Introduction
Primarily, concepts of science and religion determine the existence of humankind. This is because, as science ensures there are human innovations get recognition, religion ensures the achievement of such innovation follows ethics and morals, which not only respect humankind, but also other living things that exist in the universe. The debate on this topic is very crucial in that, majority of individuals who present opposing arguments on the topic fail to recognize that, both fields are very crucial for the existence of humankind.
That is to say, considering the ideological stand represented by these two fields, it is not wrong for one to argue that both are knowledge areas that endeavor to achieve some form of moral and theoretical fundamentals of existence or living. Also, critical examination of these two fields, clearly shows that both fields have commonalities.
This is because, although the two fields may seem different, both have a primary role, they play as concerns the existence of humankind and other living organisms. For example, as Birch (p.1) argues, scientific developments or innovations help human beings to understand the theoretical nature of things whereas, religion provides spiritual help, as concerns correct living morals and peaceful existence of community members.
On the other hand, it is important to note that, although these two fields are crucial for the existence of humankind, they have different methodical approaches as concerns the argument on the existence of the universe.
For example, scientific arguments or reasoning depends on proof; based on actual observation and philosophical realism (Tattersall, pp. 4-16). The case is different when it comes to religious believes that is, the majority of religious ideologies are mere theoretical arguments that primarily depend on one’s faith and existing disclosures.
The principles represented by concepts of religion and science have been the main issue of contention between these two fields of knowledge. This is because, in common life scenarios, science and religion represent two different ideological views on the existence and functioning of the earth under which human life thrives.
That is, according to religion, God is the Supreme Being, who is in charge of all earthly and heavenly occurrences, a fact that science contradicts, due to the belief that, scientifically the universe has natural systems that control its activities. Therefore, considering these facts, the two fields of knowledge in some ways are great “enemies” hence, the disapproving nature of the two fields on each other.
The War of Science vs. Religion
The war between science and religion dates back to the onset of the Renaissance period, due to the expansion of knowledge from the previously held and respected religious beliefs.
Before this period, everything in the world followed the biblical interpretation of ideas; however, with the rebirth of new fields of knowledge, science, and other fields emerged. It is important to note here that, this period marked the onset of the current existing quest of understanding of the reality behind the being of nature and other life-related topics, for example, life after death.
The ideological differences that exist between these two areas of knowledge have been an issue of contention since time memorial. This is because depending on the side was taken by an individual; many present opposing facts that tend to oppose or disapprove what their opponents assume as concerns the existence of the universe. Also, considering the nature of transformation undergone by the universe; in terms of practice and living standards, scientific beliefs have replaced the previously cherished religious beliefs by many individuals.
This is because, scientific experiments and advancement in knowledge have helped to prove the majority of concepts, which previously lacked answers. Although this is the case, majority of individuals who base their beliefs on religion tend to present arguments that oppose the ethical base of such scientific presentations hence, acting the main cause of the war between this two fields0 (Suarez p.1).
Due to such ideological differences; that tend to disapprove the system of beliefs in two fields of knowledge, reconciling the two fields is one of the hardest task individuals can venture into. This is because; currently, there is a great shift from the old-embraced beliefs to a new system of beliefs, which primarily depends on scientific evidence.
It is important to note here that, majority of dichotomies that determine the reality behind the existence of life is never alterable; the only things that individuals can alter are personal judgmental attitudes. For example, consider the concept of cloning; too many fanatics of religion, the concept jeopardizes God’s work. Hence the whole concept is morally not right.
Also, the majority of these individuals who oppose the whole idea of cloning also argue that, such human beings never exist in reality, and if they exist, then they owe their existence to God. The case is different when it comes to scientific believers in that; they defend their beliefs by arguing that, the existence of humankind owes a lot to science; because without it, there will be nothing in the name of life (Hawley Para. 1-12).
beIn many ways, science is the main contributing factor to the ever-changing human perceptions on the existence of nature. For example, although biblically God reigns above all; hence, the sole provider of all things that exist in nature, the notion has undergone many transformations with the advent of technological innovations; something that it a product of scientific developments.
