009). Due in part to human error and the tendency of human nature to succumb to temptations to bias research, the results of the scientific method should be viewed with skepticism (Garzon, n.d.). The scientific method of seeking knowledge and finding truth must stay within the limits of scientific ability and allow for human fragility in order to be effective (Slick, 2012). References Garzon, F. (n.d.).
Christian Worldview Paper I Abstract It is true, knowledge and truth can in fact be sought out in different ways. The ways in which one may seek knowledge has a lot to do with their background or worldview. We all have opinions and biases based on what we have been taught or experienced A scientist will seek knowledge and base truth only on things that can be proven, by use of the scientific method. On the other hand Christians see truth as being what is God's word. There are people that feel the two can be integrated, but there are others that feel Christianity and science are not at all compatible.
Many scientists believe that science and religion should not entwine. Scientists often keep religion separate from their work. Humans like you and I, turn to religion for an answer, for hope. Like Goodall, I believe science and religion are not different from each other but simply the way a person’s views the world as. Whether God created this universe or if they is a scientific answer to the creation of this universe, it is not as important than our future.
The counter argument to this though, is that animals do not fall under his jurisdiction and so the brutality that is nature is out of his control. God can only then make humans all good; which is apparent to be untrue (war, rape, murder.) In effect, Gould has showed that there could very validly be no active god. Whichever way a person’s belief systems lean, this paper by Stephen Jay Gould is a very insightful read into one way of thinking. Whether that means it solely educates those who firmly believe in god that there are other views, or it converts a person to non religious views, it is a worthwhile read.
To what extent is via negative the only way to talk about God? Via negative, or the apophatic way, is a theory that suggests it is only possible to talk about God in ‘negative’ terms, as opposed to talking about him in a positive light calling him things such as all loving or a good god, as talking about God in a positive way, statements can be misconstrued and misleading as to what we actually mean by a good God for example. To talk about God as a creator or a holy father and describing his good actions and love, only showcases our own ideas about what these things actually are, which can put the wrong idea across. It is better to try and get our limited human minds around the concept of a mysterious God, without characteristics as such, that may be inaccurate. Via negative features often in Buddhism’s religious language.
In Einstein’s answer, Einstein clouds his own answer to the question, “Do scientists pray, and if so, what do they pray for?” by using scientific evidences and supporting both sides of the argument, therefore not stating a clear purpose (Einstein 10). Without stating a clear purpose, the audience cannot understand what the speaker intends to say, or his purpose. Einstein also does not create much Ethos, because he does not put himself at the same level as his audience. Einstein does have Logos, but he defends both sides of the argument, so one cannot take much of a side based on what he says. Finally, he has no Pathos, because he drones on like a robot, revealing no personal emotion whatsoever.
I feel that this argument fails to prove the existence of God. There is no real proof that God created the universe or people based on the teleological argument, although it is a valid argument, I just do not think that it is plausible that God created the earth. There are many other theories that give more evidence and better proof that counter the teleological argument. Works
Instead, it is involved on supernatural entities which cannot be explained by science. Science and Religion do not have conflict with one another because they express human understanding in their own different ways. There is no conflict because that would only create controversy in the church and in a science