Exploring the Conflict: Belief in Science versus Faith in Religion

This essay delves into the complex and often contentious relationship between science and religion, particularly in the American context. It explores the fundamental differences in their approaches to knowledge, arguing that their claims to the same metaphysical space lead to unavoidable confrontations. The essay presents arguments on both sides, discussing how science intervenes in processes traditionally attributed to God, challenges religious explanations of Earth's formation, and provides a framework for understanding evolution. It contrasts scientific explanations with religious beliefs, highlighting the historical and philosophical tensions between the two. The essay also touches upon the evolution of morality, the role of scientific methods, and the historical interplay between religious institutions and scientific advancements. The author concludes by emphasizing the unique identity of science and its importance in addressing contemporary issues, such as climate change and public health, while acknowledging the historical contributions of various cultures to the scientific method.

Running head: Science
Belief in Science vs. Faith in Religion
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1Title
Introduction
The massive conflict amongst science and religion in America seems to be a broadly
recognized belief. Science and religion are often presumed to be two non-conflicting
structures of knowledge, equally important and valid complementary roads to an ultimate
knowledge of the world and our position in it. There is an unnecessary enthusiasm and
confusion on the two sides to compensate for the disputes of the past. Coexisting peacefully
and even a measure of syncretism can be believed to be acceptable as long as each one admits
to thieir authority: that of matter and reality for science and that of spirit and religious values.
While many may find this conciliatory view as open-minded, humble and relaxed, however it
stands ridiculous. In their slightest whim of thought science and religion are completely
contradictory. Because the two worldviews claim the same metaphysical space, the nature
and interaction between the cosmos and the human race, and so, confrontation is inescapable
(Ruse, 2015).
In philosophy and theology the connection between religion and science is the topic of
ongoing debate. To what extent are they consistent with religion and science. Often religious
beliefs are favorable to science, or ultimately they pose barriers to scientific study.
Argument 1: Science can intervene God made processes.
It states that science has been no matter in equivalence to the unknown faith of religions as it
proved by intervening the process of birth. Here science has proven to be the barrier between
the bonds of two soul. Production of certain non-living factors by the scientific processes
such as use of clinical barriers to birth (i.e is use of copper Tand Cervical caps)had proved to
be the barrier towards the heavenly processes. Moreover, science has proved that it can also
take steps to stop the growth of newborn in its midway. Though it is considered as a curse but

2Title
the use of science has shown that the process of abortion can restrict the process of growth as
well.
On the other hand, science has proven to produce the life form which is considered to be done
by the resources by the god only (O’Brien, & Noy., 2015). These are the formation of living
organisms that had never been created by the god. Such organisms include: tigon, liger,
pomato tree, bonsai and many other organisms. The science with its growing randomness and
strike of providing knowledge feels that the production of organisms can now take any track
to produce humans as well. The trial had already been done but the survival of the organism
failed. Moreover, the trial of producing a whole new clone had been possible by producing
the Doly as the first living organism. The science had gone so vast even they had been able to
provide the potential to those organisms as well, those who cannot reproduce. The
introduction of in-vitro and in-vivo culture, sets some brilliant examples where science had
proved to intervene the gifts by the supernatural power.
The illusion of self-control persists as it shows the next generation to be existing on earth.
Which shows that at certain points even when the growth in population is devastating the
economy of a country, the population still keeps on increasing and that too among the literate
population who knows the situation can be worse with the uncontrolled rise in population
(O’Brien, & Noy. 2015).
Argument 2: Religious beliefs couldn’t explain the viability or the formation of EARTH.
Scientific arguments have shown immense observations and took hypothesis into
consideration which can even fail to predict the structure of the earth we live in as well as the
role of organism living (Falade, & Bauer., 2018). The net outcome of research has been that
God has increasingly moved to the fringe since the seventeenth century. The assault of
sciences on the lands of faith happened in specific ways: the first is that the biblical narratives

3Title
was disputed and substituted by scientific results— particularly from Geology and theory of
evolution. Although the theology of development provides no information on creative mode
and pacing, the Bible was deemed credible. Furthermore, the evolving theory of universal law
seems to leave little room for extraordinary supernatural intervention in physics of the 17th
and 18th centuries. Such obstacles and the remedies proposed in today's science and religious
literature have been addressed. However, religion has no such mechanisms of describing the
hidden truth or nor such they hold any records. On the other hand, science has proved to
answer the questions of the hidden structure from the time when science started developing
(Falade, & Bauer., 2018).
However, faith in religion stands when they call the religious leaders they worship to be the
greatest scientists of all time to make it possible for the existence of earth (Falade, & Bauer.,
2018). Moreover, Wilkins and Griffiths (2013) suggest that sometimes the epistemological
assumption can be avoided: evolutionary processes follow the facts, for example, in the
context of common-sense convictions and, by extension, scientific belief. Nevertheless, they
argue that this step may not work for moral and ethical beliefs, because it will be claimed that
such views are not the product of cognitive processes which monitor reality. As the
philosophy of evolution predicts, human self interest will always be placed above moral
obligations. Therefore, theism provides a clearer explanation as to why we believe that we
need to conform with religious obligations. Interestingly, in the area of evolutionary morality,
theologians and scientists have started to work together. Science and religion are complex
social and cultural efforts that have changed over the years and vary throughout cultures. The
communities organized by religious traditions were the ones that made most scientific (and
technical) innovation before the scientific revolution (van Eyghen, H., 2016).
Argument 3: Religion fails to explain the Evolution while Science does.

