God and Science the Art of Philosophy,

God and Science

The art of philosophy, demonstrated throughout history in all its arguments, present certain obstacles and contextual distortion for the state of humanity. There is no doubt it is worthwhile then, to examine some of the most troubling and difficult philosophical issues of the day. The idea of God and its role in humanity and its science will probably never be settled however the discussion itself helps create new attitudes and expressions of empathy that teach us about our time here on earth.

The purpose of this essay is to explore the complex issue of God and science and their relationships with one another. The relative stance of every individual's relationship to God does not provide a simple positive and negative stance. I will attempt however to present this issue in two sides. I will break down the argument as whether God can exist with science or cannot exist with science. This coexistence seems important with all the technology and scientific breakthroughs occurring throughout the world each and every day. Additionally, the entire globe predominately believes in some sort of God and these beliefs need to be peacefully reconciled with science and its processes as well.

To help set up the argument, I will identify key, important points pertinent to this issue of God and science. God and science are continually at odds within academic, political and social arenas. The quest for the source of all authority seems to stem from this historical and often violent dispute and all the power and righteousness that accompany this information. Some key differences between God and science should be highlighted here in noting that science and its findings are nothing but hypothetical until it is proven by law, natural law. The theory of evolution, sciences explanation for natural law, and the heart of many of these arguments, needs to be understood as a theory in this debate. Intelligent design, a scientific way of explaining Christian dogma in evolutionary terms, is also a theory. Both of these theories fall extremely short of explaining how and why humanity is reached the point that it has, but understanding the differences between them are useful and eventually identifying and reaching the potential of understanding such questions require.

First let's take a look at those who of an atheistic nature renounce the idea of God and science coexisting. Van Biema (2006) explained how scientists in today's world are upset about intelligent design and the possible political motivating factors that Christian lobbyists may hold. This is a valid concern, as the politicization of God has been occurring since the first governments and social constructs. He continued to explain how the scientific world is dogmatic in its opposition to including God within science. Dean (2005) explained how Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, Herbert Hauptman, claimed good scientists cannot believe in god. This is quite a supportive statement or those wishing to keep God out of science.

These arguments are supported by the unprovability aspects of religion inherently holds. Can you prove the existence of God using scientific methods? The actual proving of the Creator threatens the entire stabilization of the scientific and academic communities. The scientific committees should feel threatened, and react accordingly. Science needs to be focused on proving what is provable and not defining what is unprovable. This hypocritical approach leaves many without opinion uneasy about joining this devout side of the argument. It seems that the criticism of religion is the same reason as to why religion is not included in scientific discussions.

On the other side of the argument we have those preaching Christian dogma and intelligent design as the way of our arrival. Larson & Witham (1998) explained the survey of 58% of 1914 scientists rejecting God, and almost similar statistics show the same percentage demonstrated no change in 1996. In the course of a decade, neither science nor religion has made any headway into convincing one side or the other as to who is right. Since religion came first, this argument seems to have an advantage. However, the Christian religion is rather recent in comparison to older pagan religions, Eastern religions and those religions we don't quite understand. In fact the Christian God, based on the Jewish god Yahweh, was adopted in the story of Christ. At that time many gods were being worshiped and not one single one was to be held with any more reverence than another. Christian dogma firmly stands against this and claims there is only one God and only one father.

Russell (2006) explained how God is necessary in today's worldview more than ever. This is because these ideas of God and science are more separate than ever. Russell highlighted the importance of consciousness and its relationship to the material world . This is the main criticism of a science without God, no morals and a lost vision of humanity. Those who support God understand that the material world is a product of our conscience and is secondary in importance to the physical aspects of existence. Science does not have room for this idea, as inductive reasoning, experiment and experience trumps even the soul.

In debating both sides this argument, is important to bring up possible solutions and introduce them into the discussion. Suggesting that God and religion cannot peacefully coexist with inductive reasoning skills in the scientific method are preposterous. Other forces may seem to work against this coexistence, possibly intentionally, but undoubtedly influentially. Preston & Epley (2009) explained how both are satisfactory for ultimate expression and this competition may cause automatic opposition. Creating false arguments by pitting religion against science will keep both sides busy as the true answers of our existence are possibly hidden away, and ignored by scientific and religious discourse both.