Science Vs Religion Research Paper

The conflict between religion and science is more about the differences in beliefs than differences in facts. Science deals with facts and physics, with religion focusing on the concept of faith and metaphysics. According to this view both should be able to coexist on the agreement that each contribution to the understanding of reality and the nature of the world. However, religion rejects scientific findings and vis versa. In attempt to justify their beliefs, theorist such as; Charles Darwin, Edwin Hubble, Richard Dawkins, Immanuel Kant and Thomas Aquinas have established premises, favouring either the scientific or religious proposals. The dispute to explain the natural world has brought upon four arguments; Ontological, Cosmological, Teleological

Fundamentalists saw the Bible as the source of fixed truths. This led to their absolute rejection of scientific findings about the origins of the world, and especially about human life. Science, viewed by Richard Dawkins as having, ‘no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference” (Dawkins, 1995). Yet, scientists such as Hubble, claim that ‘reality’ is what science investigates and beyond that there is nothing. Establishing the concept of the Big Bang he observed that the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. The BigBang is the starter of the series of events that resulted in the physical universe. Whilst this discovery can be both supported and rejected by the religious view, some religious theorists continue to view the Big Bang as insignificant as God is the creator of all causes, the universe and everything in it. The position that religion and science coexist was held by Albert Einstein. He concluded that, ‘religion without science is lame, science without religion is blind’ (Reference). Historically, religion science conflict has been caused by empirical disputes. Scientists are naturally confined to the empirical world of cause and effect, a posteriori. Whereas, religion takes the a priori approach, using deductive reasoning rather than observations. These empirical disputes revolved around the

The existence of something or someone beyond the phenomena that is experienced. The philosopher Immanuel Kant elaborated that the idea of causality is something that the mind imposes on experience, not something that is discovered from ‘out there.’ Kant viewed senses of moral obligations as; “Two things fill the mine with ever new and increasing admiration and awe the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me” (Ref). If God cannot be proved directly by looking at the ‘starry heavens,’ Kant wanted to see whether his experience is implied by the experience of morality. Charles Darwin’s approach towards the development of objective moral values and duties was viewed through the perspective of the theory of evolution. He developed that the principle of natural selection is that in any population of self-reproducing organisms, there will be variations in the genetic material and upbringing that different individuals have. Darwin's alternative explanation for the appearance of design in living things, did not require the help of an external designer. This contradicts the Teleological argument which revolves around the belief that there is a grand designer; this designer is