In his article "How much reason do you want?"* published in Nature News, Philip Ball argues that science and religion do coexist in the world, and that simply recognizing that there is a controversy between the two, but not constantly making it an issue, can result in more successful research and discovery. He explains that religious people feel that some science theories challenge or undermine their religious beliefs, while scientists who are not religious look at religion as just another theory that cannot be proven. Therefore, he sees no need for religious beliefs to interfere with science. Ball sees the controversy as an “empty argument” and suggests that debaters just accept that there will always be a conflict and move on. He expresses how the feud comes out of human nature and its tendency to disagree on all that exists. His deepest wish is to put all the petty arguing aside and get back to the "wonders of the science bench."
Dan Cray sets up a debate between Richard Dawkins, an atheist professor at Oxford University, and Francis Collins, a Christian genome scientist in his article "God vs. Science " published in Time magazine. The conclusion of the debate, and Cray’s claim, is that science and religion will never coexist because of the pure stubbornness of scientists and theologians. They are not able to accept any other opinion besides their own. In reality, both science and religion are a set of theories. Cray introduces that both are subjective and cannot be proven, which is why the debate between science and religion will be never-ending.
Ball supports his thesis by providing examples of debates about science and religion in the last past and within recent years. With these examples, he proves that there will never be an agreement between science and religion. Ball feels that the controversy is not so much as one cannot practice both science and religion, but that the scientific ideas that challenge religious ones are being rejected. The study of science is a set of theories, and scientists work to challenge those theories every day. Ball believes that if all scientists view religion as merely another theory, then there should be no further debate between the two.
Cray defends his thesis by conducting his own debate between science and religion. He asks two main questions: “Can Darwinian evolution withstand the criticisms of Christians who believe that it contradicts the creation account in the Book of Genesis?” and, “Can religion stand up to the progress of science?” The debate concerning these two questions between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins proves how science and religion will never coexist. Dawkins' main argument is that religion is a scientific question, and in his perspective, no “higher power” exists. Collins argument is the exact opposite, claiming that God’s existence cannot be proven by science, and that religion is mainly based on faith. The debate concludes that there are simply too many opposing opinions for science and religion to coexist.
Personally, I feel that Cray’s argument is stronger and better supported. Although he gives little of his own ideas and opinions, he presents a debate that lets the reader experience first-hand how controversial the debate between science and religion are. The debate between Dawkins and Collins offers a broader span of examples to prove Cray’s thesis. Ball does introduce the controversy and offer a solution, but he does not provide evidence of how his solution will work. Also, his suggest undermines the right of people to have their own opinions. If religious people want to be non-accepting about scientific theories that are against their beliefs, than they definitely have the right to. It is true that progress in science could suffer, but they should not feel obligated to test hypotheses that they believe to be false, according to their religion. The same concept applies to those scientists who are not religious. If they want to test a theory that makes no sense “religiously,” then they should also have the right to do so. Cray’s argument that science and religion will never coexist is most believable because of, ironically, human nature. Ball blames the controversy on human nature and he is exactly right! He is only wrong about the fact that scientist should resist human nature and compromise on such a serious issue. We should always stay true to our beliefs, and if science and religion are always going to be at war, so be it!
*Subscription may be required for Nature to view complete article.
Article published May 14, 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment