Is Science a Religion Essay Example for Free

Is Science a Religion EssayIs information a righteousness? This topic has been debated by some creationists and scientists alike. The philosophy of recognition makes no claims to experience ab pop the supernatural or metaphysical and, by non so doing, is left with an enterprise that although hugely successful is also permanently on ladder (Manne, 2010). The nevertheless thing scientists female genitalia agree upon is the empirical temper of cognizance, but the steps from observations to theory ar non without philosophical problems. DISCUSSION Thomas Kuhn thinks that scientific paradigms be essentially pictures of the world that are concordant with observations and logically coherent. But such pictures are necessarily always incomplete, at least until such prison term as we know everything, and our minds tickm to struggle to accept this it seems like there is an aesthetic compulsion to puddle harmonious images, even if that means filling in the spaces with metaph ysical constructs. Andrew Brown states that the dictionary is wrong accomplishment can be a devotion too. He explains that if you strictly use the dictionary definition of perception then it cannot be considered a religion, but if you look at science objectively you can see how it could be considered one.He makes a strong argument that religion has too many definitions for science to not be considered one. Richard Dawkins desires the opposite. He states that science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its main virtue. Dawkins makes a good argument for science not being a religion. He even goes so far as to reconsider his stance only if science can acquire as much education time as religion does. Dawkins Atheist views are widely cognize but there are many more scientists that believe religion has no place in the world.Michael stratagem, on the other hand, asks why religion is not being taught in public schools maculation science is. His argument is that if idol exists is a ghostlike claim, why then is God does not exist not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught? I am sure Dawkins was referring to sunshine school and bible field of battle when he referred to science getting as much education time as science, but Ruse has a valid fountainhead.Science is taught in schools due to separation of church and state, therefore everyone has to learn science. Sunday school is voluntary. Peter Harrison demonstrated how the role of religion in the rise of modern science very much focused on the way in which religion motivated particular individuals, or provided the essential message of approaches to nature. These relate to the origins of science and assume that, once micturateed, modern science becomes self-justifying. However, seventeenth century criticisms of science, such as attacks on the Royal Society, suggest that science remained unimportant for quite some time.The rise of science to cultural importance in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was possible only because science was eventually able to establish itself as religiously useful initiative. Religion played a key role not only in the origins of modern science, but in providing the ongoing social sanctions that ensured its persistence and rise to prominence. This is a design I am sure Dawkins would not appreciate, yet it has merit. The relationship among Science and Religion can be explained from two discrete points of view. round would argue that scientific explanations are the only means of explaining our existence, while others would argue that religion and the story of creation provide a sufficient amount of the worlds conception. Religion and science both keep the same basis, which are truth and understanding. It is this similarity that allows a direct link between science and religion. I believe that there is sufficient evidence to take the stand that science and religion are compatible. Albert Einstein had the same opinion when he presented the idea of the nature of devolve that was argued for hundreds of years.Scientology is also a turn up modelling of compatibility between religion and science. Also, when looking at the two from a more general point of view, it would be obvious to say that they can both work together to give us a better understanding of the universe. In the early 1700s, a constructive debate on the true nature of light led to various arguments and theories. The corpuscular theory, which was more religious based, depicted light being lilliputian particles that were transferred from a source like the Sun to a destination.A more scientific theory suggested that light was a wave phenomenon where the energy was carried by a wave motion and not by motility of actual particles. In the early 1900s, Albert Einstein discovered that li ght was both a wave and it was sedate of tiny particles. He felt that both sides were right all along and both contributed to finding out the true nature of light. With this discovery, he felt that there was a strong link between science and religion. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind (Einstein, A).Saying this, he believed strongly in the particular that religion and science were compatible. He believed that religion was a byproduct of fear and a tool to table service the primitive humanity mind deal with it. He believed that many loss leaders and rulers incorporated religion into their quotidian functions to secure their rule. The question is science a religion? still remains. The problem may lie in how science and religion differentiate in their distinct methodologies of searching for knowledge and belief.Science refers to a organisation of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, it attempts to collect accurate information about th e shared out reality and to model it in a way that can be used to make reliable. They have concrete and quantitative predictions about events everything has a hypothesis and has reasons to prove it. Science gains their knowledge through scientific method testing hypotheses to develop theories through elucidation of facts or evaluation by experiments. It develops theories of the world which outflank fit the observed physical observed evidence.It can be categorized into two major types of sciences human science and natural science and they rely mainly on empirical evidence. Religion is a devise of beliefs and is related to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. Theologians believe in the omnipotent power that God has, they put faith on God and use religion as a tool to satisfy their unanswerable questions and desire to know. Some religious people give that religious knowledge is absolute and inf allible.However, the knowledge each person believes in varies as religious knowledge varies from religion and each individual. Science tends to be more tangible while religion is more insensible according to senses. There is domestic danger in being a world religious leader and technological powerhouse. Religious commitment and leadership in science and technology greatly enlarges the potential for troth between faith and science in the United States. The relationship between religion and views of science should be of interest not just to scientists and social scientists concerned with public opinion research, but to policy makers as well.Public opinion has significant impact upon the making of public policy. Commonly held perceptions about particular scientific findings could help determine the eventual shape of laws and other policies for issues such as abortion or temper change (Keeter, 2007). Tradition has taught mankind that religion and science are two competing theories th at can never be intermixed. Science and religion put forth competing theories on how the world was created, who is responsible for such creation, and what happens to individuals when they die.Further, science proposes solutions for many of societys problems that many religions clearly define as wrong, such as abortion, stem mobile phone research, and cloning. Early scientists and philosophers integrated science and religion to explain the course and state of the cosmos. For instance, Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, and Newton all take a firm stand that numerical relations, the foundation of science, were a product of God. According to the four, it was God who invented mathematics and then imposed mathematical laws on the universe to back them up.More than 100 years ago, William James remarked, I do not see why a critical science of religions might not eventually command as general a public adhesion as is commanded by a physical science. In James view, studying religion by way of scien ce could shed more light on the issue than philosophy alone. James believed that philosophy fell short in that it failed to capture the depth, motion, and vitality of religion. By focusing on religion from a scientific point of view, researchers could better determine the concreteness of the religious experience.So, is science a religion? The answer is it depends on who you ask.There is no concrete evidence to prove that it is or isnt. I tend to believe that it could be. People like Richard Dawkins say emphatically no, yet he has blind faith that what science cannot explain today, it will be able to explain tomorrow (McGrath, pg. 148). Some have even gone so far as to compare Dawkins infatuation with Darwin with the Christians worship of Jesus Christ. I have not read anything that proves this but it could be another example of how science can be viewed as a religion. Either way, it seems that some level of faith is unavoidable for both and we can learn a lot from each one.