Can science and religion coexist?
[ad_1]
Both try to explain the world, but religion and science are essentially opposites. Science relies on testable empirical evidence, whereas religion is subjective. This means that there is “evidence” in our own minds and in the writings of our ancestors.Is it really possible for the two concepts to coexist? I believe the answer to this question is “yes”.
I have always identified as a religious person. In fact, praying every night is what I am most connected to myself, my hopes, fears, and emotions. I was. As knowledge about science expands and science relies on evidence and physical evidence, believing in something completely intangible presents challenges. Many stories in religious scripts are physically impossible. For example, the idea of revival.
Interestingly, science and religion were actually united in our country’s early history. Many ancient writers considered religious and scientific issues at the same time, but they did not necessarily think of them as separate topics, nor did they think they were mutually exclusive. Stephen Clarke, professor of molecular, cell, and developmental biology at the University of Michigan, said, “Modern notions of the scientific method have been part of the driving force for understanding the natural world, very religious. It reminds us that
In fact, religion and science should be recognized as separate and interrelated concepts. There are certain questions that science can answer, such as how viruses and diseases spread, and questions that we can gain insight through religion, such as why we need to suffer from viruses and diseases. In other words, science exists to help people, whereas religion exists to teach us compassion to help people. This way the two concepts are combined. In fact, there is a whole subject of bioethics that essentially combines the moral frameworks provided by science and religion.
Moreover, the idea of science itself is more uncertain than we think, because our current knowledge of the universe is constantly changing. For example, Clark points out that recent discoveries from James Webb’s Space Telescope have overturned decades of research on the structure of our galaxy. He elaborates on this idea: Rather, I would say, “There is an enormous amount of experimental evidence consistent with our theory of evolution, and no other competing theory to explain this evidence.” ”
This is a reminder that the scientific method doesn’t necessarily claim it to be true (it could be), but helps us discover the truth. Clark said, “Inherent in the scientific method is that we are never describing the truth. We are only describing our best current understanding of the natural world. There is no “truth”, only the best current understanding. ”
Many of the idiosyncrasies of religion can be ignored if we remember that religion is based on storytelling. We have to admit that many of the stories in the Bible are thousands of years old. Many scholars have noted contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible and attribute these defects to the idea that the Bible was likely passed down orally before it was written. There are cases. Just like we all learned as kids playing phone games that the final statement is completely different from the original.
Perhaps some of the stories we read are exaggerations of the original events. Just as science changes as what we discover expands, stories can even change as beliefs and perspectives change. For example, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been at odds with the United States Congress for nearly 40 years over the practice of polygamy. When the government tried to seize all the property of his church in 1890, suddenly a vision came to Wilford Woodruff, her LDS president at the time, that polygamy must end. This prompted Woodruff to publish a manifesto outlawing polygamy.
Based on the idea of religious evolution, we find that changes in times often lead to changes in beliefs. History shows that a religion that does not want change cannot survive. So even religion must change. Just as Professor Clark admits that science “never describes the truth,” perhaps religion does not necessarily assume it to be true. Change and evolution are inherent in beliefs, and despite the differences between religion and science, they are two belief systems that attempt to explain our world.
Religion and science should not be thought of as dichotomy between good and evil, truth and fiction, but rather, they coexist for the sake of understanding and meaning. While science may seem like immutable facts rooted in numbers and evidence, religion is fluid, malleable, and free from any kind of numerical robustness.
Ultimately, as what we know changes, change is inherently part of both ideas. The permanence of science is no more perfect than the frivolity of religion is presumed. You can be a realist and a scientist while still believing in a higher power. One extreme does not exclude the other, but instead reinforces the importance of collective understanding. Religion ensures that science becomes meaningful, and science enables a place where religion is spoken, chosen, and interpreted.
Anna Trupiano is an opinion columnist and can be reached at: annatrup@umich.edu
[ad_2]
Source link
