Various aspects of the relationship between religion and science have been addressed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others. Perspectives from different geographical, cultural, and historical areas vary, with some characteristics of relationship as one of conflict, others describing it as one of harmony, and others suggesting little interaction.
Both science and religion are complex social and cultural endeavors that vary across cultures and have changed over time. Most of the scientific and technical innovations before the scientific revolution were achieved by societies governed by religious traditions. The element of the scientific method was pioneered by ancient pagan, Islamic, and Christian scholars. Roger Bacon, who is often credited with formalizing the scientific method, was a Franciscan monk. Hinduism historically embraces reason and empiricism, assuming that science carries legitimate, but incomplete, knowledge of the world. Confucian thought has had different views of science over time. Most Buddhists today view science as a complement to their beliefs. While the classification of the material world by ancient Indians and Greeks into the air, earth, fire and water is more philosophical, the medieval Middle East uses practical and experimental observations to classify material.
Events in Europe such as Galileo's affairs, associated with the scientific revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, led experts such as John William Draper to propose conflict arguments, holding that religion and science have been in methodological, factual and political conflict throughout history. This thesis is held by some contemporary scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg and Carl Sagan, and several creationists. Conflict thesis has lost support among most contemporary historians of science.
Many scientists, philosophers, and theologians throughout history, such as Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller, and Francis Collins, have seen compatibility or independence between religion and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould, another scientist, and some contemporary theologians argue that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, which discusses the fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme, and Ken Wilber propose linkages between science and religion, while others like Ian Barbour believe that there are even parallels.
Public acceptance of scientific facts may be influenced by religion; many people in the United States reject evolution through natural selection, especially about humans. Nevertheless, the American National Academy of Sciences has written that "evolutionary evidence can be fully compatible with religious beliefs", a view officially supported by many religious denominations globally.
Video Relationship between religion and science
Sejarah konsep
The concepts of "science" and "religion" are new discoveries: "religion" emerged in the 17th century amid colonization and globalization and the Protestant Reformation, "science" emerged in the 19th century amidst efforts to narrow. defining those who study nature. Furthermore, the phrase "religion and science" or "science and religion" emerged in the nineteenth century, not before, because of the reification of both concepts.
It was in the 19th century that the terms "Buddhism", "Hinduism", "Taoism", "Confucianism" and "World Religions" first emerged. In the ancient and medieval worlds, the etymological roots of both science (scientia ) and religion ( religio ) are understood as the inner quality of the individual or the good, never as a doctrine, the practice , or a source of actual knowledge.
In the 19th century the concept of "science" accepted its modern form with emerging new titles such as "biologists" and "biologists", "physicists" and "physicists" among other fields and technical titles; institutions and communities established, and unprecedented applications and interactions with other aspects of society and culture occur. The term scientist was first coined by William Whewell's theologians in 1834 and is applied to those who seek knowledge and understanding of nature. From the ancient world, beginning with Aristotle, until the 19th century, the term "natural philosophy" is a general term used to describe the practice of studying nature. Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), whose title translates into "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", reflects the use of the words "natural philosophy" at the time, similar to "systematic study of nature." Even in the nineteenth century, a treatise by Lord Kelvin and Peter Guthrie Tait, who helped define many modern physics, entitled Treatise on Natural Philosophy (1867).
In the 17th century the concept of "religion" accepted its modern form despite the fact that ancient texts such as the Bible, the Qur'an, and other sacred texts have no religious concepts in the original language and so do the people. or the culture in which these sacred texts are written. In the 19th century, Max MÃÆ'¼ller notes that the so-called ancient religion today, will be called "law" in ancient times. For example, there is no exact equivalent of "religion" in Hebrew, and Judaism does not clearly distinguish between religion, national, race, or ethnic identity. The Sanskrit word "dharma", sometimes translated as "religion", also means law or duty. Throughout classical South Asia, the study of law consists of concepts such as penance through piety and ceremonial and practical traditions. The Middle Ages of Japan originally had a similar union between the "imperial law" and the universal or "Buddhist law", but this later became a source of independent power. Throughout its long history, Japan lacked the concept of "religion" because there was no corresponding Japanese word, or anything close to its meaning, but when the American warship appeared off the coast of Japan in 1853 and forced the Japanese government to sign a demanding treaty, between religious freedom, the state must compete with this Western idea.
Medieval and Renaissance
The development of science (especially natural philosophy) in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, had a considerable basis in the works of the Arabs who translated the Greek and Latin compositions. The works of Aristotle play a major role in institutionalization, systematization, and the expansion of reason. Christianity accepts reason in the sphere of faith. In the Christian world, reason is thought to be lower than revelation, which contains the ultimate truth and this truth can not be opposed. Although medieval Christians have an urge to use their excuses, they have little to use. In medieval universities, the faculties of philosophy and natural theology are separate, and discussions relating to theological issues are often not allowed to be run by philosophical faculties.
Natural philosophy, as taught in the university's art faculty, is seen as an important field of study in its own right and is considered necessary for almost every field of study. It is an independent field, separate from theology, which enjoys much intellectual freedom as long as it is confined to the natural world. In general, there is religious support for the natural sciences by the late Middle Ages and the recognition that it is an essential element of learning.
The extent to which medieval science directly leads to a new philosophy of the scientific revolution remains central to the debate, but of course has a significant influence.
The Middle Ages laid the foundations for developments that took place in science, during which the Renaissance soon succeeded. With significant developments taking place in science, mathematics, medicine and philosophy, the relationship between science and religion has become one of curiosity and questioning. As humanism becomes more popular, people try to understand the world around them better, instead of turning to religious aspirations. Renaissance humanism sees classical Greek and Roman texts to change contemporary thinking, allowing for a new mindset after the Middle Ages. The Renaissance readers understand these classical texts as a focus on human decisions, actions and creations, rather than blindly following the rules set by the Catholic Church as "God's plan." Although many Renaissance humanists remain religious, they believe God gives humanity a chance and it is a human task to do the "best and most moral thing". Renaissance humanism is "an ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry and the fulfillment of man in nature," Abernethy said. In 1630, the ancient authorities of classical literature and philosophy, as well as their needs, began to erode, although scientists were still expected to speak Latin, the European intellectual international language. With the continued success of science and the progress of rationalism, individual scientists gain prestige.
Along with the discovery of this period, especially the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg, allowed for the spread of the Bible in the language of ordinary people (languages ​​other than Latin). This allows more people to read and study from the scriptures, leading to the Evangelical movement. The people who spread this message, concentrate more on individual agents rather than Church structures.
Maps Relationship between religion and science
Perspective
The types of interactions that may arise between science and religion have been categorized by theologians, Anglican priests, and physicists John Polkinghorne: (1) conflicts between disciplines; (2) independence of discipline; (3) dialogue between disciplines in which they overlap and ( 4) integration of both into one field.
This typology is similar to that used by theologians Ian Barbour and John Haught. More typologies that categorize this relationship can be found among the works of scientists of science and other religions such as theologians and biochemists, Arthur Peacocke.
Incompatibility
According to Guillermo Paz-y-MiÃÂÂ ± o-C and Avelina Espinosa, the historical conflict between evolution and religion is intrinsic to the incompatibility between scientific rationalism/empiricism and belief in supernatural causes; these authors have officially proposed a mismatch hypothesis (IH) to explain "eternal science-and-faith-eternal immortality". According to Jerry Coyne, the view of evolution and the degree of religiosity in some countries, together with the existence of books explaining reconciliation between evolution and religion, shows that people have difficulty in believing both at the same time, thus implying discrepancies. According to Lawrence Krauss, compatibility or incompatibility is a theological issue, not a scientific concern. In the view of Lisa Randall, the question of discrepancy or otherwise can not be answered, because by accepting one's revelation leaves the logical rule necessary to identify whether there is indeed a contradiction between holding certain beliefs. Daniel Dennett argues that incompatibility exists because religion is not problematic to some extent before it collapses into a number of reasons for maintaining certain beliefs, given its evolutionary implications.
According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, the main difference between the nature of science and religion is that science claims depend on experimental verification, while religious claims depend on faith, and this is an irreconcilable approach to know. Because this is both inappropriate because it is currently practiced and the compatibility or incompatibility debate will be immutable. The philosopher and physicist Victor J. Stenger's view is that science and religion are not appropriate because of the conflict between knowing approaches and the availability of natural explanations that make sense for phenomena normally described in the religious context.
Richard Dawkins is hostile to fundamentalist religion because he actively denigrates the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "undermines science and weakens intelligence". He believes that when science teachers try to explain about evolution, there is hostility directed against them by skeptical parents because they believe it is against their religious beliefs that even some textbooks have the word 'evolution' systematically removed. According to Sean M. Carroll, since religion makes claims that are incompatible with science, such as supernatural events, therefore both are not compatible.
Others such as Francis Collins, Kenneth R. Miller, George Coyne and Francisco J. Ayala argue for compatibility because they disagree that science is incompatible with religion and vice versa. They argue that science provides many opportunities to seek and find God in nature and to reflect on their beliefs. According to Kenneth Miller, he disagrees with Jerry Coyne's judgment and argues that since most scientists are religious and the proportion of Americans who believe in evolution is much higher, it shows that both are compatible. Elsewhere, Miller argues that when scientists make claims to science and theism or atheism, they do not argue scientifically and step beyond the scope of science into the discourse of meaning and purpose. What he finds very strange and unjustifiable is how atheists often come to appeal for scientific authority to their non-scientific philosophical conclusions such as useless or meaningless to the universe as the only viable option when scientific and scientific methods are not once had a way of overcoming the question of meaning or God in the first place. Further, he notes that since evolution has made the brain and because the brain can handle religion and science, there is no natural incompatibility between concepts at the biological level.
Karl Giberson argues that when discussing compatibility, some scholarly intellectuals often ignore the viewpoints of intellectual leaders in theology rather than against the masses lacking information, thereby, defining religion by non-intellectuals and tilting unjust debates. He argues that leaders in science sometimes defeat the older scientific burden and that the leaders in theology do the same, so that once the theological intellectuals are reckoned, those who represent extreme positions like Ken Ham and Eugenie Scott will be no relevant. Cynthia Tolman notes that religion does not have a method per se in part because religion emerges through time from different cultures, but when it comes to Christian theology and supreme truth, it notes that people often rely on scripture, tradition, reason, and experience to test and measure what they experience and what they have to believe.
Conflict scenario
Conflict thesis, which states that religion and science have been in continuous conflict throughout history, popularized in the 19th century by accounts of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. In the nineteenth century the relationship between science and religion became the topic of true formal discourse, whereas before this there was nothing to pose science against religion or vice versa, although occasional interactions had been expressed prior to the nineteenth century. Most contemporary historians of science now reject the conflict thesis in its original form and no longer support it. Instead, he has been replaced by subsequent historical research which has resulted in a more nuanced understanding: The science historian, Gary Ferngren, has declared "Although the images of popular controversy continue to exemplify the supposed Christian animosity toward new scientific theories, research has shown that Christianity has often foster and encourage scientific efforts, while at other times both have coexisted without tension or harmonization efforts. If Galileo and Scopes hearings come to mind as examples of conflict, they are an exception rather than a rule. "
Most historians today have moved away from the conflict model, which is based primarily on two episodes of history (Galileo and Darwin) for the "complexity" model, since religious leaders are on both sides of every dispute and there is no overall goal by any party. involved to discredit religion.
An example of a frequently quoted conflict, which has been clarified by historical research in the 20th century, is Galileo's affair, where biblical interpretation is used to attack Copernicus's idea of ​​heliocentrism. In 1616 Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade the authority of the Catholic Church not to block the idea of ​​Copernicus. Ultimately, a Congregational Index decision was issued, stating that the idea that the Sun stands and that the Earth moves is "wrong" and "totally contrary to Scripture", and suspends Copernicus De Revolutionibus until it can be fixed. Galileo was found to be "deeply suspicious of heresies," for holding the notion that the Sun is not moving at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its center and moving. He was asked to "abjure, cursed and hated" that opinion. However, before all this, Pope Urban VIII has personally asked Galileo to give an argument for and against heliocentrism in a book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism as physically proven since the scientific consensus at the time was that the evidence for heliocentrism was so weak. The church was merely on the side of the scientific consensus at the time. Pope Urban VIII requested that his view of it be included in Galileo's book. Only the last one was filled by Galileo. Inadvertently or unintentionally, Simplicio, the defender of Aristotle/Ptolemaic's geocentric view in the Dialogue on Two Major World Systems, is often described as an untrained fool who has no math training. Although the preface of his book claims that this character is named after the famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton". Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo placed the words of Urban VIII into Simplicio's mouth. Most historians agree that Galileo did not act evil and felt blinded by the reaction to his book. However, the Pope did not regard the suspected public denunciation as mild, nor the physical Copernican advocacy. Galileo had alienated one of his greatest and most powerful advocates, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.
The concrete evidence that ultimately proves that heliocentrism came centuries after Galileo: the distortion of the star of light by James Bradley in the 18th century, the binary orbital movement of binary stars by William Herschel in the 19th century, the accurate measurement of parallax stars in the 19th century. , and Newtonian mechanics in the 17th century. According to physicist Christopher Graney, Galileo's own observations do not really support Copernicus's view, but are more consistent with Tycho Brahe's hybrid model in which the Earth does not move and everything else revolves around it and the Sun.
British philosopher A. C. Grayling, still believes there is a rivalry between science and religion and points to the origin of the universe, human nature and the possibility of miracles
Independence
The modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), is that science and religion deal with aspects fundamentally separate from human experience and therefore, when each is within its own territory , they coexist peacefully. While Gould speaks of independence from a scientific perspective, W. T. Stace views independence from the perspective of religious philosophy. Stace feels that science and religion, when each is seen in its own domain, is consistent and complete.
The US National Academy of Science supports the view that science and religion are independent.
Science and religion are based on various aspects of human experience. In science, the explanation should be based on evidence taken from examining the natural world. Scientific-based observations or experiments contrary to explanation should ultimately lead to the modification or even neglect of the explanation. Religious faith, on the contrary, does not depend on empirical evidence, is not always modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and usually involves supernatural forces or entities. Since they are not part of nature, supernatural entities can not be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion separate and discuss aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to place science and religion against one another create controversy where there is no need.
According to Archbishop John Habgood, science and religion represent different ways of approaching these experiences and differences is a source of debate. He views science as descriptive and religion as prescriptive. He states that if science and mathematics concentrate on what the world should be, in the way that religion does, it may lead to inappropriate qualities that regard the natural world as it did among the followers of Pythagoras in the sixth century BC In contrast, proponents of normative moral science take issue with the notion that science has no way of guiding "oughts". Habgood also states that he believes that the opposite situation, in which religion seeks to be descriptive, can also lead to improper property placement into the natural world. A noteworthy example is the belief that is now dead in the planetary model of Ptolemy (geocentris) who holds power until a change in scientific and religious thought is brought about by Galileo and his supporters of his view.
Parallel in method
According to Ian Barbour, Thomas S. Kuhn asserts that science consists of a paradigm that emerges from cultural traditions, which are similar to secular perspectives on religion.
Michael Polanyi asserts that this is only a commitment to universality that protects against subjectivity and has nothing to do with personal detachment as found in many conceptions of the scientific method. Polanyi further asserts that all knowledge is personal and therefore the scientist must perform a very personal role if not always subjective when doing science. Polanyi adds that scientists often just follow the intuition of "intellectual beauty, symmetry, and 'empirical agreement'". Polanyi argues that science requires a moral commitment similar to that found in religion.
Two physicists, Charles A. Coulson and Harold K. Schilling, both claim that "the method of science and religion has much in common." Schilling asserts that both fields - science and religion - have "three-tier structure - experience, theoretical interpretation, and practical application." Coulson asserts that science, like religion, "progress by creative imagination" and not by "merely gathering facts," while declaring that religion must and indeed "involves critical reflection on experiences that are not unlike what happens in science." Religious language and scientific language also show parallels (see Science rhetoric).
Dialog
The community of religion and science consists of scholars who engage themselves in what is called "religious and scientific dialogue" or "religion-and-science fields." The community does not belong to the scientific or religious communities, but is said to be a third community overlapping with scientists, priests, priests, theologians and non-professionals interested and involved. Institutions interested in crossroads between science and religion include the Center for Theology and Natural Sciences, the Institute of Religion in the Age of Science, Ian Ramsey Center, and the Faraday Institute. Journals that discuss the relationship between science and religion include Theology and Science and Zygon: Journal of Religion & amp; Science . Eugenie Scott has written that the "science and religion" movement, in its entirety, is composed largely of the theists who have a healthy respect for science and may be beneficial to the society's understanding of science. He argues that the "Christian scholarship" movement is not a problem for science, but that the "Science" movement, which proposes to abandon methodological materialism, does not cause problems in understanding the nature of science.
The modern dialogue between religion and science is rooted in the 1966 book Ian Barbour Problems in Science and Religion . Since then it has developed into a serious academic field, with academic chairs in the subject area, and two dedicated academic journals, Zygon: Journal of Religion & amp; Science and Theology and Science . Articles are also sometimes found in mainstream scientific journals such as American Journal of Physics and Science .
The philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that there are superficial conflicts but deep harmony between science and religion, and that there is a profound conflict between science and naturalism. Plantinga, in his book Where the Really Lies Conflict: Science, Religion, and Naturalism , strongly opposes the link between naturalism and science, as understood by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and like-minded thinkers; while Daniel Dennett thought that Plantinga stretched science to an unacceptable level. The philosopher Maarten Boudry, in reviewing the book, has commented that he adhered to creationism and failed to "prevent a conflict between theism and evolution." Cognitive scientist Justin L. Barrett, on the contrary, reviews the same book and writes that "those most in need to hear Plantinga's message may fail to provide fair hearing for rhetorical rather than analytic reasons."
Integration
As a general view, it is argued that while interaction is complex between the influence of science, theology, politics, social, and economics, the productive involvement between science and religion throughout history must be really emphasized as the norm.
Scientific and theological perspectives often coexist peacefully. Christians and some non-Christian religions have historically integrated well with scientific ideas, such as in the mastery of ancient Egyptian technology applied to monotheistic purposes, the development of logic and mathematics under Hinduism and Buddhism, and the scientific progress made by Muslim scholars during the Ottoman Empire. Even many of the nineteenth-century Christian communities welcomed scientists who claimed that science was not at all concerned with discovering the ultimate nature of reality. According to Lawrence M. Principe, Johns Hopkins University, Drew Professor of the Humanities, from a historical perspective, this shows that many of the clashes currently occur between limited extremists - religious fundamentalists and scientists - more than a few topics, and that the idea movement back and forth between scientific and theological thought has become more commonplace. To Principe, this perspective will point to a common basic respect for written learning in the religious traditions of rabbinical literature, Christian theology, and the Golden Age of Islam, including Classical Transmission from Greek to Islam to Christian traditions that helped spark the Renaissance. Religion has also provided key participation in the development of modern universities and libraries; learning center & amp; Scholarships coincide with religious institutions - whether unbelievers, Muslims, or Christians.
BahÃÆ'¡'ÃÆ'
The basic principle of Bahá¡'ÃÆ' Faith is the harmony of religion and science. The scriptures of Bahá¡Â¡ emphasize that true science and true religion will never be in conflict. 'Abdu'l-Baha, the son of the founder of religion, declares that religion without knowledge is superstition and that science without religion is materialism. He also rebuked that the true religion must conform to the conclusions of science.
Buddhism
Buddhism and science are considered appropriate by many authors. Some of the philosophical and psychological teachings found in Buddhism share the same points with modern Western scientific and philosophical thought. For example, Buddhism encourages impartial investigation of nature (an activity referred to as Dhamma-Vicaya in the Pali Canon) - the main object of study being oneself. Buddhism and science both show a strong emphasis on causality. However, Buddhism does not focus on materialism.
Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, argues that empirical scientific evidence replaces the traditional teachings of Buddhism when both are in conflict. In his book The Universe in the Single Atom he wrote, "My belief in adventure into science lies in my basic belief that as in science, so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued through critical investigation." "If conclusive scientific analysis to demonstrate a particular claim in Buddhism is wrong," he said, "then we must accept the findings of science and leave the claim behind."
Christianity
Most of the sources of knowledge available to early Christians connected with pagan world views. There are various opinions about how Christians should regard pagan learning, which includes his ideas about nature. For example, among the early Christian teachers, Tertullian (c 160-220) had a generally negative opinion of Greek philosophy, while Origen (ca. 185-254) considered him much better and required his students to read almost every work available to them.
Previous attempts to reconcile Christianity with Newtonian mechanics appear to be very different from future reconciliation efforts with new scientific notions of evolution or relativity. Many early interpretations of polarized evolution alone around the struggle to exist. These ideas are significantly countered by the later findings of the universal pattern of biological co-operation. According to John Habgood, all who really know here is that the universe seems to be a fusion of good and evil, beauty and pain, and that suffering can somehow be part of the creation process. Habgood argues that Christians should not be surprised that suffering can be used creatively by God, remembering their faith in the crucifixion of the Cross. Robert John Russell has examined the consonants and dissonances between modern physics, evolutionary biology, and Christian theology.
The Christian philosopher Augustine of Hippo (354-30) and Thomas Aquinas argue that scripture can have many interpretations on certain areas where the problem is far beyond their reach, therefore one must leave room for future discoveries to explain its meaning. The tradition of "Handmaiden", which sees secular studies of the universe as a very important part and helps to achieve a better understanding of the scriptures, was adopted throughout Christian history from the beginning. Also the feeling that God created the world as a self-operating system is what motivated many Christians throughout the Middle Ages to investigate nature.
