Religion on the other hand is supposed to make stuff meaningful for us; it should help us make sense of stuff beyond the mechanics involved (some folks are content with the mechanics, but for me its difficult to derive ethical guidance from the mechanics - and I know that scientists don't uncover objective facts - they manufacture facts as the result of an ideological model - and that model is pregnant with the ideological assumptions of the scientist creating the model - so you might as well put your cards on the table and ask the scientist what ethical and moral standards have guided the research, where they came from, and most importantly what their foreseeable consequences might be - if you get a blank stare you are talking to a fool - if you get anything else you're talking religion - or at least philosophy)
Follow me? For example, science provides us with a marvelous series of related statements regarding "HOW" rainbows operate. The bible, on the other hand, provides us with an interesting little story about what it means to see a rainbow; "WHY" they appear and 'why' it might be significant for us when they do. Now, a lot of folks will respond to this with something like, "but the Bible is the word of God and not just another collection of stories!" Well, okay. But let's get a few things straight before we go any further: (1) When folks get upset about reading the bible as 'stories' it is usually because they want to read the bible as history. This is interesting to me. It is interesting to me because it assumes that the bible's value rests solely on its historical accuracy (a uniquely Western way of understanding that came about only a few hundred years ago). I'm not sure this is a wise perspective. Since we're talking about science and religion I'll use two examples from the history of science to make my point: (a) Remember learning that Isaac Newton was inspired by an apple hitting his head? Well, all Newton himself ever said was that the idea of gravity came to him as he sat "in a complative mood" and "was occasioned by the fall of an apple.
Religion vs. ... In a deeper sense, science and religion are complements of each other. ... Science and religion complement and complete because where science lacks the tools to answer questions, religion helps out by providing those tools. ... It seems that science and religion have always been at war with one another. ... Science and religion each occupy their own realm of knowledge. ...
Religion v. ... Morris University of Arkansas at Fayetteville Abstract Religion v. ... Religion v. ... This is when the creation vs. evolution debate begins; in the media it is portrayed as religion vs. science. ... The most famous example of the religion vs. science debate is "The Monkey Trial", formally State v. ...
The Universe: Religion and Science? ... Notice how I did not use science vs. religion (I will explain this view later). ... Is Hawkings description of the earliest explanation of the universe science or religion? (This is the point that I will attempt to explain why I did not use "Science vs. ... In my opinion, at this point in time of our newly curious culture, there was no difference between science and religion. ...
Philosophically, the notion of pseudoscience encompasses all that is not science philosophy, religion and other bodies of human belief (Ruse Summer1982, p.72). ... The main arguments to consider revolve around the discussions raised in the Arkansas Trial 1981, Mclean vs. ... Supporting my arguments, Ruses (Ruse Autumn 1982, p.19) response directed towards Laudan specifically states that the conflict of creationism is purely because the creationists believed that their ideals were science rather than religion. ... As Ruse (Summer 1982 p.73) precisely expresses, this is not to say that religion ...
Science vs Religion Since the beginning of human history there have been many explanations for events that seem out of human control. ... As a result, many conflicts arise between men of religion and men of science. ... Although, he presented ideas of his own, he decided to satirize science and religion. ... It is true that some arguments on science and religion have caused wars or other acts of hate. ... These conflicts between religion and science are necessary if society wants to remain intellectually active. ...
There have been six significant court rulings regarding the evolution vs. creation science debate over the last forty years. ... Creation science is religion biased and teaching it in public schools would promote one religion, which is strictly forbidden in the constitution. Instruction a child on religion should be done at home, not in the schools. ... They are comprised of children of all races, backgrounds, ethnics, and religions. ... Even if schools were to teach the idea of Creation science, than it would only be fair to also inform the students of all the other religion's id...
This is the root of the dilemma between science and religion. ... Reconciliation between science and religion is impossible, because the claims made by religion and the evidence provided by science are so extraordinarily different. ... Creation science tries to blend science with religion, and uses scientific knowledge as an aid in their argument. ... Overton, in his opinion in the case McLean vs. ... Another problem between science and religion concerns the existence of god. ...
Science versus Religion: The Age Long Conflict In the middle of our course we were shown a video on science and religion, which tried to prove that religion and science always got along in the past and always will in the future. ... As a result religion and science conflicts with each other at many levels. ... In the book Creation Vs. ... Science and religion conflict because they are competing for the same territory. ... Both science and religion make claims about the truth. ...
As Europeans discovered new peoples with various beliefs, and cultures of their own, the idea of human nature and closer focus on the 'Nature Vs. ... " (Pg. 14) The second precondition according to Mazlish that served in the emergence of the Modern Human Sciences in the West was Seventeenth Century Science and the Enlightenment. ... " (Pg. 34) This revolution introduced a fresh empiricism that moved away from the formalized attempts at human science. ... However, Darwin did recognize that man did differ from other animals in that we have a consciousness of morality and relig...
