Thursday, November 13, 2008

To say the religion and science conflict is an understatement. Each ones stands for what the other dismisses. Religion pushes faith: believing without seeing. Science advocates physical evidence before belief. Some topics bring about more controversy between the two than others. Especially in the matter of less explored practices. Suppose a scientist wanted to prove something wrong that was mutually accepted as true in a religious community. The religious advocates would have, as Galileo puts it, “endeavored to spread the opinion that such propositions in general are contrary to the Bible and are consequently damnable and heretical”(177). It is commonly seen that people damn what they do not understand/believe; A fear of the unknown.

As I was growing up, I went to a catholic school until 8th. Before the time I transferred I can honestly say I was never informed of the theory of evolution. Everything was made in 7 days by God. No questions asked. The teachers seemed to “abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage”(179). I don’t see why it is so hard for them to believe someone could be a Catholic and believe in evolution. Like Galileo points out, even Nicholas Copernicus “was not only a catholic, but a priest and a canon”(178). I think the conflicts are pointless. If something a scientist says doesn’t suite you, then don’t believe in it. People can fight and butt heads all they want, but most scientists aren’t set out to shatter someone’s religious beliefs. They just want to find answers to their questions, just like someone of faith can find answers in God.

No comments: