Argumentative Essay On Science Without Religion

Many people believe that only science, or religion, is needed, and that the two should be completely separate. Some people believe that religion is needed as it gives them a faith, and they believe that they have seen religious beings, helping them in life. Many scientists disregard these thoughts as there is no physical evidence to be shown, whereas scientific ideas have been tested many times, proven with knowledge and experimentation. Although some religious ideas have been proved false using science, very few have, and it is almost impossible to prove that there isn't a 'God' or some sort of being guiding us in everyday life.

Humans believe in many different things, possibly due to being brought up by a religious family, or being taught
in a science-based school. This will cause them to be more likely to believe the theories of whatever they were brought up with, and unlikely to believe the other as much.

For example, if someone was brought up religiously, they probably wouldn't believe in something like the Big Bang, instead deciding that the Adam and Eve story, or something else, is the truth. Religious ideas give you the answer to questions like “What is my purpose in life?” and “What causes people to do bad things?”. Religion gives people a faith, and something to believe in when they need it. Science is unable to do this, giving you true facts without any disagreement as they have been tested. Jocelyn Bell-Burnell said “Scientists should never claim that something is absolutely true. You should never claim perfect, or total, or 100 percent because you never ever get there.”, which can link in with how science is also not 100 percent true, and gives you one simple answer, opposing that of a faith which can change slightly to your beliefs.

Although scientific facts are not completely true, they is more likely to be true than religion seems to be. An example of this is how Galileo Galilei discovered that the planets rotate around the sun, and how Isaac Newton started to understand gravity. Many people believe that science is 'the truth', because of how there is proof and evidence towards it. A counter argument to this would be what people thought was true many years ago. People believed that the Earth was flat and that it was the centre of the universe, and thought this was the truth. This was a scientific idea. Since scientists have found out that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, everyone assumes that this is true. Although everyone is most likely right, if scientists found out that something else was the centre of the universe, everyone would believe them.

Albert Einstein once said “Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind.” Although I personally am not religious, I agree with this quote.
If you only think about scientific and mathematical knowledge, you won't have a faith, or an imagination. This would make someone's life extremely boring, as they wouldn't have anything to guide them in life, and they wouldn't be able to have fun. Simply believing in religion would cause your life to be unstable, as you would be completely oblivious to how the world works, instead using your idea of 'truth'. As well as this, if a scientist were able to prove your religion as incorrect and non-existent, you would lose your faith and have nothing to
believe.

Professor Ian Barbour named three different concepts of living with religion and science; Conflict, Independence and Dialogue.
Conflict is when you believe in one or the other, deciding that the one you don't believe in is completely wrong, useless, or 'stupid'. Richard Dawkins believes in the concept of Conflict, saying that religion is a 'virus' and 'a threat believed by stupid people'. Independence is when you believe in both. People who believe in this concept believe in compartmentalisation, which is when both ideas (science and religion) can co-exist, as long as they are kept in two different 'compartments' of the brain. Dame Jocelyn Bell-Burnell believes in this concept of Independence, saying that her 'science and faith are comfortable bedfellows'. This one seems to be the best for avoiding conflicts between the two different ideas. The concept of Dialogue believes that both science and religion raise metaphysical questions and prompt us to think about how we ought to live. Dr Mehdi Golshani, along with Muslims believes that humans were made to worship God (or any god).

I believe mostly in Independence, as although I'm not religious, I still think that everyone should have some sort of faith as long as they keep it and their scientific knowledge apart. I'm not particularly scientific either, but I believe that people should be allowed to have their religious and scientific beliefs as long as it doesn't cause problems and arguments between people with different
beliefs.

Many people believe many different things, calling their ideas the 'truth'. There is no one truth, instead many different ones that multiple people believe in. If you believe in something, you could say “This is the truth and I believe this.”, but then if you found something better, you could change your mind and say the same thing. There is no way to find out the truth, as your idea of truth could change, even when you are sure something is correct. As well as this, many people believe that truth is simply factual evidence, based on scientific knowledge. It is a logical idea, but many people can find an answer though spiritual feelings. Showing that physical evidence isn't needed in finding a 'truth'.

In conclusion, I believe that the people who think science is 'the truth' make sense with their arguments, although I disagree with their ideas. John Polkinghorne has said 'I'm a very passionate believer in the unity of knowledge. There is one world of reality – one world of our experience that we're seeking to describe.” explaining how everyone is trying to figure out the world so they can describe it. From this quote, I feel like he means that everyone will gain knowledge and describe the world in a different way, although other people may interpret the quote differently. Interpretations are also another thing in figuring out 'the truth', and people interpret things differently, leading to different explanations of the same source.

There isn't really an answer to this question, as people will disagree about whether the people who believe this are right or not, and the people who believe that science is 'the truth' won't believe it for the same reason.