Relationship between religion and science Essay Example

support for human advancements in technology. According to their beliefs, Hinduism provides ample room and flexibility to adapt oneself and religious teachings to meet the needs and aspirations of the contemporary world. In essence, Hinduism can accommodate both science and religion in different domains.

Hinduism stands out from other religions in its adaptability and impartiality. It reinforces its beliefs by employing modern instances to elucidate ancient theories. A case in point is when Hindu scholars utilize the language of quantum physics to portray fundamental principles of their faith, like the impermanent nature of human existence.

During the Medieval Period, scholars from Islam, Judaism, and Christianity aimed to merge philosophy, religion, and natural sciences. Maimonides, a Jewish philosopher, advocated for the reinterpretation of religious texts to align with scientific knowledge even when they contradict observable facts about the universe. Over time, understanding the universe has become essential in appreciating religious teachings. The efforts made to reconcile science and religion have shown significant progress. In the 19th century, Henry Drummond, a Scottish writer, utilized scientific knowledge to support religious ideas in his articles. However, tension between these fields emerged as humanistic learning expanded in the 1400s.

To regain the authority of the Christian religion over science and philosophy, which had been weakened by the independence of the monasteries, the Christian Church responded to the tension between religious and scholarly certainty. It did so by granting explicit permission to officially correct ideas about the natural world and scripture. Similar changes also took place in other religions. Although this approach may have temporarily stabilized beliefs, it also made scientific and philosophical orthodoxy resistant to revision.

Religiously authorized science emerged from established philosophy, where

theory and observation were overshadowed by dogma. This was particularly evident in Islam, as medieval science became canonized in the religion.

The Muslim world also experienced a decline in scientific progress. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Western world saw the emergence of early modern science during a time of uncertainty that favored certainty over taking risks. In order to challenge this rigid religious mindset and confront the interference of religious doctrine, the skeptical faction of the Enlightenment gained increasing influence in the field of sciences. This trend was particularly prominent in Europe.

Some historians argue that religious fundamentalism emerged as a conservative response to the liberal Enlightenment, while the scientific community has embraced a skeptical approach. The scientific community commonly rejects any interference of religion in scientific practices, particularly in the formulation of theories. Although some scientists use religious metaphors and references in their teachings and writings, there are no set conventions for this, except when influenced by market demands or literary preferences. Fundamentalism tends to favor strict adherence to doctrine in theory, as it is often led by scientific amateurs.

In comparison to their ancestors, fundamentalists are known for being less willing to negotiate or participate in coordination schemes. They tend to distinguish more rigidly between science that aligns with their religious beliefs and religious principles. Nonetheless, like their Enlightenment predecessors, they have the same conviction that religion ultimately aligns with "true" science. Naturally, they prefer cautious empiricism over elaborate theories. This preference is reflected in their approach to scripture and tradition, which is increasingly seen as a basis for both scientific and religious certainty.

The scientific community is openly hostile to fundamentalists, who are

found not only within Islamic movements like Sunni, Shi'a, and Orthodox Jews but also in various other religions. These fundamentalists believe that the scientific community supports scientific materialism and claim that their ancient scriptures have predicted modern scientific discoveries.

Both Muslims and certain Jewish fundamentalists assert that the Qur'an and Torah include knowledge about quantum mechanics and relativity predating their revelation by contemporary scientists. Consequently, numerous individuals have forsaken organized religion as a result of Enlightenment principles advocating for autonomous reasoning. This has led some people to embrace agnosticism or atheism, completely dissociating themselves from any religious affiliations.

Despite this, many individuals have chosen to join non-religious organizations such as Secular Humanism or the Society for Ethical Culture. These groups serve a similar social purpose as religion but do not rely on religious doctrines or authoritative control. Some people have even become members of non-creedal religious organizations, rejecting religious teachings that depend solely on authoritative control and perspectives. Non-fundamentalist religious followers fall somewhere in between these categories, still holding onto certain longstanding beliefs but no longer unquestioningly accepting their tradition's teachings as infallible. As a result, they seek spiritually-liberating answers from alternative sources.

Liberal religious believers acknowledge that their god(s) reveal their will to humanity and share a belief in God(s). Unlike religious fundamentalists, they recognize that humans authored the Bible and other religious texts. They assert that these texts mainly reflect the historical and cultural perspectives of their sources.