Modern historians of science such as J.L. Heilbron, Alistair Cameron Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein, and Ted Davis have reviewed the popular notion that medieval Christianity was a negative influence in the development of civilization and science. In their view, monks not only kept and cultivated the remnants of ancient civilizations during the barbaric invasions, but the medieval church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of many universities which, under its leadership, grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and 11th centuries the 12th, St. Thomas Aquinas, the "model theologian" of the Church, not only argues that common sense is in harmony with faith, he even acknowledges that reason can contribute to the understanding of revelation, thereby fostering intellectual development. He is no different from other medieval theologians who are looking for reasons to defend their faith. Some scholars today, like Stanley Jaki, have claimed that Christianity with its worldview in particular is an important factor for the emergence of modern science.
David C. Lindberg stated that the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a time of ignorance and superstition because the Christian church was "caricature". According to Lindberg, while there are some parts of the classical tradition that show this view, this is an extraordinary case. It is common to tolerate and encourage critical thinking about the nature of the world. The relationship between Christianity and science is complex and can not be simplified into harmony or conflict, according to Lindberg. Lindberg reports that "late medieval scholars rarely experience the coercive power of the church and would consider themselves free (especially in the natural sciences) to follow the reasons and observations wherever they lead" There is no war between science and the church. Ted Peters in the Encyclopedia of Religion writes that although there is some truth in the story "Galileo dikutemation" but through enlargement, it has now become "a modern myth perpetuated by those who want to see the battle between science and religion. " allegedly persecuted by atavistic and dogma-bound ecclesiastical authorities. "In 1992, the Catholic Church's justification against Galileo drew many comments in the media.
The degree of compatibility between science and religion can be seen in religious beliefs and empirical science. The belief that God created the world and therefore human beings can lead to the view that it governs people to know the world. This is borne out by Imago dei's doctrine. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, "Since man is said to be in the image of God in virtue because they possess a nature that includes intellect, such a trait is most in the image of God in virtue most capable of imitating God."
During the Enlightenment, a period "characterized by dramatic revolutions in science" and the emergence of Protestant challenge to the authority of the Catholic Church through individual freedom, the authority of Christian scripture became strongly opposed. As science progresses, the acceptance of the literal version of the Bible becomes "increasingly untenable" and some of it presents a way of interpreting scripture in accordance with its zeal for authority and truth.
Perspectives on evolution
In recent history, the theory of evolution has become a center of controversy between Christianity and science. Christians who accept a literal interpretation of the biblical creation story find a discrepancy between Darwinian evolution and their interpretation of the Christian faith. The creation of science or scientific creation is a branch of creationism that seeks to provide scientific support for the creation narrative of Genesis in the Book of Genesis and tries to disprove commonly accepted scientific facts, scientific theories and paradigms about Earth's history, cosmology and biological evolution.. It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove the inerrancy of the Bible and falsify scientific evolutionary evidence. Since then it has developed a considerable followers of religion in the United States, with the creation science ministry branched around the world. In 1925, the State of Tennessee authorized the Butler Act, which banned the teaching of the theory of evolution in all schools in the state. Later that year, a similar law was passed in Mississippi, and also, Arkansas in 1927. In 1968, this "anti-ape" law was beaten by the United States Supreme Court as unconstitutional, "because they established a religious doctrine violating the First and Fourth Amendments against the Constitution.
Most scientists have rejected creation science for several reasons, including that its claims do not refer to natural causes and can not be tested. In 1987, the United States Supreme Court ruled that creationism was a religion, not a science, and could not be advocated in public school classrooms. In 2018, Orlando Sentinel reported that "Some private schools in Florida are relying on public funds teaching students" Creationism.
Theistic evolution seeks to reconcile Christian belief and science by accepting a scientific understanding of the age of Earth and the process of evolution. These include various beliefs, including views described as evolutionary creationism, which accept some of the findings of modern science but also uphold the classical religious teachings about God and creation in a Christian context.
Reconciliation in Britain at the beginning of the 20th century
In the Reconciliation of Science and Religion: The debate in Britain in the early twentieth century, the historian of biology Peter J. Bowler argues that in contrast to the conflicts between science and religion in the US in the 1920s (most notably Scopes Trial), during this period, Great Britain underwent a concerted effort for reconciliation, fought by intellectual conservative scientists, supported by liberal theologians but opposed by young scientists and conservative secularists and Christians. These reconciliation efforts failed in the 1930s because of increasing social tensions, moving toward neo-orthodox theology and acceptance of modern evolutionary synthesis.
In the 20th century, several ecumenical organizations promoting harmony between science and Christianity were established, especially the American Affiliation of Sciences, the Biologos Foundation, Christianity in Science, the Society of the Ordained Scientist, and the Veritas Forum.
Roman Catholic
While perfected and clarified over the centuries, the Roman Catholic position on the relationship between science and religion is one of harmony, and has defended the tenets of natural law as defined by Thomas Aquinas. For example, on scientific studies such as evolution, the unofficial position of the church is an example of theistic evolution, which states that scientific beliefs and discoveries about human evolution are not contradictory, although humans are regarded as special creations, and that the existence of God is necessary to explain both the monogenism and the spiritual component of origin - human. Catholic schools have included all the behavior of scientific studies in their curriculum for centuries.
Galileo once stated, "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how heaven goes." In 1981, John Paul II, later the pope of the Roman Catholic Church, spoke of the relationship in this way: "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its makeup, not to give us a scientific treatise, a true human relationship with God and with the universe.The Scriptures simply want to declare that the world was created by God, and to teach this truth he reveals himself in the cosmological terms used at the time of the author.
