Of course God and science can co-exist. I didn’t write this, but it’s really good. Three out of five scientists do not believe in God, but two out of five do, said John Donvan, opening a debate on the issue of science and religion yesterday (Dec. 5) in New York. Brianna Pace Mr. Jetter English 12P 18 October 2010 Religion Vs Science In many aspects of life, science and religion are shown to disagree with each other; Science focuses on logic and reason while religion relies solely on faith and the belief of a higher power. Stay tuned & stay reasonable (Philippians 4:5). If God is the Creator of the universe, and there is ample evidence that He is, then science is just knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths about His creation. Sometimes the advocates of this view will exclaim, “Well ya gotta start somewhere!” I respond to this statement by saying that one should start with the laws of logic as opposed to science because science presupposes and is based on logic. (I.e. That idea is that science is grounded only in facts and religion is grounded solely in faith in the Bible. A scientist once told me “science is the only way of knowing.” How does he KNOW that? 15 Questions About Science And Religion, Answered : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture More than a dozen cognitive scientists, including Tania Lombrozo, joined a … When science gets it … These were some of my questions about God before I came to faith. Got this God vs. Science message in a forwarded email today. Basically, one who affirms scientism holds that science alone is the source of all knowledge and truth. Typically if one holds to the assumption of scientism, it is because, as I explained above, this assumption is based upon another assumption – naturalism! But why? One of my favorites is called “The Kalam Cosmological Argument.” The Kalam is based on the laws of logic (which are presupposed by science), and is supported by scientific data leading to the conclusion that at least one “thing” probably exists that is other than nature; that is to say – Supernatural! There are many reasons to think this philosophy (and it is nothing but a philosophy) of naturalism is incorrect. New York, 0 0. Because none of these questions is amenable to being described empirically," he said. An atheist college professor argues against the existence of God with a Christian college student. Genres Documentary Subtitles English [CC] Audio languages English. Most people try to use science to disprove God but it's just as easily to say God is "the something that happened" and caused the expansion. Do we need God or can we get along fine without Him? The cumulative case of evidence demonstrates that there is much more to reality than simply matter, nature, and physical things. To simply respond “just because” is not a good answer! Read the whole thing if you want a good experience. He cited the Big Bang as offering solace to those who want to believe in a Genesis equivalent. Why? We know so much about how … Belief in God is old fashioned. While speaking to some Texas reporters, President Bush opined that he believes public schools should … “The experiences are real, what we want to know is what do they represent,” Shermer said. Please learn about the scientific method and what a scientific theory is. It is vital to realize that empiricism is nothing but a philosophy of epistemology, which is not based on the laws of logic, but only on question-begging assumptions – another logical fallacy. It is a subject of much debate: Did Albert Einstein believe in God? One self-proclaimed empiricist once accused me of “circular reasoning” at this point, however, the fallacy of circular reasoning (a.k.a. Stratton speaks on church and college campuses around the country and offers regular videos on FreeThinking Ministries’ YouTube channel. [8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life], Krauss disagreed: "The fact something may be relatively universal suggests we may be programmed to believe in certain things. Just as creatures without noses should still be open to the idea of the existence of smellable things, the epistemological naturalist should still be open to the idea of the super natural. Likewise, widespread religious experience is unlikely to be the result of a mass hallucination, he said. Shown here, a group of galaxies forming very early in the universe, about a billion years after the Big Bang. A propensity to make false-positive errors, such as assuming a predator was rustling the grass when it was only the wind, offered a survival advantage; in that way, our ancestors acquired a tendency to infer the existence of intentional forces. Scientists study the work of God. The discussion pitted the perspectives from both sides against one another: Does science refute religion? Logic is bedrock! We're also on Facebook & Google+. God and science do not mix well. Like what you read? Imagine if we had four senses instead of five. This means scientists have specific expertise in understanding nature based on observable/empirical data via the scientific method. 1 500 11/11/16 Research paper God vs. Science Scholars often say god is not real because you cannot use science to prove God. In the last 10,000 years, about 10,000 different religions have featured 1,000 different gods, said Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, adding that D'Souza and Hutchinson reject all but one of those gods, bringing them almost in line with atheists, who reject all of them. He also addressed D'Souza's earlier assertion that science cannot answer "why.". D'Souza, meanwhile, maintained that morality is beyond the realm of science, and he referred to theories that purport to explain away religion, as "pop psychology. It is an alternative that involves faith in the timeless existence of the being the Bible calls God. All religions can be seen as human enterprises to gain knowledge beyond the empirical, D'Souza said. So, unless the empiricist can provide a means of reasoning that does not require presupposed logic, then logic (not science) is the correct starting point. Since then, "Science has made a whole bunch of discoveries, but they point in the opposite direction," D'Souza said. ", The debate, which included an audience vote at the end, focused on a modern, mainstream interpretation of religion and God, rather than a fundamentalist take. Consider donating or inviting us to speak at your church. It follows that a scientist is one who studies nature. Religion has the exact same relationship to God as science does to the universe. It’s important to think logically. So, why think it is any good, let alone correct? Williamson reiterates the point I have already made: “It is not discoverable by hard science, that ALL truths are discoverable by hard science.” Scientism fails its own test and therefore, it cannot be true. Specifically, defining both science and God is required. NY 10036. Scientists are actually theologians whether they realize it or not. Creation vs. evolution is not a battle of science vs. the Bible or science vs. faith. Now, I should make it clear that “naturalism” can also mean different things to different people. Stratton is founder and president of FreeThinking Ministries, a web-based apologetics ministry. There is the idea that science and religion have conflicting interests and many religious theists hold the belief that science is atheistic. BECAUSE THE STATEMENT ITSELF CANNOT BE SCIENTIFICALLY VALIDATED! Science is meant to be a truly neutral discipline, seeking only the truth, not furtherance of an agenda. God can create in 7 twenty-four hour days or 7 sixty second days or 7 geological epochs whatever. Scientists study the work of God. This is known as a “self-defeating” statement (a logical fallacy). Does that imply that there would be no “smellable things?” Why can’t there be things that would be detectable if we would have developed a “sixth sense” or perhaps a “seventh sense?”. As one example, you may hear people talk about Galileo being persecuted by the (Roman Catholic) church and presented as a ‘science vs religion’ thing but this is not true at all. Because it is logically impossible for bachelors to be married. That doesn't mean they exist.". As science has explained the laws of nature, the gods humans once used to explain the world around us have progressively fallen by the wayside, Krauss said. For example, before the Big Bang theory came about, most scientists believed the universe was eternal, but this theory posited that the universe, as well as space and time, had a beginning. I believe the “theory” of evolution helps explain things. Bryan Enderle grew up in Modesto, CA though he now lives in Davis, CA with his wife, Peggy, and son, Isaac. Hutchinson pointed out the discussion centered on central tenets of religious faith, not peripheral issues, such as the centuries-old Christian belief that the sun orbited Earth, which science long ago debunked. Yet, many theists want to believe that Einstein is … astronomer Dave Chernoff replied that, in his opinion, modern science leaves plenty of room for the existence of God. God creates, science explains. It is regrettable, that for so many it seems, there exists such an unnecessary divide between Science and Religion. I already mentioned that scientism is logically self-refuting – and therefore false – as it offers a knowledge claim that is assumed apart from scientific discovery. "Talking as if science is all the real knowledge there is alienates people from science who know better," he said, calling this approach "scientism" rather than science. People who believe in God can fit their beliefs in the scientific framework without creating any contradictions. Scientist often like to disclude god or make no room for him in their research. Religion is man's way of understanding God. God's existence is either true or not. Read God Vs. Science free essay and over 89,000 other research documents. You will receive a verification email shortly. That is a topic for a different article! Not Science vs God. The debate is about science vs science and faith vs faith… The faith of belief in God vs the faith of belief in no God. Or does science address a different set of questions, with answers that can point toward religious truths? ", "The last good argument against God came out in the 1850s," D'Souza said, referring to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. "Tonight, I want to emphasize that 500 years of science have demonstrated that God, that vague notion, is not likely," said Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Arizona State University and one of two debaters arguing that science has rendered religion moot in this Intelligence Squared Debate. (Image: © Subaru/ P. Capak (SSC/Caltech)), 1,500-year-old 'Christ, born of Mary' inscription discovered in Israel, Massive Anglo-Saxon cemetery and treasure unearthed in England, Upward-shooting 'blue jet' lightning spotted from International Space Station, Dead whale in the Mediterranean probably 'one of the largest' ever found, Scientists discover great white shark 'queen of the ocean', Massive new dinosaur might be the largest creature to ever roam Earth. There was a problem. The ultra religious rejecting science, (many times outright and without cause) and those ultra atheists that would use science as a tool , at times declaring theory as actual fact, to discredit God and promote their agenda. This is specifically defined as “metaphysical naturalism.” Others might be open to the supernatural, but claim that one could never know if things other than nature exist or not. For those with faith, however, science can be one of our greatest forms of worship. These arguments are based on logic and many of them are supported by scientific data. 10. Of course not! Moreover, my thesis argument known as the Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism logically proves that other supernatural “things” exist that are immaterial or “other than nature”; namely, human souls.