Religion and Science
Alex Zakson
December 17, 2005
Today in America, many Fundamentalist Christians are on a warpath with science. They promote religion as the sole source of explanation for everything spiritual and physical. They want all decisions in our society to be driven by religious beliefs, and they expect science to follow suit. But religion and science are profoundly different.
Religion demands adherence to fundamentals without change, while science thrives on change. For example, Christians cannot accept Mohammad as the last prophet, while Islamists cannot tolerate its denial. But in science as new and more accurate methods of observation and measurement are discovered, scientific theories are modified and/or changed.
Religion has provided its followers with spiritual comfort and guidance, but science has enabled humanity to understand the universe and its physical laws. Religion has directed its followers to adhere to set of behaviors; science has provided explanations for why the universe behaves as it does.
Religion points the way to a better and more fulfilling life; science has provided humanity with plentiful food, medicines to fight disease, devices to communicate across continents, machines to facilitate running businesses, computers to help to solve complex problems, gadgets to entertain, and numerous other things.
Religion and science address different aspects of human life, and it is foolhardy to expect either one to meet all human needs. Yes, they both try to explain the world we live in, its origin, and destination, but from profoundly different perspectives. Religion is based on faith and feeds the spirit; science is based on observation and feeds the body and mind.
People should stop using religion to dictate what science can investigate, and should refrain from giving scientific explanations for spiritual matters. Creationism and its alias Intelligent Design are part of religious teachings; Evolution and other scientific theories belong in teaching of science. Churches teach creationism in their schools. If they succeed in requiring secular schools to teach it as an alternative theory to Evolution, shouldn’t religious schools be required to teach Evolution as an alternative theory to creationism?
Religion demands adherence to fundamentals without change, while science thrives on change. For example, Christians cannot accept Mohammad as the last prophet, while Islamists cannot tolerate its denial. But in science as new and more accurate methods of observation and measurement are discovered, scientific theories are modified and/or changed.
Religion has provided its followers with spiritual comfort and guidance, but science has enabled humanity to understand the universe and its physical laws. Religion has directed its followers to adhere to set of behaviors; science has provided explanations for why the universe behaves as it does.
Religion points the way to a better and more fulfilling life; science has provided humanity with plentiful food, medicines to fight disease, devices to communicate across continents, machines to facilitate running businesses, computers to help to solve complex problems, gadgets to entertain, and numerous other things.
Religion and science address different aspects of human life, and it is foolhardy to expect either one to meet all human needs. Yes, they both try to explain the world we live in, its origin, and destination, but from profoundly different perspectives. Religion is based on faith and feeds the spirit; science is based on observation and feeds the body and mind.
People should stop using religion to dictate what science can investigate, and should refrain from giving scientific explanations for spiritual matters. Creationism and its alias Intelligent Design are part of religious teachings; Evolution and other scientific theories belong in teaching of science. Churches teach creationism in their schools. If they succeed in requiring secular schools to teach it as an alternative theory to Evolution, shouldn’t religious schools be required to teach Evolution as an alternative theory to creationism?
Print
Email
