Atheism vs religion

1
ATHEISM: RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE

2
THESIS STATEMENT
The claim of the research project is to study and make an attempt to reconcile the
debate between religion and science.
The study primarily focuses on the following points:
 Distinguished features of Religions and perspectives of Atheism.
 Analysis of the Theory of Evolution.
 Analysis of the Big Bang theory.
 Analysis of the Religion Philosophy.
 Monotheists and Agnostic theists (Believers of both).
 Data interpretation.

3
CONTENT
Sr.no. Chapter Title Pg.No.
1. CHAPTER 1 Distinguished Features Of Religions 4.
2. CHAPTER 2 Analysis of the Theory of Evolution 7.
3. CHAPTER 3 Analysis of the Big Bang theory. 9.
4. CHAPTER 4 Analysis of the ReligionPhilosophy. 13.
5. CHAPTER 5 Monotheists and Agnostic theists
(Believers Of Both)
16.
6. CHAPTER 6 Data Interpretation 19.
7. 7. REFERENCES

4
CHAPTER 1
Distinguished Features Of Religions (Major Four)
The major doctrines are:
1. Hinduism:
Hindus believe that there is one true god, the supreme , called
Brahmin. Brahmin has many forms,spread through the whole universe,
and is symbolised bythe sacredsyllable Aum (or Om). Most Hindus
believe that Brahman is present in every person as the eternalspirit,
called the atman (soul).
The most prominent themes in Hindu beliefs include the four :
Purusharthas -object of human pursuit namely:
1) Dharma (ethics/duties)
2) Artha (prosperityor work)
3) Kama (desires/passions)and
4) Moksha (liberation/freedom)
5) Karma (action, intent and consequences)
6) Samsara (cycle of rebirth)
and the various Yogas (paths or practices to attain moksha).
Hindu practices include rituals such as puja (worship) and recitations,
meditation, family-oriented rituals, annual festivals, and occasional
pilgrimages.Some Hindus leave their socialworld and material
possessions,then age in lifelong Sannyasa to achieve Moksha.
Hinduism prescribesthe eternal duties, such as honesty, ahimsa,
patience, forbearance,self-restraint, and compassion,among others.
All these basis of hinduism encourages human to live a life in ideal
,humble and most importantly tolerant way.

5
2. Christianity
Main features are :
1. Belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the
Holy Spirit.
2. The death, descentinto hell, resurrection and ascensionof Christ.
3. The holiness of the Church and the communion of saints.
4. Christ's second coming,the Day of Judgementand salvation of the
faithful.
3. ISLAM
As a virtue, forgiveness is much celebrated in Islam, and is regarded as
an important Muslim practice. About modesty,Muhammad is reported
as saying: ' Every religion has its characteristic, and the characteristic of
Islam is modesty'.
4. Buddhism
1. Buddhism is a set of principles and practices that demonstrably
improve your life.
2. The Four Noble Truths. Life means suffering.
3. The Eightfold Path.
4. Right View (The Four Noble Truths)
5. Right Intention.
6. Right Speech.
7. Right Action (The Precepts)
8. Right Livelihood.

7
CHAPTER 2
Analysis of the Theory of Evolution
Darwin's ideas found their way out of the scientific world and into the
business world and even societyitself. In many senses,Darwin's
theories created a societaltransformation.
For many people of differentreligious beliefs,the theory of evolution by
Charles Darwin does not pose a conflict.However, Christian
fundamentalists, in particular, may portray evolution and religion as in
oppositionto each other. According to a few people,to acceptthe key
tenets of evolutionary thought is to deny their religious beliefs,and this
outlook generates much conflict.This, again, is not helped by some
proponents of evolution, who make derogatorystatements about
religious beliefs and promote evolution as explaining all there is to know
about life. It is factual that western science developedwithin the Church
and its philosophers traditionally had been explaining the wonders of
nature and life through a creator. These theories cannot be tested.
However, our knowledge and inference of the nature and the universe
which we live in, developed throughthe application of scientific methods,
has provided us with a modern and testable explanation for the
fundamental questions about living things, universe, and its working.
There is a very vocal minority of Minnesotans who are passionately
determined to have the theory of "intelligent design" offered as an
alternative to the scientific theory of biologicalevolution. The theory of
intelligent design-- rather an interesting, and for some a compelling
argument -- is not actually a scientific theory. Science has a specific
methodologyand procedure in which it operate.
1. Observations are made.
2. Analysis and relationships between data are described.
3. Theories are proposed.
4. Educated,and many a times, mathematical predictions are made
based on the observations,relationships and explanations.
5. Predictions are tested for their validity, and then the relationships
and their corresponding explanations are verified and/or altered.
Christian fundamentalismdisputes evidences of commonancestry
between humans and other animals as demonstrated by modern
paleontology,genetics,histology, cladistics and other disciplines which

8
are based upon the conclusions of evolutionary cosmology, geology,
biology, and other fields.
The Catholic Church recently has recognized the existence of evolution.
According to Pope Francis: "God is not a demiurge or a magician, but
the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not
inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the
creation of beings that evolve.” Genetic evolutionary inheritance rules
were first discoveredby anAugustinianmonkGregorMendea, a Catholic
priest, who is known today as the founder of modern genetics.
A survey conducted in Gallop shows that, "More than four in 10
Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present
form 15,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three
decades.Half of Americans believe humans evolved,with the majority of
these saying God guided the evolutionary process.However, the
percentage who say God was not involved is rising.”
Today, many religious denominations acceptthat biologicalevolution
has produced the diversity of living things over millions of years of
Earth's history. Also, many have issued statements regarding to their
observation that evolution and their faiths are actually compatible.
Theologians and scientists have written elaborately of their amazement
and wonder at universe’s history and of life on Earth, explaining that they
see no conflict betweentheir faith in God and the evidence for evolution.
Religious denominations that do not acceptthe occurrence of evolution
tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious
texts.

9
CHAPTER 3
Analysis of the Big Bang theory.
Concept of Big Bang theory:
The Big Bang theory is an effortto explain what happened at the very
beginning of our universe. Discoveries in physics and astronomy have
shown that the universe in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment
there was nothing during and after that moment there was something:
our universe. Thus, the big bang theory tries to explain what happened
during and after that moment.
For hundreds of years, humans have gazed at the stars and wondered
how the universe developed into what it is today. It's been the subject of
religious, philosophical,and scientific debate and discussion.People
who have tried to uncover the mysteries of the universe's development
include famous scientists as StephenHawking, Edwin Hubble and Albert
Einstein. Although this theory is famous, it is also widely
misunderstood.A commonmisinterpretation about the theory is that it
describesthe origin of the universe which is not quite right. The big bang
is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very dense
and tiny state into what it is today. It does not attempt to explain what
initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang
or even what lies outside the universe.
“We have tried over and over again to point out to readers that the big
bang theory is not at odds with the Bible nor with the conceptof God as
Creator.” So wrote John N. Clayton, of South Bend, Indiana, in the
September-October,1999 issue of his paper, Does God Exist? A
number of conservative Bible students have tried, “over and over again,”
to get John Clayton to see that it is a serious compromise ofscriptural
truth to give credence to the big bang theory. In this article, we examine

10
this materialistic conceptof the origin of the universe. Basically,
there are two views of the origin of the universe. One of these is
the supernatural position set forth in the book of Genesis (chapters one
and two). The Genesis narrative affirms that God created the heavens
and the earth on the first day of the initial week of Earth’s history.
Subsequently, during the remaining five days of creation activity,
attention was directed to the planet, the abode of man—who was
uniquely fashioned in the image of the Creator (Genesis 1:26, 27). The
sun, moon, and stars were also made (vv. 14ff).The Scriptures make it
perfectlyclear that the whole creation (inorganic and organic) came into
being during this six-day period (see Exodus 20:11).
The second view of the beginning of the universe is wholly
materialistic. Modern “scientism” prefersto grapple with its problems
without appealing to God, although, as science writer Lincoln Barnett
observed,“this seems to becomemore difficultall the time” (1957,22).
Isaac Asimovwrote: “The Bible describes a Universe created by God,
maintained by him, and intimately and constantly directed by him, while
science describes aUniverse in which it is not necessaryto postulate
the existence of God at all” (1981,13). Theories
concerning the mechanistic origin of the universe come and go. Today’s
“science”is tomorrow’s superstition. A few years ago scientists were
touting the steady-state theory as the most reasonable explanation of
the origin of the universe. It asserted that new matter is constantly being
created to replace that which is lost by the expanding universe. “Today
most astronomers regard the steady-state theory as dead” (Weaver
1974,625).
Flaws in the Big Bang Scenario:
There are a number oflogicalproblems with the big bang scheme
of origins:
1. The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered
universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a
“holocaust,” to use Jastrow’s term. Never in the history of human
experience has a chaotic explosionbeen observed producing an
intricate orderthat operates purposefully. An explosionin a print
shop does not produce an encyclopedia.Evolutionist Donald Page
was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet
that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and
then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983,40).

11
2. If the universe started with an explosion,one would expectthat all
matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the
explosioncenter—consistentwith the principle of angular
momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be
characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are
commonlyobserved,e.g., the revolution of our earth around the
sun (cf. Morris 1984,150).
3. For years scientists have beenattempting to measure the
microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe.
It is theorized that this radiation is the leftoverheat from the
original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been
measured,it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does
not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform;
rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and
voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a
correlation between the material compositionof the universe (since
everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation
temperature. But such is not the case.
Over the past few years,news media have made much of the report that
new measurements of Microwave Background Radiation reveal some
variation. The press has hailed this as proof of the big bang.
The facts are:
1. The temperature differential supposedlydetectedwas minute, only
about 30 millionths of a degree celcius,and there are other
possible explanations for this circumstance apart from the
hypothetical bang.
2. Some of the scientists that are involved in the projectquestion
whether the instruments employed for measuring the radiation are
sensitive enough to warrant the conclusions that are being drawn.
3. Others, who claim that additional testing has confirmed their
assertion of temperature “ripples,”confess now that it is “harder
than ever” to explain “how these ripples grew into the starry
structures that fill the universe” (Flam 1993,31).
Even the respectedscience journal Nature suggestedit is a “cause of
some alarm” that the media have characterized this flimsy evidence as
“proof”of the big bang (1992,731).

12
Before the Big Bang
With American physicistJames Hartle, Stephen Hawking later tried to
combine General Relativity with Quantum Theory by proposing the no-
boundary principle, which said that space-time is finite and the laws of
physics determined how the universe began in a self-contained system,
without the need of a prior cause or a creator. “There was
nothing around before the Big, Big Bang,” Hawking told physicist Neil
deGrasse Tysonat the “Star Talk” show aired on National Geographic
Channel. According to StephenHawking, the laws
of time and physics stop functioning inside those tiny particle of heat and
energy. The ordinary real time as we know now shrinks infinitely as the
universe becomes eversmaller but never reaches a definable starting
point. “It was always reaching closerto nothing but didn’t
become nothing,” said Hawking. He drew an analogy between the
distorted time with Ancient Greek philosopherEuclid’s theory of space-
time, a closed surface without end. “One
can regard imaginary and real time beginning at the South Pole. There is
nothing south of the South Pole... There was never a Big Bang that
produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from
mankind’s perspective,”Hawking explained.

13
CHAPTER 4
Analysis of the Religion Philosophy.
Religion, science and philosophyexplore and involve differentaspects of
human life, the originate of our universe and human being. Religion is a
specialform of awareness of the world; the faith in gods or a set of
beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe.
The religious system representing the world (worldview) is based on
faith or mystical experience,and linked with the attitude to the unknown
and intangible entities. The particular importance of religion is presented
by concepts,such as good and evil, morality, ethics, religious laws,
purpose and meaning of life, etc.
Science is a specialkind of experimental activity aimed at obtaining,
refining and productionof pre defined objective,systematic,organized
and well-grounded knowledge about nature, societyand thinking. The
basis of the activity is the collectionof scientific evidence of their
constant updating and systematization, critical analysis, and on this
basis, the synthesis of new scientific knowledge or generalizations,
which not only describethe noticeable natural or social phenomena , but
also allow us to construct cause-effectconnections and to predict.Those
scientific theories and hypotheses,which are assisted by facts or
experience,are formulated as laws of nature or society.
As to the philosophy,it is a discipline that studies the most common
essential characteristics and fundamental principles of reality and
cognition, human existence, relations between man and the world.
Philosophy is generally describedas a theory or a science,a form of
ideology,a kind of human activity, a specialway of cognition.
In order to be more clearly conceptualize philosophy’s territory, let’s
considerit in relationship to two other powerfulcultural forces with which
it’s intertwined: religion and science. We may roughly
characterize the contrast betweenphilosophy and religion as follows:
philosophyrelieson reason,evidence and experience forits truths;
religiondependson faith, authority grace,and also revelation for truth.
Of course,any philosophicalposition
probably contains some elementof faith, in as much as reasoning rarely
gives conclusive proof;and religious relay frequently contain some
rational support, since few religious persons rely completelyon faith.
The problem of the differentiationbetween the two is made more difficult
by the fact that various philosophies and religions—and philosophers
and religious persons within similar traditions—place dissimilar emphasis
on the role of rational argument.

14
For example, Eastern religions traditionally place less importance on the
role of rational arguments than do Westernreligions, and in the east
philosophyand religion are practically indistinguishable. In addition,
individuals in a given tradition differin the emphasis they place on the
relative importance of reason and faith. So the differencebetween
philosophyand religion is one of emphasis and degree.
Still, we reiterate what we said above: religion is that part of the human
experience whose beliefs and practices rely significantly on faith, grace,
authority, or revelation. Philosophy gives little, if any, place to these
parts of human experience.While religion generally stressesfaith and
trust, philosophyhonors reason and doubt.
Distinguishing philosophy from science is equally difficultbecause many
of the questions vital to philosophers—like the cause and origin of the
universe or a conceptionof human nature—increasingly have been
taken over by cosmologists,astrophysicists,and biologists.Perhaps
methodologybestdistinguishes the two, since philosophy relies on
argument and analysis rather than empirical observationand
experiment. In this way, philosophy resemblestheoretical mathematics
more than the natural sciences.Still, philosophers utilize evidence
derived from the sciences to reformulate their theories.
Rememberalso that, until the nineteenth century, virtually every
prominent philosopherin the history of western civilization was either a
scientist or mathematician. In general, we contend that scienceexplores
areas where a generally acceptable body ofinformation and
methodologydirectsresearchinvolved with unansweredscientific
questions.Philosophersexplore philosophicalquestions withouta
generally acceptable bodyof information.
Philosophicalanalysis also ponders the future relationship between
these domains. Since the seventeenth-century scientific revolution,
science has increasingly expropriated territory once the exclusive
province of both philosophy and religion.
Will the relentless march of science continue to fill the gaps in human
knowledge, leaving less room for the poetic, the mystical, the religious,
and the philosophical? Will religion and philosophy be archaic,
antiquated, obsolete,and outdated? Or will there always be questions of
meaning and purposes that can never be grasped by science?
Bertrand Russell(1872-1970),one of the twentieth-century’s greatest
philosophers,elucidated the relationship between these three domains
like this: “All definite knowledge … belongs to science;all dogmaas to
what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between

15
theology and science there is a no man’s land, exposed to attack from
both sides;this no man’s land is philosophy.”
“Two things fill me with constantly increasing admiration and awe, the
longer and more earnestly I reflecton them: the starry heavens without
and the Moral Law within.” –Immanuel Kant And considerSt. Augustine.
Born in North Africa in 354 A.D. to a pagan father and a Christian
mother, he rejected religion at a young age and instead took up the
study of philosophy.He was schooled inthe works of Plato and the neo-
Platonists, the Stoics, Aristotle and Cicero among others. He was
eventually baptized in 387,eventually becoming a priest and then a
bishop.He wrote prolifically until his death in 430.Out of his own work in
philosophy and religion come four essentialpoints:
1. There is a unity of truth; There is not one truth for philosophy, one for
science and one for religion.
2. The Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature are equally valid. In one
of his sermons,St. Augustine says, “Letthe Bible be a bookfor you so
that you may hear it. Let the sphere of the world be also a bookfor you
so that you may see it.”
3. Both books need careful interpretation. Contradictions come into
picture due to incorrect interpretation. The Book of Nature can be difficult
to interpret. Properunderstanding of the bible is even more difficult.
4. Apprehensionof biblical passages must be informed by the current
state of demonstrable knowledge.

16
CHAPTER 5
Monotheists and Agnostic theists (Believers Of
Both)
WHAT IS MONOTHEISM?
It has been defined as the belief in the existence of only onegod that
created the world, is all-powerful and intervenes in the world. A broader
definition of monotheism is the belief in one god.
The Conceptof Monotheism Since AncientTimes
Monotheism is the natural instinct or we can say program placed into the
human body by God . The message of “Worship God alone” is universal
and was preached and chanted in the form of verses,poems etc by all
messengers from God.With time, the practice of religion frequently
degraded to incorporate polytheistic elements.Yet traces of the original
monotheism can be found in mostof the religions.
To quote from the GayatriMantra in the Yajur Veda:
Let us meditate on God, His glorious attributes,
who is the basis of everything in this universe as its Creator,
who is fit to be worshiped as Omnipresent,Omnipotent, Omniscient
andself existent conscious being,
who removes all ignorance and impurities from the mind and purifies and
sharpens the intellect
What Can We Conclude From It?
It clearly emphasizes on God as the only creator. Declares it to be
omnipresent,ultimate authority governing universe.

17
Agnostic Theists
WHAT IS AGNOSTIC THEISM?
Agnostic theism and also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical
view that encompassesboth theism and agnosticism.An agnostic theist
hopes in the existence of God,but regards the basis of this proposition
as unknown or inherently unknowable.
And what according to recent studies show that in India most of the
youth of the age group believe in both science and God.This because of
the religions (diversity) being the backbone of the country and along with
it the progress inscientific fields over the last 2-3 decades.
Types Of Agnostics
1. Strong Agnosticism:
This is the view (also called hard agnosticism,closed agnosticism,strict
agnosticism,absolute agnosticism or epistemologicalagnosticism)that
the question of the existence or non-existence of God or gods is
unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience
with anything but another subjective experience.
2. Mild Agnosticism:
This is the view (also called weak agnosticism,soft agnosticism,open
agnosticism,empirical agnosticism,or temporal agnosticism)that the
existence or non-existence of God or gods is currently unknown but is
not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until
more evidence becomes available.
3. Pragmatic Agnosticism:
This is the view that there is no proof of either the existence or non-
existence of God or gods.
4. Apathetic Agnosticism:

18
This is the view that there is no proof of either the existence or non-
existence of God or gods,but since any God or gods that may exist
appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the
question is largely academic anyway.
5. Agnostic Theism:
This is the view (also called religious agnosticism)of those who do not
claim to know of the existence of God or gods,but still believe in such an
existence.
6. Agnostic Atheism:
This is the view of those who claim not to know of the existence or non-
existence of God or gods,but do not believe in them.
7. Ignosticism:
This is the view that a coherent definition of "God" must be put forward
before the question of the existence or non-existence of God can even
be meaningfully discussed.If the chosen definitionis not coherent, the
ignostic holds the Non-Cognitivist view that the existence of God is
meaningless or empirically untestable, Theodore Drange and other
philosophers see bothatheism and agnosticism as incompatible with
gnosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept"God
exists" as a meaningful propositionwhich can be argued for or against.
What To Take From All This?
After going through all this types of Atheism and Theism,it might be
clear that both atheism (science)and theism are correct. Hence it
completelydependson what and how we think which decides us to help
whether we want to be a atheist , theist or one respectboth and accept
both of the views equally. So it’s finally in our hands.

19
CHAPTER 6
Data Interpretation
Interesting response : Believing in science gives to method of how to live, but religion
tells us why to live.
DATA INTERPRETATION

21
Your Religion
Islam
Hindu
Christian
Buddhist
Other

26
REFERENCES
https://www.quora.com/in/What-are-the-defining-characteristics-of-being-Buddhist
www.pewforum.org/2015
www.philosophybasics.com
https://dailyhistory.org/How_did_Monotheism_Develop
https://en.m.wikipedia.org›wiki ›
www.postscriptproductions.net›the-big-...
Problemswiththe BigBang Theory| HowStuffWorks
https://science.howstuffworks.com›...
Hinduwebsite.com
Christianitytoday.com
Britannica.com
I
slamweb.net
Buddhanet.net
Wikipedia.org
age-of-the-sage.org
Pinterest.com
Beliefnet.com
Huffpost.com
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_1_OVERVIE
W/Philosophy_of_Religion.htm
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu

Atheism vs religion

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Atheism vs religion

Similar to Atheism vs religion (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Atheism vs religion