Hence, considering such contributions that science provides, one thing becomes apparent; science is the primary determinant of the nature of lifestyles many adopt. Religious believers oppose this fact on the grounds that, everything that determines the quality of life originates from God, for God is the sole provider. It is important to note here that, scientific researches tend to disagree with this notion by arguing that, such beliefs are mere theoretical presentations, which are baseless unless proved.
This is because, the manifestation of scientific provisions is clear in any life scenario ranging from the provision of food, medicine, and other forms of livelihoods (Gottlieb p.1).In the recent past, the majority of intellectual beliefs depended on religion; hence, in most case forming the main base, when it came to arguing on the existence of the earth.
However, with the innovative nature of science, the majority of the beliefs that individuals embraced have eroded with time, because the majority of individuals everyday struggle to abandon concepts that seem wanting.
The two fields are very distinct, with each having theories it follows, methods and procedures of achieving desired outcomes or of explaining concepts, and varying contributions to the existence of the living species. Although one may argue that, they both have a common purpose; to serve humankind, it is important to note that, they aim to achieve a different aspect of individual development.
That is, spiritual reality is very different from scientific reality, and as each endeavor to outweigh the other, the divisions between them increase or became clear. A scientist considers most religious beliefs as traditional; hence, their contribution as concerns giving life meaning is minimal. This is because, majority of them believe that, the main reason behind the existence of human beliefs, is to give directions to human actions; primarily association behavior and not determine the existence of things.
This contradicts to what many religious fanatics believe; the existence of anything in nature depends on how God wants it to be. To disapprove this notion, scientists use various ascertaining techniques; that range from mere observations to scientific experiments whereby, logic and critical evaluations and reasoning takes precedence. Considering this, many religious beliefs can be vague, hence making scientist to call for a reformulation of beliefs under which religious believers base their arguments and stand (Fuller pp.11-32).
Majority of individuals tend to believe scientific innovations primarily because demonstrations prove the notion held by scientists. That is, through scientific evidence, the majority of scientific claims embrace the concept of validity and efficacy. These contradict with religious believe whereby, as argued by many science fanatics, religious beliefs is an inherited thing. That is, one’s religious orientation depends on the community where one grows, as individuals endeavor to have some cultural identity.
On the other hand, science, in some ways criticizes the religious approach of winning individuals. This is because, with science, there is proof hence, one remains convinced at all times, however, the case is different when it comes to religion, because in most cases religious beliefs depend on one’s cultural orientation hence, not a universally accepted concept.
Other science fanatics argue that as concerns the advancement of knowledge, science guarantees individuals chances of improving on what one has discovered hence, a universal concept that any individuals can decide to undertake. The case is different when it comes to religion primarily because, religious concepts depend on one’s society hence, making it a hard undertaking, when it comes to ascertaining religious concepts by individuals who do not belong in that society.
This to some extent is the truth, because the majority of the religious beliefs embraced by many individuals owe their idealized existence on Godly beliefs whereby, if one obeys such provisions, then there is an assurance of many rewards as a sign of appreciation. Religious beliefs fail to account on the importance of religious scholarship.
This is the case because religion bases its teaching on a traditional background; something that scientist argues cannot act as a sure way of measuring the extent of truth in any concepts, which pertains to human existence. Scientific truths are products of rational minds, whereby there is always some space for reformulation or restating of discoveries.
On another hand, religious beliefs are supreme, unchangeable ideologies that must conform to specific set standards and moral values. This in many ways, constricts the innovative ability of the mind, because of the constraining forces associated with such beliefs.
Majority of scholars have put into task the whole concept of conforming to religious beliefs on the grounds that, most of the religious beliefs are traditional whereby, individuals who formulated them had no mechanisms of ascertaining the reality behind any decisions they made, as pertains the adherence to such beliefs.
As many individuals argue, conformance to such beliefs to some extent has a crucial role it plays as concerns the well-being of humankind, however, still one thing remain apparent such beliefs are limiting in nature, hence stifles the human endeavor to improve their living standards and environments.
Scientific knowledge gives insights on how the future will look like, something that religion has never endeavored to achieve. This brings another contradicting factor between science and religion. To some extent, science as a developmental discipline helps to open the human mind to better activities and life-enhancing opportunities. The case is different when it comes to religion; it is being dependent on God’s provisions and directions; hence, the view that religion is an obstacle when it comes to human developments.
