Science and Religion: A Power Point

Science andScience and
ReligionReligion
 Science and religionScience and religion

Science and religionScience and religion



Science and ReligionScience and Religion
 What is Religion?What is Religion?
 What is Science?What is Science?

 The word religion derives from the Latin wordThe word religion derives from the Latin word
to bind or to ligate (tie).to bind or to ligate (tie).
 It means bind to the godsIt means bind to the gods

 The word science comes from the Latin wordThe word science comes from the Latin word
for knowledgefor knowledge
 It occurs in the word consciousIt occurs in the word conscious

 Religion is a belief in somethingReligion is a belief in something
 The belief is not necessarily substantiated byThe belief is not necessarily substantiated by
physical or material evidencephysical or material evidence
 Religious knowledge obtained through holyReligious knowledge obtained through holy
writings, authority, revelations and religiouswritings, authority, revelations and religious
experiencesexperiences
 Religionists have faith or trust in suchReligionists have faith or trust in such
knowledgeknowledge

 Religious knowledge is qualitative notReligious knowledge is qualitative not
quantitative.quantitative.
 Religious knowledge is not gotten throughReligious knowledge is not gotten through
measurementmeasurement
 In religion knowledge is taken as either true orIn religion knowledge is taken as either true or
false.false.
 Religious knowledge is neither progressive,Religious knowledge is neither progressive,
nor tentative.nor tentative.

 Scientific knowledge is a relationship betweenScientific knowledge is a relationship between
observationsobservations
 The observations are subject to refinementThe observations are subject to refinement
 Scientific knowledge is progressive andScientific knowledge is progressive and
tentativetentative
 Scientific knowledge is neither true nor false,Scientific knowledge is neither true nor false,
but rather consistent with the observations andbut rather consistent with the observations and
consistent with prior knowledgeconsistent with prior knowledge

 Science formulates quantifiable questionsScience formulates quantifiable questions
 Science uses units, numbers, direction alongScience uses units, numbers, direction along
with mathematics to express knowledgewith mathematics to express knowledge
 Numbers are quantitative.Numbers are quantitative.
 Units are not a quality. Units are dimensionsUnits are not a quality. Units are dimensions
representing time, energy, weight, volume,representing time, energy, weight, volume,
length, brightness. Dimensions arelength, brightness. Dimensions are
independent variablesindependent variables

Assumptions of ScienceAssumptions of Science
 The world is real.The world is real.
 The real world is knowable andThe real world is knowable and
comprehensible.comprehensible.
 There are laws that govern the real world.There are laws that govern the real world.
 Those laws are knowable and comprehensible.Those laws are knowable and comprehensible.
 Those laws don't [radically] change accordingThose laws don't [radically] change according
to place or time, since the early stages of theto place or time, since the early stages of the
big bangbig bang..

Assumptions of ScienceAssumptions of Science
 Nature is understandableNature is understandable
 The rules of logic are validThe rules of logic are valid
 Language is adequate to describe the natural realmLanguage is adequate to describe the natural realm
 Human senses are reliable.Human senses are reliable.
 Mathematical rules are descriptive for the physicalMathematical rules are descriptive for the physical
worldworld

Basic Assumptions of ScienceBasic Assumptions of Science
 Assumptions are accepted without proofAssumptions are accepted without proof
 Form the basis of all scientific thinkingForm the basis of all scientific thinking
 In other words, the basic assumptions of science areIn other words, the basic assumptions of science are
accepted on faith. Interesting.accepted on faith. Interesting.

Limitations of ScienceLimitations of Science
 Science can't answer questions about value. ForScience can't answer questions about value. For
example, there is no scientific answer to theexample, there is no scientific answer to the
questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" orquestions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or
"which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?""which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?"
And of course, there's the more obvious example,And of course, there's the more obvious example,
"Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one"Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one
ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on theounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the
element gold, but if what you need is something toelement gold, but if what you need is something to
build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, isbuild a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is
pretty useless. So there's no way to scientificallypretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically
determine valuedetermine value..

 Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem ofScience can't answer questions of morality. The problem of
deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside thedeciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the
determination of science. This is why expert scientificdetermination of science. This is why expert scientific
witnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion: allwitnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion: all
a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops;a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops;
the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate thosethe question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those
events is determined by cultural and social rules--in otherevents is determined by cultural and social rules--in other
words, morality. The science can't help here.words, morality. The science can't help here.