Liberal religious believers, as well as open-minded ones, accept linguistic and archaeological research and critical textual study. This leads to their acceptance of the findings derived from these methods. They also utilize historical and literary analysis to gain insight

into the development of religious texts and how they can be practically applied in daily life. The relationship between science and religion has historically been tumultuous and chaotic. As previously mentioned, science relies on observing nature and employs systematic research techniques to address its inquiries.

Regardless of their belief in the existence of God(s)/Goddess(es), scientists generally concur that natural causes are accountable for the creation of things. It is commonly accepted that, even if deities exist, they abstain from interfering with nature. These fundamental beliefs find wide acceptance among different scientific disciplines.

Arguments among scientists exist at the frontiers of each scientific area, where new breakthroughs are being discussed. These arguments are ultimately established by presenting evidence. Science assumes that events and processes occur naturally, not due to divine intervention. In contrast, religion is primarily based on faith. It has been stated that in science, seeing leads to believing, while in religion, belief leads to seeing.

Religious advocates hold a strong belief that God has directly revealed absolute truth to them. They view any acceptance of scientific beliefs as contradicting their religious convictions, resulting in only a few followers being willing to compromise. However, since different religions base their teachings on unique revelations from God, it is expected for interpretations regarding divinity, humanity, and the universe to vary among religious factions. It is interesting to observe that conflicts between religion and science predominantly arise in areas where they overlap, leading to conflicting viewpoints.

Many individuals of religious faith believe firmly in the absolute truth of their own tradition and dismiss any alternative perspectives. They perceive science as artificial and flawed, considering it a product of fallible human beings rather

than a creation of God. This mindset frequently fuels religious conflicts and, ultimately, results in large-scale crimes against humanity.

Reaching a consensus is extremely difficult and often requires accepting each other's beliefs, especially when two groups strongly believe in the validity of their own beliefs.

Newtonian Physics as a Worldview

The ultimate goal of physical theory is to understand the absolute order of nature. Failing to achieve this leaves unanswered questions about universal truths. Since the decline of Aristotelian thinking, there have been no significant changes that challenge the fundamental principles on which physics is built.

The concept of dynamics within the Galilean-Newtonian worldview involves bodies moving freely through an empty space. According to this worldview, it is impossible for a medium that carries light waves to also be a resistant environment for material bodies. Since dynamic principles are based on the idea of forces acting at a distance in space, any interaction between matter and a space medium would challenge the fundamental principles of physics (Day 2006). Galileo discovered that force is required for a change in motion, not just for motion itself. His experiments with trajectories and inclined planes contributed to this realization.

Galileo argued that if obstacles and resistances are removed, something in motion can continue indefinitely. He stated that force does not start motion, but it does increase its speed. Galileo believed that motion is not just a change, but a constant state similar to being at rest. Once initiated, motion persists unless interrupted.

In the Renaissance, a groundbreaking idea arose similar in significance to Copernicus' heliocentric system. It deeply influenced people's thinking and formed the basis for a fresh outlook on the world. Galileo introduced the

notion of motion as an independent state, liberating it from limitations and enabling free movement through space. Consequently, a moving object no longer relied on support from its surroundings.

Space is often perceived as nothingness or a nonentity (Day 2006), creating an illusion that an object can propel its own motion. While it may seem obvious to some individuals, the belief is purely based on their acquired knowledge. The concept that once an object is set in motion, it will continue indefinitely without any additional factors is purely abstract.

The idea that perpetual motion is possible is false because an inanimate object cannot generate ongoing movement without external input. This belief lacks logical reasoning and was only accepted as true because it seemed plausible.

Despite its lack of resemblance to any natural geometry, this nonfigurative concept has greatly influenced the worldview and direction of physics for the next four hundred years. Newton based his theory of inertial motion on this abstract understanding of motion as a state, using it as a foundation. He introduced the concept of gravity as a force of attraction between masses that act across space, causing bodies to fall in a continuous trajectory. In order to make the equations align with observations, Newton found that his force of attraction needed to diminish in strength as the square of the distance between objects (Day 2006; Horgan 1992).