Scientific evidence is prevalent from the early discoveries of the solar system; Copernican hypothesis and from other theories that supported the existence of living and non-living things; Darwinian supposition of evolution. At first, when proponents of such theories presented them, there was a great antagonism from most religious fanatics, although their efforts never succeeded due to the then evidence that sustained such findings.
For example, the official publishing of Darwin’s findings on the existence of living things receive some substantial amounts of antagonism from many individuals who believed that only God is the primary creator of such living species (Langford pp.23-37). Although since then many scientific findings have proved that for sure everything existing evolved, religious believers, oppose the idea on the grounds that, God being a supreme being existed before all the existing species; hence, everything is a product of God’s providence.
Many scientific findings oppose provisions in the Genesis account on the grounds that, most of the biblical writings trace their existence from ancient Babylon, hence making the argument that, God is the main provider baseless. That is, as proven by scientific researchers, the creation hypothesis is a reflection of the beliefs embraced by the early inhabitants of Babylonia, whereby most of them are reflections of the cultural practices that societies within the empire followed.
The same research further explains that, as time changed and people started to forget their societal values, individuals formed religious movements, which were to foresee the strict adherence to such values, to avoid the rebellions that had started. Because of the power endowed on the rulers, to make people believe in them, they came up with the idea that, such rules were God-given.
Hence, individuals had to follow them or else they face expulsion from society. The same is the case today, hence the argument that religion accords traditions a lot of respect; hence, limiting innovative human initiatives to make the universe a better place to live is true.
Considering such facts, it, therefore, becomes apparent that, scientific developments are in a clear war with religious beliefs. The fact that some religious believers are changing their early stand on the abolition of the evolution theory scientifically disapproves the existence of the creation concept (Sneed p.1).
Many scientists argue that the composers of the holy books had little knowledge of what exactly determined the existence of things in the universe. That is, scientific discoveries prove that everything came into existence before the awakening of the human mind on the existence of many natural occurrences.
This contradicts with what majority of religious findings present in the holy books; that God is the sole creator of such natural things, something that scientific arguments disapprove on the grounds that, such writings were mere individual perceptions of what was happening in their surrounding environments. However, because they wanted people to believe and follow what they thought was happening, they had to attribute the same to God.
One question arises as both of these worrying groups strive to unravel the reality behind the existence of the universe; what is the connection between God and nature? This is another controversial issue between these two groups, which have opposing beliefs on the reality about the existence of the universe. Scientifically many questions on the real nature of God, a concerns the natural characteristics that the Bible accords God.
Also, many scientific beliefs tend to question the nature of control that God has on the universe; him being supreme. Hence, because the majority of Godly attributes lack some form of validity, many refute the argument that the universe owes its existence from God.
On the other hand, scientific believers support their argument; the idea of God providing direction is void of any proof on the grounds that, considering the early living patterns, varying societies had their gods whom they adored. Hence, for them to be able to explain their existence; due to lack of knowledge of their real existence, they based their faith in this objects, which they worshipped, leading to the present religious beliefs held by many (Fuller pp. 43-56).
To some extent, the war between the two disciplines has many associated controversies, which primarily surrounds the beliefs held by many individuals, more so individuals who strongly oppose some scientific innovations. It is very funny that these individuals can accept some scientific innovations, for example; discovery of hydroelectric power, a case that changes with other issues, for example, the making of a living being.
Because some religious fanatics have accepted some scientific innovations, likelihoods of them accepting concepts under controversy are high. This is because, every aspect of human existence requires science, for it is the only sure way of ensuring living organisms continue thriving in good and supportive environments.
Although this might be the case, is necessary to note that, for morality to rein in the world there is a need for adoption of some biblical beliefs, although as most individuals argue, individuals should take care to avoid constraining human efforts to a better life.
Most Interesting Research
Although religious fanatics hold steadfast to their beliefs, at some point, the grasp on such beliefs reduces as science brings forth more developments and innovations. This is because, when comparing the past and present nature of faith held by individuals, clear manifestations of declining faith are high. McCarthy (p.1) supports this notion, by arguing that, religion in many ways has numerous accommodating potentialities.
That is because the church seems to lose ground on its traditional beliefs, it is trying to accommodate some scientific innovations, something, which it cherishes for long due to the fear of people seeing them as losers in the debate.
He further adds that the majority of religion fanatics engage themselves in acts of pretense aimed at defending a stand, which not even themselves cherish very much or hold on to steadfastly. Also, for this group of individuals to disqualify scientific developments, they employ forceful tactics on its believers, whereby a majority of their argument valid lack logical validity.
As the war rages and each section of the divide try to prove its right, one clear thing arises, notably, hypocrisy in most religious believers. For example, because the majority of religious beliefs lack a mechanism to ascertain, believers accord their existence on godly powers.
As McCarthy (Para 3-5) argues, the Galileo occurrence ascertains it all. Previously, the Catholic Church to some extent accepted that provisions of the theory were right. Although as times have changed the question of where the church’s faith arises, the church seems to deny its early stance hence clearly illustrating what Rusbult (p.1) calls lack of confidence in oneself; translating to a state of confusion or lack of direction.
The whole Galileo concept brought forth many questions as concerns the operation of the human mind. Primarily, as concerns, the complex nature of ideas associated with is working. That is, there was a clear war as to whether human activity was because of the use of human senses or it is a process, which used Godly powers? Further, there was the quest to understand whether both forces; natural and Godly, had a section regarding the topic they were contributing, as far as the whole thinking idea was concerned.
Because of diverse opinions from different individuals, scientists embraced the whole idea, but when it came to religious fanatics, there were clear divisions on whether to embrace the concept or not. This to some extent proves what many scientists argue; religion owes its origins from past traditional practices that individuals of different spheres embraced.
As argued by Rusbult (Para. 10-12), the antagonism between these two groups sometimes lacks a sense of worth. This is because, at some point, these two warring parties have beliefs that tend to be similar although, few differences may exist. Also, considering the occurrence of natural things and many scientific innovations, in many ways, both depend on one another; because the interdependence is what makes the majority of things exist the way they are today.
For example, religious fanatics argue that everything in the universe came to be the way it is because of God’s power; take an example of the Sun. The rays that fall on the earth occur via a natural mechanism, which scientifically lacks some convincing proof.
Because this entire process seems natural, why should any section of the divide deny the existence of Godly powers in such a process? This is because considering the religious argument that, God operates is a divine way; it becomes necessary to acknowledge that for science to survive and maintain its reality, God must reign and exist.
Another good example that coins ideas in these two fields hence, solve the conflict between these two areas is the nature of the human survival mechanisms. Majority of religion fanatics strongly have a conviction that with God, there is nothing they can lack. That is, they owe their survival to God, for God provides all that entails life sustenance. The notion is not wrong. However, it is important to note that, science too has a role it plays as concerns the survival of the living species; human beings included.
It’s important to note that, one critical question arises here; does natural existence exclude the existence of God? Considering the occurrence of physical process, one thing is apparent, the two areas rely on one another as concerns their existence. This should actually be the case because; the main aim behind scientific development is bettering of ideas (Tattersall p. 13-20).
Noting this, will it be wrong for one to argue that, science endeavors to improve on what God brought into being? To answer this like a question, it becomes necessary for all individuals to put aside their beliefs that seem unchangeable hence, embrace new innovative ideas that will try to find solutions to this a problem.
Another controversial area between these two disciplines is on the use of contraceptives and other preventive measures when it comes to individual sexuality. Religion and science are in a great war over the use of such devices, primarily because religion opposes such uses, whereas science promotes their use.
Logically, regardless of a disciplines’ stance, such devices are crucial in the war against effects resulting from infectious diseases such as HIV and AIDS. In addition, such devices are important in the birth control process, for they not only prevent unwanted conceptions, but they also help to control the multiplication of global populations, due to lack of enough life-supporting resources (Ackerman pp. 154-156).
Unresolved Issue on the Research
Biblically, God has the power of doing things in extraordinary ways (miraculously); to some extent, this can be a fact, however, is there any scientific research that proves this is not true? This is a question of debate primarily because; although some science fanatics deny the fact that such miraculous occurrences never exist in realty, one thing is clear; there are clear differences between personal opinions and scientific ideas that are valid.
This is the case because; there is existence use of some logical connectedness between miraculous happenings and scientific ideologies, more so, when it comes to questioning the real nature of God’s powers and might. For example, success s of any scientific innovation depends on the availability of a natural universe, whereby, surprises are the primary acting forces behind any scientific innovation.
That is, any scientific innovation owes its origin on the existence of a world that must have the cause-effect tie. Such ties are only possible in a world, which embraces the natural occurrences that come along with many surprises, hence, forming the main basis of connecting Godly miracles and scientific innovations.
Another unresolved issue concerns the connection that exists between science and religion, from a religious theological view. There exist no correlation between provisions in the Bible and scientific discoveries. Although this is the case, it is important to note that, there can be a correlation between explanations in these two fields as an individual endeavor to exactly, determine the physical and natural reality behind the contention that exists between concepts in these two areas.
This is the case because both fields have diverse effects, they exert on one another that is, application of scientific ideologies can direct the understanding of spiritual realities, whereas, on some occasions, theological realities can help in understanding forces behind the existence of science.
On the other hand, it is important to note that, although almost all scientific ideologies are provable, sometimes the field faces many faults as concerns such proofs; hence, scientism. For example, as Rusbult (p.1) argues, the explanation of realities behind miracles and the nature of science in many ways relates to the theism explanation on the natural nature of ideas.
The third main issue that needs a better understanding is possible in reality to define a religious concept without taking note of any scientific powers or influences behind it. This is an issue, which needs critical analysis primarily because, in reality, the majority of religious belief are traditional. Also, the biblical interpretation of ideas goes beyond the material-worldly nature if ideas, something that ignites the war between the two disciplines.
It is important to note that, science to some extent depends on the materialistic nature of human existence, something that religion questions on the grounds of morality and ethicalness. Scientifically, the validness or realty behind any scientific innovation or earthly occurrence depends on proof, which needs control and accurate reporting without any alterations.
In this regard, scientifically, it will beat logic for any individuals who venture into this field to assume that, there exist some unknown forces somewhere; not provable and manageable, which determine the nature of outcomes of any scientific findings (Hall and Hall Para.2-10).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the war between these two fields still rages on as individuals endeavor to understand the reality behind the existence of nature. Although such as war exists, it is important for all individuals to note that they both contribute to human existence; for without one, the existence of the other will be in jeopardy. Hence, need to join the two fields; something achievable through avoiding the nature of ideological extremism, which exists between these two fanatical groups.
Four main questions pertain to this topic, namely: Why should there be a conflict between two disciplines, which support the existence of living organisms? Can there be any common explanation on the existence of the natural world, which can coin these two fields? In such commonalities exist, then which concept must they follow or respect? Finally, how can scientific and religious beliefs have a common foundation as relates to the existence of God and nature?
To achieve, there is a need to probe the following contention issues between these two fields, namely what forces exist behind the spiritual belief of miracles? Moreover, if such forces exist, to what extent are they valid? My preference for scientific explanations shaped my need to understand why such a war exists because apart from these scientific innovations, I have a strong conviction that, for sure, God exists.
Works Cited
Ackerman, Thomas. Emergency Contraception: science and religion collide. Annals of Emergence Medicine, 47(2): 154-156. Print.
Birch, Alex. Why science vs. religion debate is an illusion. Corrupt: Conservation and Conservatism, 2009. Web.
Fuller, Steve. Science vs. religion?: intelligent design and the problem of evolution. Cambridge: Polite Press, 2007.
Gottlieb, Sheldon. What is science? Harbinger, 1997. Web.
Hall, Norman and Hall, Lucia. Is the war between science and religion over? The Humanist, 2004. Web.
Hawley, Alex. Revisiting H.G. wells depiction of science and religion in the war of the Worlds. Student Pulse. 2010.
Langford, Jerome. Galileo, science, and the church (3rd e.d.). Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1992.
McCarthy, John. Science vs. religion. 2005.
Rusbult, Craig. Relationship between science and religion: conflict and warfare. Education. 2004.
Sneed, Richard. What is religion? Harbinger, 1997. Web.
Suarez, Raul. Happy birthday Darwin: lamentations on science and religion. Bay hay, 2009. Web.
Tattersall, Ian. The monkey in the mirror: essays on the science of what makes us human. Florida: Harcourt publishers, 2002. Web.