 Science can't help us with questions about theScience can't help us with questions about the
supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above."supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above."
So supernatural means "above (or beyond) theSo supernatural means "above (or beyond) the
natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains onlynatural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only
the natural laws of the universe; supernaturalthe natural laws of the universe; supernatural
questions are outside their reach.questions are outside their reach.

 A statement a scientist should not make (if he or she is wellA statement a scientist should not make (if he or she is well
trained and is not manipulating you):trained and is not manipulating you):
 Evolution is true.Evolution is true.
 The Big Bang happened.The Big Bang happened.
 Better statements:Better statements:
 The theory of evolution is by far the best model we have toThe theory of evolution is by far the best model we have to
explain both the fossil evidence and the genetic evidence withexplain both the fossil evidence and the genetic evidence with
regard to the origin of all species.regard to the origin of all species.
 The Big Bang model is in dramatic agreement will all knownThe Big Bang model is in dramatic agreement will all known
facts about the origin and history of the universe.facts about the origin and history of the universe.
 Science seeks consistency, not “truth.” What is the simplestScience seeks consistency, not “truth.” What is the simplest
and most consistent explanation of the observation.and most consistent explanation of the observation.

 Religion and science ask different kinds ofReligion and science ask different kinds of
questions and define words differentlyquestions and define words differently
 Religion and science appear as if they wereReligion and science appear as if they were
twotwo incommensurateincommensurate paradigms addressing theparadigms addressing the
identical information arenaidentical information arena

 Questions science asks and attempts to answer:Questions science asks and attempts to answer:
 When, where, how many, why (by what means)When, where, how many, why (by what means)
 How does a living thing function?How does a living thing function?
 What are the fundamental forces?What are the fundamental forces?
 Question religion asks and attempts to answer:Question religion asks and attempts to answer:
 Why am I here?Why am I here?
 Is that the right thing to do?Is that the right thing to do?
 How valuable am I?How valuable am I?
 Does God exist? Does God act (theism)?Does God exist? Does God act (theism)?
 Will that God respond if I pray?Will that God respond if I pray?
 Questions both ask (but by different means)Questions both ask (but by different means)
 How and when did life originate?How and when did life originate?
 How and whendid the universe originate?How and whendid the universe originate?

 Religion offers certaintyReligion offers certainty
 Science is tentativeScience is tentative
Should I take vitamins? What’s the best birthing method?Should I take vitamins? What’s the best birthing method?
Is the Pritikan diet the best or is a vegan diet better?Is the Pritikan diet the best or is a vegan diet better?
 Though science is tentative; it is also efficacious andThough science is tentative; it is also efficacious and
progressiveprogressive

Unanswered questions which seem toUnanswered questions which seem to
relate to sciencerelate to science
 Consciousness (what is consciousness and why are weConsciousness (what is consciousness and why are we
conscious?)conscious?)
 Origins of lifeOrigins of life
 Origin of the universe. Why is there anything (as opposedOrigin of the universe. Why is there anything (as opposed
to nothing)to nothing)

Why is the universe comprehensibleWhy is the universe comprehensible
to humans?to humans?
 Torrance finds the universe'sTorrance finds the universe's
comprehensibility astonishing: “the fact that itcomprehensibility astonishing: “the fact that it
[the universe] is comprehensible at all to us is[the universe] is comprehensible at all to us is
a miracle, indeed the most incomprehensiblea miracle, indeed the most incomprehensible
thing about it.” Torrance,thing about it.” Torrance, Reality andReality and
Scientific Theology,Scientific Theology, 53.53.

Unsolved Problem- LifeUnsolved Problem- Life
 For nearly 50 years since the Miller and UreyFor nearly 50 years since the Miller and Urey
experiment which synthesized amino acids andexperiment which synthesized amino acids and
nucleoside in vitro the hope for the artificialnucleoside in vitro the hope for the artificial
creation of life appears ever more distant thancreation of life appears ever more distant than
ever.ever.

KnowledgeKnowledge
 Are there question asked by art or religion?Are there question asked by art or religion?
 Are those question understood by Science?Are those question understood by Science?
 Can science answer the questions asked byCan science answer the questions asked by
painting or religion?painting or religion?
 Can science decide which painting or whichCan science decide which painting or which
musical score is great and which is dross?musical score is great and which is dross?

KnowledgeKnowledge
 Knowledge is a relationship between ideas about observations.Knowledge is a relationship between ideas about observations.
 Are there other ways of knowing in addition to the ways ofAre there other ways of knowing in addition to the ways of
Science?Science?
 Are painting, dance, music, religion other ways of knowing?Are painting, dance, music, religion other ways of knowing?

ScientismScientism
 Scientism is the acceptance of scientific theoryScientism is the acceptance of scientific theory
and scientific methods as applicable in alland scientific methods as applicable in all
fields of inquiry about the world, includingfields of inquiry about the world, including
morality, ethics, art, and religionmorality, ethics, art, and religion

MaterialismMaterialism
 ““We exist as material beings in a materialWe exist as material beings in a material
world, all of whose phenomena are theworld, all of whose phenomena are the
consequences of material relations amongconsequences of material relations among
material entities." In a word, the public needsmaterial entities." In a word, the public needs
to accept materialism, which means that theyto accept materialism, which means that they
must put God in the trash can of history wheremust put God in the trash can of history where
such myths belong.”such myths belong.”
Richard LewontinRichard Lewontin
Retrospective essay on Carl Sagan in the January 9, 1997Retrospective essay on Carl Sagan in the January 9, 1997 New York Review ofNew York Review of
BooksBooks,,

Scientific MaterialismScientific Materialism
 Scientific Materialism accepts only one reality: theScientific Materialism accepts only one reality: the
physical universe, composed as it is of matter andphysical universe, composed as it is of matter and
energy. Everything that is not physical,energy. Everything that is not physical,
measurable, or deducible from scientificmeasurable, or deducible from scientific
observations, is considered unreal.observations, is considered unreal. LifeLife isis
explained in purely mechanical terms, andexplained in purely mechanical terms, and
phenomena such as Mind and Consciousness arephenomena such as Mind and Consciousness are
considered nothing but epiphenomena - curiousconsidered nothing but epiphenomena - curious
by-products, of certain complex physicalby-products, of certain complex physical
processes (such as brain metabolismprocesses (such as brain metabolism))

 There is noThere is no GodGod,,
 No angelsNo angels
 No DevilNo Devil
 No goodNo good
 No evilNo evil
 No survival of physical death,No survival of physical death,
 No non-physical realities, andNo non-physical realities, and
 No ultimate meaning or purpose to lifeNo ultimate meaning or purpose to life
 No HeavenNo Heaven
 No afterlifeNo afterlife

 Only that which can be observed andOnly that which can be observed and
measured through the technique ofmeasured through the technique of ScientificScientific
MethodMethod is real, and everything else is unreal.is real, and everything else is unreal.

The Religiousness of ScienceThe Religiousness of Science
 ““You will hardly find one among theYou will hardly find one among the
profounder sort of scientific mindsprofounder sort of scientific minds
without a peculiar religious feeling ofwithout a peculiar religious feeling of
his own. But it is different from thehis own. But it is different from the
religion of the naive man. For thereligion of the naive man. For the
latter God is a being from whose carelatter God is a being from whose care
one hopes to benefit and whoseone hopes to benefit and whose
punishment one fears; a sublimationpunishment one fears; a sublimation
of a feeling similar to that of a childof a feeling similar to that of a child
for its father, a being to whom onefor its father, a being to whom one
stands to some extent in a personalstands to some extent in a personal
relation, however deeply it may berelation, however deeply it may be
tinged with awe. But the scientist istinged with awe. But the scientist is
possessed by the sense of universalpossessed by the sense of universal
causation.”causation.”

Einstein's FaithEinstein's Faith
 'Science without religion is lame, religion without'Science without religion is lame, religion without
science is blind.' So Einstein once wrote to explain hisscience is blind.' So Einstein once wrote to explain his
personal creed: 'A religious person is devout in the sensepersonal creed: 'A religious person is devout in the sense
that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-
personal objects and goals which neither require nor arepersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are
capable of rational foundation.'capable of rational foundation.'
 His was not a life of prayer and worship. Yet he lived byHis was not a life of prayer and worship. Yet he lived by
a deep faith--a faith not capabIe of rational foundation--a deep faith--a faith not capabIe of rational foundation--
that there are laws of Nature to be discovered. Histhat there are laws of Nature to be discovered. His
lifelong pursuit was to discover them. His realism andlifelong pursuit was to discover them. His realism and
his optimism are illuminated by his remark: 'Subtle is thehis optimism are illuminated by his remark: 'Subtle is the
Lord, but malicious He is not' (Lord, but malicious He is not' ('Raffiniert ist der'Raffiniert ist der
Herrgott aber boshaft ist er nicht.'.'Herrgott aber boshaft ist er nicht.'.'). When asked by a). When asked by a
colleague what he meant by that, he replied: 'Naturecolleague what he meant by that, he replied: 'Nature
hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but nothides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not
by means of ruse' (by means of ruse' ('Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis'Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis
durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durchdurch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch
List.'List.').).

Antony Flew ConsidersAntony Flew Considers
God...Sort OfGod...Sort Of
 Flew is increasingly persuaded thatFlew is increasingly persuaded that
some sort of Deity brought about thissome sort of Deity brought about this
universe, though it does not intervene inuniverse, though it does not intervene in
human affairs, nor does it provide anyhuman affairs, nor does it provide any
postmortem salvation. He says he has inpostmortem salvation. He says he has in
mind something like the God ofmind something like the God of
Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "primeAristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime
mover." It might not even be conscious,mover." It might not even be conscious,
but a mere force. In formal terms, hebut a mere force. In formal terms, he
regards the existence of this minimalregards the existence of this minimal
God as a hypothesis that, at present, isGod as a hypothesis that, at present, is
perhaps the best explanation for why aperhaps the best explanation for why a
universe exists that can produceuniverse exists that can produce
complex lifecomplex life

Chaos vs Cosmos
God vs the “gods”
The History of Science and Religion

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274 )Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274 )

Roger BaconRoger Bacon
Bacon’s advice:
To study Natural Philosophy,
use;
“External experience,
aided by instruments, and made
precise by mathematics.”

William of OckhamWilliam of Ockham
His philosophy of science:
“Nothing is assumed
as evident unless it is known
per se or is evident by
experience, or is proved by
authority of scripture.”

Nikolai Copernicus
“True assumptions
must save the
appearances.”

Galileo Galilei
“The Bible was written to
tell us how to go to heaven,
not how the heavens go”
“In discussions of physical
problems we ought to begin
not from the authority of
scriptural passages, but from
the sense-experiences and
necessary demonstrations.”

Sir Isaac
Newton
The
Mechanical
Universe

Voltaire
Creator of
Modern
Religious
Skepticism
The Enlightenment: The rise of Deism andThe Enlightenment: The rise of Deism and
skepticismskepticism

David Hume
Says the skeptic:
“Extraordinary
claims require
extraordinary
proof.”

Statue of Joseph Priestley
Founder of the Unitarian Church

LaPlace
About God:
“I have no
need of that
hypothesis”

Hutton Lyell
How Old is the Earth?

How Old isHow Old is
the Earth?the Earth?
 James Hutton, 1795 Uniformitarianism “No vestige of aJames Hutton, 1795 Uniformitarianism “No vestige of a
beginning, no concept of an end.”beginning, no concept of an end.”

Charles Darwin
“It is mere rubbish
to think at this
point of the origin
of life. One might
as well think of the
origin of matter.”

The Conservative Christian ReactionThe Conservative Christian Reaction
Scopes “monkey trial” 1925Scopes “monkey trial” 1925
Clarence Darrow and
William Jennings
Bryan

1940’s and
afterward:
Creationism
Bad Science!

Intelligent Design: An Improvement?Intelligent Design: An Improvement?
 Irreducible Complexity Does this “disproveIrreducible Complexity Does this “disprove
evolution?”evolution?”
 The Anthropic PrincipleThe Anthropic Principle
 A possible explanation for “why” the laws of theA possible explanation for “why” the laws of the
universe are what they are.universe are what they are.
 The laws of the universe are what they are so thatThe laws of the universe are what they are so that
we (ie human beings) can exist.we (ie human beings) can exist.

Can Science and Religion peacefully coexist?Can Science and Religion peacefully coexist?
 The Language ofThe Language of
GodGod

Reasons Collins believes in GodReasons Collins believes in God
1. There is something instead of nothing.1. There is something instead of nothing.
2. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.2. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.
3. The Big Bang.3. The Big Bang.
4. Nature does not solve the problem of why.4. Nature does not solve the problem of why.
5. The existence of time.5. The existence of time.
6. Fine tuning of the universe. The “Goldilocks6. Fine tuning of the universe. The “Goldilocks
Paradox.”Paradox.”
7. Ockham’s Razor.7. Ockham’s Razor.
8. The existence of moral law.8. The existence of moral law.

Science and Religion: A Power Point

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Science and Religion: A Power Point

Similar to Science and Religion: A Power Point (20)

More from evidenceforchristianity

More from evidenceforchristianity (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Science and Religion: A Power Point