When the philosophy of science and religion is considered, it becomes immediately evident that the thinking is likely more marked by inherent conflict than any other philosophy. This innate conflict is, in fact, its greatest weakness because the idea that science and faith are completely incompatible is a defining feature of both science and faith, at least in the popular mind. Even efforts to comprehend the philosophy as valid are subject to this weakness, and because the language of each component is usually vastly unlike the other’s. For example, many who insist on faith as superior to science perceive religious narratives, Biblical and otherwise, as both literal and figurative in meaning. All religions are based on myth to an extent, and myth in the sense of allegory as meaning.
Adherents will consider that some aspects of the mythic narrative are open to interpretation, but still hold that any realities identified are actual events, characters, and circumstances (Dawes, 2016, p. 115). Consequently, mythic language is used and understood as reflecting reality. Conversely, science relies on material, factual expression. This factor alone renders the philosophy problematic, in that it is a way of thinking which depends on two primary and contrasting elements. However, and ironically, this same issue relates to a strength of the philosophy. Unlike many others which reflect consistent and related trains of thought, that conflict adds a quality of energy.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Religion Essay".
More exactly, the science and religion philosophy benefits from the innate argument because any philosophy is more valid when it is subject to continual examination, and questioning of its most basic premises. In plain terms, this is a unique approach to life and humanity because it has a “built in” safeguard of self-evaluation, as each element tests the other and presents an active, engaging model of thinking.
That same dichotomy or conflict discussed, when seen in a certain way, also supports the argument that science and religion is a highly beneficial and credible philosophy, if only because of the noted factor of how it demands that investigation of critical concerns be in place. The divide between science and faith has long been both intense and wholly unnecessary. What occurs is that, by and large, adherents of religion alone, while usually admitting that the will of God is mysterious, refuse to consider that divine forces may have created life and the universe in ways not as “attractive” or understandable as they are presented in religious texts.
Put another way, to consider that God or other divine forces created, not man and woman as such, but sparked life within a primitive assembly of chemicals in a sea does not in any way lessen the miraculous aspect so crucial to faith. Science actually then serves religion, or offers new dimensions to it, rather than deny it. This is also increasingly true as our understanding of the universe develops. For example: “Chaos theory…provides the world with an ‘ontological openness’ in which God can operate without violating the laws of nature” (SEP, 2017). This leads to a further irony, and one reinforcing how science advances the interests of religion, in that both strict scientists and adherents of only faith seek to find meaning on its more fundamental levels.
The agendas of science and religion are invariably the same, and the former exists only to expand the possibilities of the latter. Generally speaking, human beings are inflexible in belief systems, and to their own disadvantage. Beyond anything else, devotion to a religion must be based on deep faith, which is absolute confidence. If this is in place, then, science is only enabled to add meaning and reinforce the faith, even as it expands traditional ways of worship and thinking in it.