The influence of the biblical worldview on early modern science
According to Andrew Dickson's 19th Century History of Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, the biblical worldview has a negative impact on the advancement of science through time. Dickinson also argues that as soon as the Reformation matters worse. The interpretation of Scripture by Luther and Calvin became sacred to their followers as the Scriptures themselves. For example, when Georg Caliostus dared, in interpreting the Psalms, to question the accepted belief that "water in the heavens" is contained in a large vessel established by a strong vault, he is cruelly cruelly cultivated. Currently, most scholarships in which the conflict thesis is initially based are deemed inaccurate. For example, the claim that early Christians rejected the Greco-Roman scientific findings was wrong, for the secularist study's "helpers" view was seen to explain theology. This view was widely adapted throughout the early medieval period and later by theologians (such as Augustine) and ultimately generated an interest in the knowledge of nature through time. Also, the claim that the medieval people widely believed that the Earth was flat was first deployed in the same period that comes from the conflict thesis and is still very common in popular culture. Modern scholars consider this claim to be false, as the contemporary historian David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers put it: "hardly any medieval Christian scholar who does not recognize the unanimity [of the earth] and even knows the circumference of his estimates." From the fall of Rome to Columbus, all the great scholars and many vernacular writers interested in the physical form of the earth hold a unanimous view with the exception of Lactantius and Cosmas.
H. Floris Cohen argues for a biblical Protestant, but does not exclude Catholicism, affecting the early development of modern science. He presents the argument of the Dutch historian R. Hooykaas that the biblical worldview holds all the necessary antidotes to the pride of Greek rationalism: respect for manual labor, leading to more experimentation and empiricism, and the supreme God who leaves nature open to competition. and manipulation. This supports the early idea of ​​modern science that is increasing because of a combination of Greek and biblical thought.
The Oxford historian Peter Harrison is another who argues that the biblical worldview is essential to the development of modern science. Harrison argues that the Protestant approach to scripture has significant, if largely unintentional, consequences for the interpretation of the book of nature. Harrison also points out that the literal reading of the Genesis Cases of Creation and the Fall motivated and legitimized scientific activity in 17th century England. For many seventeenth-century practitioners, science is imagined as a means to restore human power over the lost realm as a consequence of the Fall.
The historian and professor of religion Eugene M. Klaaren argues that "belief in the divine creation" is central to the emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher Michael Foster has published an analytic philosophy that connects Christian doctrine of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth argues against the historical notion of different mindsets and ideas of Catholic and Protestant scholarship. Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have debated the link between the intellectual transformation of the seventeenth-century Anglican and influential British scientists (eg, Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton). John Dillenberger and Christopher B. Kaiser have written theological survey, which also includes additional interactions occurring in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. The Religious Philosopher Richard Jones has written philosophical criticisms of the "dependency thesis" which assumes that modern science emerges from Christian sources and doctrines. Although he acknowledges that modern science emerges within the framework of religion, that Christianity greatly elevates the importance of science by sanctioning and legitimizing it religiously in the medieval period, and that Christianity creates a good social context for it to grow; he argues that direct Christian belief or doctrine is not the main source of scientific search by natural philosophers, nor is Christianity, in and of itself, exclusively or directly required in developing or practicing modern science.
The Oxford University historian and theologian John Hedley Brooke writes that "when natural philosophers refer to the laws of nature, they do not easily choose the metaphor, the law is the result of the law by the intelligent god." Thus the philosopher Renà © Å © Descartes (1596 -1650) insists that he finds "laws that God has placed in nature." Later Newton will declare that the solar system's arrangements require "the counsel and power of the Intelligent and Strong Person." Historian Ronald L. Numbers states that this thesis " received encouragement "from the mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead's Science and the Modern World 1925. Numbers also argue," Despite the apparent shortcomings of claims that Christianity gave birth to science - most prominently, ignoring or minimizing the contribution the ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims - that too, refused to yield to a worthy death. "The sociologist Rodney Stark of Baylor University, contrary to the notion that" Christian theology is very important for the rise of science. "
Protestantism has an important influence on science. According to Merton Thesis there is a positive correlation between the rise of Puritanism and Protestant Pietism on the one hand and early experimental science on the other. The Merton Thesis has two separate parts: First, it presents the theory that science is changing because of the accumulation of observations and improvements in experimental techniques and methodologies; secondly, putting forward the argument that the popularity of science in seventeenth-century England and the religious demographics of the Royal Society (British scientists of that time were mostly Puritans or other Protestants) can be explained by the correlation between Protestantism and scientific values.. In his theory, Robert K. Merton focused on English Puritanism and Pietism of Germany as being responsible for the development of the scientific revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries. Merton explained that the relationship between religious affiliation and interest in science is the result of a significant synergy between values- the value of Protestant asceticism and the values ​​of modern science. Protestant values ​​encourage scientific research by allowing science to study God's influence on the world and thereby provide religious justification for scientific research.
Confucianism and traditional Chinese religion
The historical process of Confucianism has been highly antipathic to scientific discoveries. But the religio-philosophical system itself is more neutral on the subject than such an analysis might suggest. In his writings In Heaven, Xunzi supports a proto-scientific worldview. However, during the more anti-empirical Synthesis Han Mencius is favored and combined with Taoist skepticism regarding the nature of reality. Likewise, during the Middle Ages, Zhu Xi opposed the technical investigation and specialization proposed by Chen Liang. After contact with the West, scholars like Wang Fuzhi will rely on Buddhist/Taoist skepticism to denounce all science as a subjective pursuit that is limited by the fundamental ignorance of mankind about the true nature of the world. After the Fourth of May Movement, attempts to modernize Confucianism and reconcile it with scientific understanding were tried by many scholars including Feng Youlan and Xiong Shili. Given the close connection that Confucianism has to Buddhism, many of the same arguments used to reconcile Buddhism with science are also easily translated into Confucianism. However, modern scholars have also sought to define the relationship between science and Confucianism in Confucian terms themselves and the results usually lead to the conclusion that Confucianism and science are basically compatible.
