Are Science and Religion in Conflict?

Are knowledge and theology in affair? Indeed,a encroach does exist in the midst of cognizance and worship notwithstanding the conflict is ground on the deficiency of acceptance and vast mis imaginationions which members of either perspective be unwilling to let go of. The conflict between acquirement and clean-livingity exists because in that location is a lack of congruence between the results achieved through scientific discovery and the touch sensations required by a devotion to follow. This has pass along to the formation of deuce extremes i. e. either accept faith and the doctrines required by faith to be observed or accept the cerebral methodologies of intelligence.In an member published by The Atlantic, the author is of the opinion that solving the soak that creates the conflict between intuition and spectral belief is of utmost importance for the rate of flow generation. This is because of the reason that these two schools of thought atomic numb er 18 the most influential forces and guide the elbow room we live our lives (Alfred). Science and faith since their inception deal been in a state of continuous developing. However this development has been in the inverse direction i. e. nitially science studied the literature provided by worship in time with the development of scientific look into, reliable phantasmal concepts remained unproven because they were con positioningred Abstract by science. This has led to wad accepting nonpareil side to be true(a) and the another(prenominal) false (Alfred). There is a conflict between science and worship however this is because of the fact that bulk are hesitant to knowledge both and stick to one side. This has led to the permanent housing of misconceptions in the minds of stack and is adding fuel to the fire i. e. increasing the conflict between the two ways of life.The major reason tramp the conflict between science and religion is the lack of acceptance of conclusi ons reached by either science or religion regarding a extra matter. If science put more infirm on the topic under discussion, religious scholars would deny those facts ground on the grounds that the research is blasphemous and contradicts basic religious principles. An word by the Times magazine states the Christian Church and other religions including Islam focus on key aspects of human creation such as the possession of a soul by every human be or the miracles performed by saints and Men of God.Science however focuses on new ways of quantifying and amount human evolution both the concepts create a conflict (Dan, 2006). Science has been able to prove the physical creation of emotions such as passion, displeasure by locating it in antithetical parts of the brain. This contradicts with the principle followed by most religions regarding the presence of a soul in every human and how that soul is free from bodily functions etc.However acceptance of this is denied by religious scholars based on the grounds that the concept of the Afterlife is fundamental to most religions and the concept of the soul is greatly in congruence with the Afterlife (Dan, 2006). Scientific research should not be viewed as a threat to the fundamentals of a religion earlier the studies should be observed as being insightful i. e. the research further clarifies religious concepts rather than denouncing them. There are certain driving factors that govern the introduction and acceptance of the conflict between science and religion.Upbringing, Education and Social bearing are some of the factors that lead to people in both the scientific and religious communities to accept that in that location therefore is a faulting between science and religion. In an oblige by Elaine Howard of Rice University and Jerry Z. Park of Baylor University, they provided the results of a study they carried out which involved the woof of 21 Ameri groundwork scientists who were considered to be among the elite of the time. They studied their attitude towards religion and concluded that all scientists i. e. hether a naturalist or social scientist, have different levels of acceptance towards the conflict that exists between science and religion. The acceptance is affected by their culture and extent of religious practice (Ecklund& Park, 2009). Since everyone needs something to believe in, scientists who do not belong to a strict religious background readily accept the conflict since they have devoted their life to one particular proposition school of thought. This sensing is formed after extensive research based on rational thinking and seeking proof of everything which makes scientists so unbelieving almost religious beliefs.Among scientists however there is a lack of acceptance towards a religion correct if he/she is a believer. This is because of the perceived impel they would receive if their peers in the scientific community were to discover this fact (Elaine, 2010). The solely way to resolve the conflict is to accept religious diversity as well as the free discussion of scientific concepts without being judged as being blasphemous. It is through this open discussion that the mis sagacitys that exist between scholars of both extremes be realizeed.The ways the scientific concepts are taught in schools are one of the major causes of the conflict. Since the teachers do not have clear knowledge and mind of the scientific concepts, they pass on inadequate information to the students att finish. In an condition named First Year College Students Conflict with Religion and Science issued by the tabun State University, the author tells us that it is in the human nature to perceive oneself to be check than the rest. The general public tends to interpret and create their declare perceptions regarding scientific concepts and religious beliefs.The self-interpretations lead to misconceptions which are major cause of the rift that exists between scienc e and religion (Martin, 2008). The schools and teachers indoors those schools teach in a manner that fixes and restricts the brain of the student to think beyond what is thought. The rigid concepts suffer permanent with the passage of time which leads to the rejection of anything other than the closely held concepts. Science and religion develop over time, sometimes even complimenting each other. If a clear understanding of the advancements would not be obtained, there would ever be path for misinterpretations.Therefore to remove the conflict at an elementary stage, teachers should encourage students to interpret scientific research however they should know what is right and what is not in straddle to correct the misconceptions when they arise. An Evangelist is a person who preaches faith based on his or her own perception about the beliefs fundamental to the faith. Christian evangelists have always been skeptical towards scientific concepts as well as theological theories abou t the creation of the world. Amos Yong carried out an analysis of various literary whole kit and caboodle related to the explanation of the conflict paradigm between science and religion.The findings were summarized in the article named Science and Religion Introducing the Issues, Entering the Debates A review see and focused primarily on discovering ways to dress the methods of the church with scientific methodologies (Yong, 2011). The study identified various conceptual frameworks that could be follow which would align the thought process of the evangelist with scientific methodologies. Other measures that could be adopted include targeting the people lower in the hierarchy at the church. These people could be taught the concepts of science and how science can wear out explain religion (Yong, 2011).The only way to resolve the conflict that exists for evangelists is to align their religious beliefs with rational scientific methods. Since an evangelist is a strict believer in faith, the beliefs would always be fundamental however break-dance scientific knowledge can help bridge the differences. Science is based on methods and the rationale behind every phenomenon. Religion however on the other hand requires the believer to keep faith in the fundamental principles. Both present a different picture of the same thing and it is this difference in perception that has developed a conflict between science and religion.Science and Religion are two sides of the same coin. These two schools of thoughts add to each other rather than diverging. Religious concepts such as morality can be better understood through scientific research which helps understand and adhere to religion better. There is a conjunctive of knowledge between science and religion which if strengthened is in the favor of the future of the human race. Science and religion have a point where the two schools of thoughts converge. One of the points is quality of being spectral.Although scientists wo rk on the bum of rationality, they still have a spiritual side which allows them to keep faith while exploring the horizons of science and melodic phrase. In an article titled Science vs. Religion What Scientists Really Think, the author Elaine Ecklund states that even atheists have a certain level of spiritism within them. The spirituality may not necessarily be associated with keeping faith however there is a curiosity regarding the origination and formation of our plant and existence (Elaine, 2010). The spiritual side within scientists is promoted by their upbringing and education.The spiritual side makes them interested in religious beliefs. Through their scientific approach and belief in religious concepts, it makes it easier for them to focus on scientific research and proving religious concepts to be accurate (Elaine, 2010). Therefore spirituality leads to a better scientific reasoning approach to be adopted. Through religious involvement scientific research can be refine d and complex questions can be answered. ethics and reality go hand in hand. Morality is the banding of values and attitudes that are generally acceptable by a particular society for a particular moment in time.Religion requires a great focus on displaying moral behavior. Morality can be better displayed by understanding reality and how it is affected by moral thinking. Morality is required by religion whereas reality is explained by science proving that there is a deeper link rather than a conflict. Through scientific reasoning we are able to deduce the right way to behave in a society. These studies can help assess what moral behavior is. The article Religion vs. Science outlines the scientific efforts to better understand moral behavior which helps us adhere to religious principles in a better way (Honner, 1994).Science is able to study all factors that affect behavior including societal norms, environmental conditions and personal feelings. By quantifying morality, we are abl e to develop a better understanding of what constitutes morality. This indicates that the relationship between science and religion is one of elucidation rather than a source of conflict (Honner, 1994). Therefore rather than thinking about a conflict being in existence, we should follow the results of scientific research and studies to better clarify religious beliefs.Through scientific research we are able to uncover and understand the abstract concepts that religion defines. Queries about our existence can be answered by a careful examination of religious concepts complimented with a thorough scientific analysis. In an article name God, creation, science, religion the conflicts by Tom Chivers, the author tells us that scientist in order to deduce the actual age of the Earth moved to religious transcripts appearing in the Bible. Although the Bible did not provide dates however did contain information on the characteristics of the people at the time.This was a major input in the sc ientific breakthrough (Tom, 2009). The scientific declarations cannot be denied as they have been institutional to the development of the knowledge and understanding regarding the universe. By further considering the importance of religion we would have it away across certain questions that have been yet to be answered by scientific research. Through this connection we can uncover various mysteries concerning the universe and everything within it (Tom, 2009). People should develop a thorough understanding of the concepts of both extremes.Through this understanding we would be able to develop a much better connection between science and religion and resolve all mysteries which would give us a better understanding of who we are and why we exist. Referring to the first tax return argument, it states that science and religion converge because a level of spirituality exists between the followers of the two extremes. The argument is refuted by the original thesis stating that although t he spiritual level does exist however this would not lead to the convergence of ideas arising within the two schools of thoughts.The reason behind it is the fact that there is a lack of acceptance of conclusions by scholars of both the extremes leading to a never ending conflict. Referring to the second counter argument, it states that science and religion add to each other in way that science leads to a better understanding of moral behavior which is a pre-requisite for religious believers. However the original thesis refutes this argument by saying that although the concepts add to each other however there are vast misconceptions in the minds of the followers of both science and religion.These misconceptions incur in the middle and cause the conflict to extend rather than stretchiness a resolution point. Referring to the final counter argument, it states that there is no conflict between the fields because religious beliefs and knowledge acts as a basis of scientific research an d discovery. This argument is challenged by the original thesis in a manner that although this can be the case however people classify themselves as being either religious or scientific. collectible to this classification, the connection between science and religion cannot be established.References Alfred, N. (n. d. ). Religion and Science. Retrieved on October 4th, 2011 from http//www. theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/1925/08/religion-and-science/4220/ Dan, C. (2006). God vs. Science. Retrieved on October 4th, 2011 from http//www. time. com/time/magazine/article/0%2c9171%2c1555132%2c00. html Elaine, H. (2010). Science vs. Religion discovers what scientists really think about religion. Retrieved on October 4th, 2011 from http//www. washingtonpost. com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052801856. tml Ecklund, E. , & Park, J. Z. (2009). Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists?. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48(2), 276-292. inside10. 1111/ j. 1468-5906. 2009. 01447. x Honner, J. (1994). Science vs. religion (II). Commonweal, 121(16), 14. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Martin-Hansen, L. (2008). First-Year College Students Conflict with Religion and Science. Science & Education, 17(4), 317-357. doi10. 1007/s11191-006-9039-5 Tom, C. (2009). God, creation, science,