Philosophy of Religion: The Topic of the Relationship Between God

Introduction

Various scientists, philosophers, and priests interpret the connection between God, science, and naturalism differently as the evolutionary discoveries question the religious statements. Gould and Draper are the scholars who discussed how Christianity correlates with science based on their own experiences and observations. This paper aims to compare and contrast Gould’s and Draper’s approaches to the topic of God, science, and naturalism and their substantive proposals regarding it.

Stephen Gould was the American evolutionary biologist who discussed the relationship between science and religion in the article “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” written in 1997. The author states that evolution is both true and entirely compatible with Christian belief and provides supporting arguments based on the conversations observations of his life¹. Gould explains that while science covers the empirical universe, religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value.

Paul Draper, the professor of philosophy, studied how religious beliefs and evolutionary discoveries co-exist in the article “God, Science, and Naturalism,” published in 2007. The scientist examined the theology, the perception of God, and science separately to conclude that they are conversing because of the latter’s naturalistic approaches that refute the former’s statements². According to Draper, the conflict is inevitable because the questions addressed to religion and natural sciences are the same, and the answers they provide radically differ.

The Scholars’ Approaches Comparison

The scientists applied diverse methodologies and assumptions to explore the relationship between religion and science. Gould’s conclusions and research strategies were based on his conversations with students and priests and observations of society’s reactions to the conflict between evolutionary theories and religious statements³. In contrast, Draper examined the topic based on the historical and peer-reviewed evidence, studied the roots of the discussion about naturalism and God’s role in evolution⁴. While the conclusion of “Nonoverlapping Magisterial” is based on the observations of how science is perceived in Western and Eastern religions, “God, Science, and Naturalism” explains its thesis from the perspective of deism, theism, and God’s power conversing to naturalism.

It is crucial to mention that the authors are the scholars of different sciences, therefore their approaches to make assumptions and conclusions vary. Draper studied philosophy thus relied mostly on theoretical materials, while Gould’s field is biology that demands more practical strategies such as experimenting and observation. The differences in approaches to exploring religion and science topics can also be identified based on the scholars’ initial aims. Gould generally described creationism, its connection to Christianity, and scientific biases, comparing to Draper’s clear identification of the conflict between God’s power and naturalism⁵. Moreover, “God, Science, and Naturalism” is based on studying Naturalism from different perspectives to reveal science’s influence on religion. In contrast, “Nonoverlapping Magisterial” explores the conflict by analyzing creationism and its limitations for explaining evolution.

Nevertheless, both authors’ assumptions addressed the importance of religion for society and supported that thesis by providing evidence from history and literature. Gould mentioned that Christianity helped nations develop and get through crises, and Draper highlighted that believing in God’s power was vital for people to survive⁶. Besides, both articles included analysis of questions and events that are differently explained by science and religion, and the way society reacts on such contradictory statements.

The Scholars’ Substantive Proposals Comparison

Although Gould and Draper agree that the conflict between religion and science exists and becomes critical, their substantive proposals regarding the topic are not similar. In “God, Science, and Naturalism,” the author analyzes God’s existence and influence on the world’s creation by providing theistic and deistic views⁷. The notable difficult question that arises from the perception examines the possible reasons why a deistic God would fail to act in the world he created even if humans lived in a completely deterministic world. Draper’s proposal, in that case, is related to the explanation of supernatural events that could not have been described before science has begun to develop⁸. The author points out that while the divine creator’s portrait seems to be attractive to many beliefs, science can now find the nature-based answer to most of the occasions. Indeed, Draper concludes that naturalism’s development eliminates the thought of supernatural forces’ existence and motivates people to search for scientific evidence.

In contrast to Draper’s work, Gould’s “Nonoverlapping Magisterial” highlights that society still pays attention to religion and supports such thoughts as creationism. Scholar proposes that scientists value the religious part of life based on observations and conversations about conflicts between beliefs and scientific explanations⁹. Gould studies a recent scandal related to Humani Generis and the defense of evolution outlined that science covers the empirical universe¹⁰. Conversely, religion deals with morality and values, although he thinks the view is flawed because the two are non Nonoverlapping Magisteria. Science and religion relate in complex ways, and most of the life-meaning questions require a combination of both to explain.

Draper’s analysis of naturalism proposed that, even in the modern world, there are occasions that cannot be explained with science, and therefore theistic approaches still have their authority. Gould has a similar opinion and supports it with an argument that religion’s power has not decreased through the period of rapid scientific development. Besides, the articles’ statements are similar regarding the role of science as both authors agree that it seeks truth and justification for nature and evolution.

Conclusion

Gould and Draper explored the topic of the relationship between God, science, and naturalism through multiple perspectives. While “Nonoverlapping Magisteria” is based on the scholar’s experience, observations, and social reactions, “God, Science and Naturalism” built on theoretical arguments regarding nature and God’s involvement in world creation. Gould’s article explains the reasons for creationism’s existence and mentions that religion and science address a different aspect of an individual’s life. Draper’s work argues that the conflict between beliefs and scientific discoveries emerges due to the significant dissimilarities of natural forces and occasions’ explanation.

Bibliography

Draper, Paul. “God, Science and Naturalism.” In William J. Wainwright (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion. Oxford University Press (2005).

Gould, Stephen Jay. “Nonoverlapping Magisteria.” Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy 11 (2014): 7-21.

Footnotes

1. Stephen Jay Gould, “Nonoverlapping Magisterial,” Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy 11 (2014), 7-21.
2. Paul Draper, “God, Science and Naturalism,” Oxford University Press (2005).
3. Gould, 8.
4. Draper, 275.
5. Draper, 284.
6. Gould, 12.
7. Draper, 276.
8. Draper, 288.
9. Gould, 9.
10. Gould, 8.