[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”adssa” metadata=”height: 126, width: 630″]
First, Read my paper and Read William Lane Craig’s “What is the Relationship between Science and Religion?” (what I attached)
And then read two other student paper and write comment each paper.
Comment Example) You pointed out something that didn’t cross my mind, yet I do for the sake of it. Arguing a point that has been neglected and not given respect as a thought. That also seems to be the whole point of William’s piece, the theory that science and theology go together, yet it is neglected by many.
Student 1 paper
A good argument can be made up of reasonable explanations that can back up one’s point of view of a certain matter.
The first argument I chose from "What is the Relationship between Science and Religion" was number two, "Science can both falsify and verify claims of religion". This argument represents aspects of how science and religion can be related to one another. In this article William Lane Craig gives a couple of examples of how science can falsify religious claims. One of these examples, as stated in the article states, "…the claim of several Eastern religions like Taoism and certain forms of Hinduism that the world is divine and therefore eternal". I am not one who follows a specific religious faith but I do have to agree with Craig that science can falsify claims as well as verify them. I have to agree with Craig on this matter because I believe that we do not know everything that has happened many years ago and because we do not know everything we do not know what is complete true or not. There are certain findings through science that can be tied back to past eras which involved religions such as the Ancient Greek and Indian religions. I feel like I’m having a difficult time expressing what is going through my head about this subject and what it is that I want to say isn’t coming out very well but I hope I made some sort of sense. Not having a religious background and knowledge of religion makes it quite difficult put these two together.
The second argument from Craig’s article that I chose was argument number five, " Religion can augment the explanatory power of science". I chose this argument because I found it interesting reading the reasoning behind how religion can make the power of science greater. After reading this argument I sat and thought about one of the lines stated by Craig, "…one cannot help but wonder, why, apart from a commitment to naturalism, should we think that it evolved by unaided chance on this planet?". I did just that. I sat at my computer and wondered if the sun incinerated the earth than how could the formation of homo sapiens occur? I believe that no matter your religious beliefs, one will always have questions that can relate back to what is in the bible and how it relates to the scientific developments. I know I do. I was raised by my Jewish mother and my Catholic father and did not follow any religion specifically. Yes, I celebrated the holidays that came with each religion but as far as believing in a G_d I never knew what to believe in or why. I always had and still have questions though. If there is a G_d why did he create certain things? Does he/she have anything to do with global warming or why and how everything came to be? I know these may sound like ridiculous questions but these have been questions that always crossed my mind.
Three academic disciplines I found throughout the article were, philosophy, history, and biology.
Philosophy: Throughout the article, Craig brings up many cases of the existence of life forms and matter and overall in my opinion the knowledge behind science and religion.
History: Craig does a nice job of bringing forth past events throughout time such as Ancient Greece and Indian religions, and talk about the universe in the Middle Ages as seen in argument number six, " Science can establish a premiss in an argument fro a conclusion having religious significance".
Biology: Within the fifth argument, "Religion can augment the explanatory power of science". Craig details scientific findings such as the development of DNA based codes, as well as the origin of mitochondria, and photosynthesis.
student 2 paper
An argument by definition is a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.We can also say its the reasonable explanation of our opinions.What makes an good argument is when one is able to not only state their position and support it with their facts/reasoning(logic, evidence, premises, etc),but to win the argument by either convincing the opposition or negating the other persons logic with suitable strong facts. For one to have a good argument they need a strong argument which basically is true premises, principles, and reasoning (to one owns knowledge).
From the article What is The relation between religion and science, I choose the first and second argument. In the first argument, it is argued that "Religion furnishes the conceptual framework in which science can flourish".It is said in the argument that science isn’t naturally known to humans; also, the premise of Christian faith is used to demonstrate that it had an affect on western culture; in return science was discovered. Another premise is that christianity in general "does not view the world as divine or as indwelt by spirits, but rather as the natural product of a transcendent creator who designed and brought it into being"(Lane Craig p13). In other words Christianity has no beliefs of any divine or spiritual entities, they simply used logic which was based on a single creator. It also goes into the way we think about scientifically is based on the Christian faith, "the whole scientific enterprise is based on certain assumptions which cannot be proved scientifically, but which are guaranteed by the Christian world view; for example: the laws of logic, the orderly nature of the external world, the reliability of our cognitive faculties in knowing the world, and the objectivity of the moral values used in science" (Lane Craig p13). The conclusion is that religion (Christianity) does have an affect on science since its basically our frame work of thinking.
In the second argument, the discussion of how science can prove and disprove religion takes place. A interesting premise I found for the falsification of religion is the belief of the big bang. The big bang proves that earth isn’t eternal or divine; when the big bang occurred it showed that the earth had a beginning, it also proved the start of time.This negated the beliefs of some religions like Hinduism, Taoism, etc. A premise that proves religion is based on how god created the earth a finite time ago. This is proven through the discovery of the universe in 1929 which states when space and time came together, their was nothing before that, which means if the universe was created at this time (singularity) it means the earth was created out of any thing. This argument was sort of confusing, I found myself going back and fourth on the issue.
[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”best” metadata=”height: 126, width: 630″]
[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”adssa” metadata=”height: 126, width: 630″]