Hinduism
In Hinduism, the dividing line between objective science and spiritual knowledge ( adhyatma vidya ) is a linguistic paradox. Hindu scholastic activities and ancient Indian scientific progress are so intertwined that many Hindu scriptures are also ancient scientific manuals and vice versa. In 1835, English became the primary language for teaching in higher education in India, exposing Hindu scholars to Western secular ideas; this started a renaissance about religious and philosophical thought. Hindu priests maintain that logical arguments and rational proofs using Nyaya are a means of gaining true knowledge. The level of scientific understanding focuses on how they work and where they come from, while Hinduism seeks to understand the ultimate goal for the existence of living things. To gain and expand the world's knowledge for spiritual perfection, many refer to Bh? Gavata for guidance therefore refers to theological and theological dialogue. Hinduism offers methods to improve and transform itself in the course of time. For example, the Hindu view of the development of life includes various points of view in terms of evolution, creationism, and the origin of life in the Hindu tradition. For example, it has been argued that Wallace-Darwinian evolutionary thinking was part of Hindu thinking centuries before modern times. Shankara and S? Mkhya has no problem with the theory of evolution, but instead, argues about the existence of God and what happens after death. These two distinct groups argue between their respective philosophies because of their sacred text, not the idea of ​​evolution. With the publication of Darwin on the Origins of Species, many Hindus wish to associate their scriptures with Darwinism, discovering the similarities between Brahma's creations, the incarnation of Vishnu, and the theory of evolution.
Samkhya, the oldest school of Hindu philosophy set a special method for analyzing knowledge. According to Samkhya, all knowledge is possible through three valid ways of knowledge -
- Pratyak? a or D ??? am - direct sensory perception,
- Anum? na - logical inference and
- ? abda or ? ptavacana - oral testimony.
Nyaya, the school of Hindu logic, accepts all these 3 ways and in addition receives another one - Upam? Na (comparison).
The story of the emergence of life in the universe varies in description, but classically the god called Brahma, from Trimurti of the three gods also including Vishnu and Shiva, is described as doing 'creation', or more specifically of 'spreading life in the universe' two other gods responsible for 'preservation' and 'destruction' (the universe) respectively. In this case, some Hindu schools do not treat myths of literary creation literally and often the story of creation itself does not go into certain details, leaving behind the possibility of opening at least some theory to support evolution. Some Hindus find support for, or the shadow of evolutionary ideas in the holy book, the Vedas.
The incarnation of Vishnu (Dashavatara) is almost identical to the scientific explanation of the sequence of human and animal biological evolution. The sequence of avatars starts from aquatic organisms (Matsya), to amphibians (Dates), to land animals (Varaha), to humanoid (Narasimha), to dwarf humans (Vamana), up to 5 well-developed human forms (Parashurama, Rama, Balarama/Buddha, Krishna, Kalki) showing the increasing form of complexity (Ax-man, King, Plougher/Sage, Wise Statesman, mighty Warrior). In fact, many Hindu gods are represented by animal and human features, which cause many Hindus to easily accept the evolutionary relationship between animals and humans. In India, the home country of Hindus, many educated Hindus accept the theory of biological evolution. In a survey of 909 people, 77% of respondents in India agreed with Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and 85 percent of people who believe in God say they believe in evolution as well.
Like the Vedas, another explanation for creation is based on five elements: earth, water, fire, air and ether. Hinduism searches for its beginning to the holy Vedic. Everything that is established in Hindu faith such as gods and goddesses, doctrines, songs, spiritual insights, etc. flows from Vedic poetry. The Vedas offer a tribute to the sun and the moon, the water and the wind, and the order in the universal universe. This naturalism is the beginning of what is then a connection between Hinduism and science.
Islam
From an Islamic point of view, science, the study of nature, is thought to be related to the concept of Tauhid (the Unity of God), as are all other branches of knowledge. In Islam, nature is not seen as a separate entity, but rather as an integral part of Islam's holistic view of God, humanity, and the world. The Islamic view of science and sustainable nature with religion and God. This link implies a sacred aspect to pursue scientific knowledge by Muslims, since nature itself is seen in the Qur'an as a compilation of signs pointing to the Divine. It is by this understanding that science is learned and understood in Islamic civilization, especially during the eighth to sixteenth centuries, before the colonization of the Muslim world. Robert Briffault, in The Making of Humanity, asserted that the existence of science, as understood in the modern sense, is rooted in the thinking and scientific knowledge that has emerged in Islamic civilization so far. Ibn al-Haytham, an Arab Muslim, was an early proponent of the concept that hypotheses must be proved by experiments based on confirmed procedures or mathematical proofs - thereby understanding the scientific method 200 years before Renaissance scientists. Ibn al-Haytham describes his theology:
I continue to seek knowledge and truth, and it becomes my belief that in order to gain access to light and closeness with God, there is no better way than to seek truth and knowledge.
With the decline of Islamic Civilization in the late Middle Ages and the rise of Europe, the Islamic scientific tradition changed into a new period. The institutions that have existed for centuries in the Muslim world look to the new scientific institutions of European power. This changed the practice of science in the Muslim world, because Islamic scientists must face a western approach to scientific learning, based on different natural philosophies. Since the time of the initial upheaval of the Islamic scientific tradition to this day, Muslim scientists and scholars have developed a spectrum of viewpoints in place of scientific learning in the Islamic context, none of which are universally accepted or practiced. However, most retain the view that knowledge acquisition and scientific pursuit in general are not incompatible with Islamic thought and religious beliefs.
Ahmadiyya
The Ahmadiyya movement emphasized that there is no contradiction between Islam and science. For example, Ahmadi Muslims universally accept in principle the process of evolution, though divinely guiding, and actively promoting it. For decades this movement has issued numerous publications to support the scientific concepts behind the evolutionary process, and is often involved in promoting how religious scriptures, such as the Qur'an, support the concept. For general purposes, the second Caliph of the community, Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad said:
The Qur'an directs attention to science, many times, rather than arousing prejudice against it. The Qur'an never advises not to learn science, lest the reader should become an unbeliever; because they have no such fear or anxiety. The Qur'an does not worry if people will learn the laws of nature, the spell will be destroyed. The Qur'an does not prevent people from science, but declares, "Say," Think about what happens in the heavens and the earth. '"(Al Younus)
Jainism
Jainism does not support belief in the creator god. According to Jain's doctrine, the universe and its constituents - the soul, matter, space, time, and motion principles always exist (a static universe similar to Epicureanism and the steady state cosmological model). All constituents and actions are governed by universal natural law. It is impossible to create matter from nothing and therefore the total amount of matter in the universe remains the same (similar to the law of conservation of the masses). Likewise, the soul of every living being is unique and not created and has existed since the beginning of time.
The causal theory of Jain states that cause and effect are always naturally identical and therefore conscious and intangible entities like God can not create material entities like the universe. Furthermore, according to the concept of the divinity of Jain, every soul that destroys karma and its desires, attains liberation. The soul that destroys all of its passions and desires has no desire to interfere in the workings of the universe. The moral reward and suffering are not the work of divine beings, but the result of the innate moral order in the universe; a self-regulatory mechanism in which the individual picks the fruits of his own actions through the workings of karma.
Over the centuries, Jain philosophers have rejected and opposed the omniscient concept of the Creator and God and this has resulted in Jainism being branded as the dastana nastika or atheistic philosophy by competing religious philosophy. The theme of non-creationism and the omnipotent omnipotence of God and divine grace runs strongly in all philosophical dimensions of Jainism, including cosmology, karma, moksa and moral code of ethics. Jainism affirms religious life and virtuous is possible without the idea of ​​the creator god.
Perspective from the scientific community
History
In the 17th century, the founders of the Royal Society largely adhered to conventional and orthodox religious views, and some of them were prominent Church leaders. While potentially divisive theological issues are usually ruled out of the initial Community's formal discussions, many still believe that their scientific activities provide support for traditional religious beliefs. The involvement of the clergy at the Royal Society remained high until the mid-nineteenth century, when science became more professional.
Albert Einstein supports the compatibility of several religious interpretations with science. In "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium" published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York in 1941, Einstein stated:
Therefore, a religious person is pious in the sense that he does not doubt the significance and extravagance of superpersonal objects and goals that do not require or be capable of rational basis. They exist with the same needs and problems as themselves. In this sense, religion is an old effort of mankind to become conscious and fully aware of these values ​​and goals and constantly reinforce and extend its effects. If one considers religion and science in accordance with this definition then the conflict between them seems impossible. For science can only ascertain what exists, but not what it should be, and beyond the valuation of its domain values ​​of all types remains necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with the evaluation of human thought and action: it is not justifiable to speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation, the famous conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be linked to a misunderstanding of the situation described.
Einstein expressed the ethical view of non-naturalism (in contrast to ethical naturalism).
The foremost modern atheist scientists include evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg. Leading scientists advocating religious beliefs include Nobel Prize winning physicists and members of the United Church of Christ Towns, evangelical Christian and former head of the Human Genome Project Francis Collins, and climate expert John T. Houghton.
Study of the beliefs of scientists
In 1916, 1,000 leading American scientists were randomly selected from American Men of Science and 42% believed that God existed, 42% did not believe, and 17% had doubts/did not know; But when the study was replicated 80 years later using the American Science Men and Women in 1996, the results are very similar to 39% believe there is God, 45% do not believe, and 15% have doubts/do not know. In the same 1996 survey, for scientists in the fields of biology, mathematics, and physics/astronomy, the belief in gods "in intellectual and affective communication with humans" was most popular among mathematicians (about 45%) and least popular among physicists (about 22%). In total, in terms of belief in personal gods and personal immortality, about 60% of US scientists in this field expressed no belief or agnosticism and about 40% expressed confidence. This compares to 62.9% in 1914 and 33% in 1933.
A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of the University in Buffalo, State University of New York from 1,646 professors of natural and social science at 21 US research universities found that, in terms of belief in God or higher power, more than 60% expressed no belief or agnosticism and more than 30% expressed confidence. More specifically, almost 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% replied "I do not know if there is a God and no way to find out." In the same study, 28% said they believed in God and 8% believed in a higher power that was not God. Ecklund states that scientists are often able to consider themselves spiritual without religion or belief in god. Ecklund and Scheitle conclude, from their research, that individuals from non-religious backgrounds have disproportionately chosen themselves to be scientific professions and that the assumption that being a scientist always leads to the loss of religion
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments