You are here: Home » Relationships » Science & Religion: Reconcilable vs. Irreconcilable

Science & Religion: Reconcilable vs. Irreconcilable

The big controversy between science and religion.

Science and religion are truly irreconcilable because they have completely different ways to look at the world, and it is impossible for these different views of the universe to achieve balance, because they oppose in almost every aspect. Take as an example the 17th century controversy generated by the heliocentric theory contradicting the geocentric theory. This is a great example of how science and religion can’t reconcile. Or look at a more resent controversy, in the 21st century, generated by evolutionary theory contradicting creationist beliefs. Science and religion have never reached an agreement and they never will.

A very big controversy created by science and religion clashing was the 17th century controversy generated by the heliocentric theory contradicting the geocentric theory. According to the Galileo Reading Packet: “Because he had explicitly supported the Copernican system in his book, Galileo was called to stand trial before the Roman Inquisition in 1633” (Page 8). The geocentric theory stated that the earth was the center of the universe and was supported by the church because this theory was supported by the bible. The heliocentric theory stated that the sun was the center of the universe and the church rejected this theory because it contradicted the bible. According to the bible, “Tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.” (1 Chronicles 16:30). This fragment of the bible obviously contradicts the heliocentric theory. Galileo Galilei, one of the first scientist of the scientific revolution, a period in the 17th century in which people stopped looking for knowledge in writings o Greek philosophers and started using logic, mathematics and experimentation to describe the workings of nature. According to New World Ancient Texts by Anthony Grafton: “By the early seventeenth century (1600’s), knowledge had burst the bounds of the library. It now seemed as large and varied as the world itself. Knowledge now resided in astronomers’ reports of telescopic observations, philosophers’ reports on their meditations, sailors’ reports of voyages, and doctors’ reports of anatomies”(Page 2) Galileo thought that the geocentric theory was wrong and was determined to prove the heliocentric theory right. He invented the telescope and observed the skies and determined the heliocentric theory was correct. Then Galileo published his finding and the church accused him of hierarchy and he was imprisoned because his view of the universe was different. This is another example of how science and religion can’t reconcile.

1
Liked it
User Comments
  1. Ben

    On August 23, 2009 at 5:40 pm


    There is no need for conflict between science and religion
    as there is an interesting scientific hypothesis, which embraces not only a sensible explanation for the ‘good measure ‘ intent behind all the world’s religions, but a logical explanation for what is the real agenda behind the appearance of the Ufos over the millennia, especially since 1945. We it would appear are on our own for the time being, but we are not alone. If this is science fiction, then within the context of the hypothesis, so are the dangers of nuclear war and over population, environmental degradation and for that matter ufos. Here we can respect the past without living in it. Buddhism without the mysticism is nearest the truth.That said , the Bible contains the scientific framework, albeit somewhat compressed and the key to our humanity’s history and the current ufo debate.
    Where is the evidence, one might ask? It is all around us, in all the world’s religions ,there are traces of evidence, in what our science is now capable of, particularly in genetics,in the scientifically predictable condition of our humanity today,with a population heading for 7 billion in 2011, the environment and last but not least the appearance of the ufos. This hypothesis is against a backdrop, of the planet being very ancient, upon which there have been millions of humanities that have disappeared for the self-evident reasons we can see today, not least being nuclear war.
    Instead of progression of design, evidenced by the theory of Evolution,presumed to be nature, we have progression of design by advanced science.Rather like putting the theory of evolution in a ‘ microwave’, much quicker than nature, though relatively long in terms of history.Our scientists will shortly be able to artificially create life. ( See Craig Venner Genesis II)They will in the course of time create more and more complex creatures, and should we our race survive we will eventually create ‘man in our own image’. Then the buckle will be closed and our scientists will become like those our ancestors mistook for gods. This hypothesis is about the demystification of the old understandings and the spiritualization of science.

    Let us hope the ‘penny drop’ in the scientific community and this hypothesis enters the debating arena re our origins, before the bombs drop and not after. This hypothesis is about scientific predictability, repeatability and above all an inclusive relevance to a lot of issues in the same framework

  2. EBrown

    On December 19, 2009 at 7:43 am


    I agree that science and religion are two vastly different approaches; however, you should read Newton’s Principia Mathematica. An English copy is available in the Stephen Hawking collection. You’ll find the end of Newton’s work quite interesting!

    Please visit my profile page. I just published an essay on life beyond earth, one of the major science questions of our day.

  3. FTW

    On April 26, 2010 at 7:58 pm


    lol hierarchy

Post Comment
Powered by Powered by Triond