4Title
Science gave the theory for the origin of life on the earth. Whereas the religion describes two
creatures came from heaven and we all are kids of them. The hevenly processes never
believed on the molecular basis of life. In addition, the view arises, that what if the existence
would not have been possible on earth. The description state if all are the kids of two parents,
then all should be sharing same community, same language, common beliefs and even same
god. When the concept of god arises the change of perception of common parents and their
names changes as well. So, it states that based on different religions the supernatural power
have selected their specified life forms in the nature to produce further life on the earth.
Based on those life forms is the only process the religions have existed on earth. However,
such beliefs share a huge past but fails to describe the evolutionary mechanisms of life. There
are still many obstacles to the biblical exegesis of imaginative myths. These texts are to be
interpreted historically, metaphorically or poetically and what else can we do about the
difference between such accounts in order of existence (Harris 2014).
The Bible was used to date at the beginning of its fundamental at 4004 BCE by Archbishop
James Ussher, Anglican (1581 –1656). Though such literal interpretations of the Biblical
creation myths were not uncommon, and still used by young earth creationists today,
theologians provided alternate non-literal biblical sources prior to Ussher. Since the 16th
century the Christian creative principle was subjected to geological pressures, with results
suggesting that the earth was substantially older than 4004 BCE. From the 18th century
onward, natural philosophers such as de Maillet, Lamarck, Chambers, and Darwin developed
ideas of transmutation (now termed evolutionary) inconsistent with the scriptural
interpretations of the actual existence of organisms. Since Darwin's Origin of Species (1859)
has been published, a constant debate has been held on how the concept of life can be
interpreted in terms of theory of evolution.

5Title
Moreover, scientific facts conclude themselves with theories of practical experiments which
can be reimposed on another to review. Over doing so, science gave proof towards the
molecular basis of life and origin of life and also described the transformation and habits of
life forms living in different areas by inhabiting their own culture. Moreover, science had
been able to contribute the theories on evolution. The theories have been proved valid as the
archeologists have discovered certain fossils, which defined the linkages among the changed
life forms with the tenure. Prior to his natural selection concept, Darwin's victorian authors
were even concerned about the consequences for morality and religion of the theory of
evolution. The geologist worried that if the transmutationist theory of The Vestiges of
Creation (Chambers 1844) were true, it would imply that “religion is a lie; human law is
a mass of folly, and a base injustice; morality is moonshine”. Darwin (1871) evolutionary
theorists subsequently argued that human morals are continuous with non-human animals '
social behaviours, and that moral sentiments can be explained in natural selection.
However, at certain points when science fails, it does get concerned about heavenly bodies in
existence as they might not have proof but the existence of such events may be noted in the
form of volumes of their religious books. The description of certain places has shown to exist
in the real world, which had denied scientific laws which might be a sign that certain power
exist above science.
Conclusion
Yet research as an organization is distinct from scientists. Science creates conditions in which
logical arguments can prosper, theories can be evaluated with the world and people can work
with each other to overcome their personal limitations. Science is not only one of many' faith
communities.' The epistemological lines have been won. We should also acknowledge its
unique identity when the stakes are high, as they are with climate change and immunisations.

6Title
Former pagan, Muslim, and Christian scholars have popularized the scientific method in
particular. Roger Bacon, a Franciscan friar, was often certified to formalize the technical
way. Historically Hinduism has taken to rationality and empiricism in that research offers the
earth and cosmos true yet imperfect knowledge. Either religious or non-religious in nature,
Confucian philosophy has over time taken on different views of research. Many Buddhists of
the 21st century view research as a compliment to their principles.
Although ancient Indians and Romans categorized the physical world as air, land, fire and
water, and proto-Scientists including Anaxagoras challenged other popular views of Greek
divinities unfaithfully, Middle-Eastern scholars introduced empirical and scientific findings
to identify the material. Things in Europe such as the Galileo case of the first 17th century
related to the scientific revolution and the era of illumination contributed to the postulation (c
1874) of a controversy theory by academics, such as John William Draper, claiming that
religion and science had methodologically, factually or politically clashed across history.
This research is subscribed by some contemporary scientists. Nonetheless, among most
recent academic scholars, the conflict term has lost favor.

7Title
References
Falade, B. (2019). Book review: Stephen H Jones, Tom Kaden and Rebecca Catto (eds),
Science, Belief and Society: International Perspectives on Religion, Non-Religion and
the Public Understanding of Science. Public Understanding Of Science,
096366251989051. doi: 10.1177/0963662519890511
Falade, B., & Bauer, M. (2017). ‘I have faith in science and in God’: Common sense,
cognitive polyphasia and attitudes to science in Nigeria. Public Understanding Of
Science, 27(1), 29-46. doi: 10.1177/0963662517690293
O’Brien, T., & Noy, S. (2015). Traditional, Modern, and Post-Secular Perspectives on
Science and Religion in the United States. American Sociological Review, 80(1), 92-
115. doi: 10.1177/0003122414558919
Ruse, M. (2015). WHY I AM AN ACCOMMODATIONIST AND PROUD OF
IT. Zygon®, 50(2), 361-375. doi: 10.1111/zygo.12174
van Eyghen, H. (2016). TWO TYPES OF “EXPLAINING AWAY” ARGUMENTS IN THE
COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION. Zygon®, 51(4), 966-982. doi:
10.1111/zygo.12307
Harris, M. (2014). The Nature of Creation. doi: 10.4324/9781315729510