Newton later created a motorized version of the universe, where it was enhanced with attraction lines between large bodies, and mass and charge were considered inherent and unexplainable properties of matter. In this model, time was fixed, and matter and light moved in a static universe. However, subsequent discoveries

challenged the accuracy of this Galilean-Newtonian perspective (Day 2006).

Thomas Young's interference experiments in 1803 definitively proved that light behaves as a wave. Later, in the 1850s, Michael Faraday showed that the area surrounding magnets and charges is not inert but rather contains an active field. Essentially, it is not an empty vacuum. This discovery led to the understanding that space is permeated by gravitational and electromagnetic fields. Despite their significance, these findings were carefully incorporated into existing laws of physics to avoid disrupting widely accepted principles (Day 2006).

Despite ongoing debates in the field of physics, it is argued that the depiction of nature can be rational and mathematical. The Newtonian Worldview focuses on the universal reality shaped by orders and causes. Physics pertains to identifying causes, whereas mathematics is employed to describe the order. Mathematical physics, therefore, involves the fusion of orders and causes.

Mathematics encompasses the precise guidelines that describe order, making it easily recognizable. On the other hand, cause pertains to a distinct condition that elucidates the existence of order. Cause is derived from man's perception of reality and aligns the rational aspects delineated by mathematics with man's understanding of the universe.

The causes that come from worldview can vary greatly due to its subjective nature. This distinction is what sets science apart as it discovers causes within the "natural laws" themselves. Despite this, theorists continue to create causes in order to develop functional mathematical equations. Newton's example serves as an inspiration for others who follow in his footsteps.

Galileo showed that motion can be explained mathematically, but he did not provide an explanation for orbits. Newton was inspired by Galileo's concept of motion and sought

to find a cause for orbits, which he discovered in gravity as a force that attracts objects and bends their orbital path. However, it must be noted that the belief in gravity as a force that acts at a distance is purely imaginative and goes against the direct experience of causality. This also introduces the idea that metaphysics is acceptable in physics as long as the equation produces results.

A cause must be attributed to the direct relationships that lead to it. This cause should be scientifically established in order to align with our conventional understanding of reality. Galileo successfully established mathematical physics, but he separated motion from any immediate fundamental connection by considering it as a state.

According to Blackwell (1998), the culmination of his experiments in physics resulted in the exclusion of the non-material aspect of reality. Consequently, physics evolved into a discipline that focuses solely on the study of material bodies moving in a spatial void due to artificial causes. The material world is composed of order, motion, and matter, which are considered the three fundamental elements of physics. While physics examines motion, mathematics is concerned with studying order.

However, the majority of matter is still experiential. Throughout history, science has combined these three elements into one comprehensive theory. In Greek science, physics and mathematics were separate entities. Aristotle specifically formulated a non-mathematical physics of motion, where everything was in motion relative to the earth.

Furthermore, in the past, astronomy focused on organizing celestial activities through mathematics. During this time, there was no understanding of the structure of matter. Galileo's notable achievement, 1,500 years later, was to harmonize mathematics and motion. Through his experiments involving falling

objects and inclined planes, he observed that objects in motion adhere to mathematical principles (Blackwell 1998).

The goal of naturalists was to mathematize the orbital order of the Copernican system once they understood that motion could be quantified. By transforming Galileo's motion into inertial motion and combining gravity as a force that attracts objects from a distance in space, Newton created a functional system that turned orbits into continuous falls. This led to the development of mathematical physics and defined kinematic order through precise mathematical calculations. However, this procedure has not fully integrated structure and it still primarily focuses on the physics of motion.

The concept of order has been traditionally attributed to the accidental balance of forces, which is referred to as dynamic equilibrium. However, the issue lies in how dynamics explains motion. In Newtonian physics, motion is not an inherent property of matter, but rather a result of an external force acting upon it. Consequently, space is perceived as a passive void.

Objects are defined as discrete bodies moving through space by the type of motion they are allowed. The founders of physics in the seventeenth century viewed the world as discrete bodies moving in relation to each other in an empty space. Despite ongoing controversies, physicists continue to explain everything in terms of force and energy. This is because modern physics, in the end, successfully builds upon Newtonian physics. It remains a functional model for describing the motion of celestial bodies such as the moon and planets, based on concepts of gravity as a force, action at a distance, inertial motion, and space as an empty void.

Bibliography

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science