From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
There are several ways to think about how is the relationship between religion and science. The history of mankind shows that views about the nature of science and the nature of religion change over time, according to the philosophical and political contexts, social, economic, etc. [1], [2].
Historically, science has had a complex relationship with religion, religious doctrines sometimes científicoenquanto influenced the development of scientific knowledge has produced effects on religious beliefs. The vision of the human influence over the gods of his vision on nature and vice versa, since the human being is a point of view integral.Um be described by Stephen Jay Gould as magisteria non-overlapping (interfering or not) - in Non-English OverlappingMagisteria (NOMA) - is that science and religion deal with fundamentally different aspects of human experience, and thus, when each one of them remains in its own domain, they coexist peacefully. [3]. Another view known as the theory of conflict, says that religion and science inevitably compete for authority over the nature of reality, so that religion is gradually losing the war against science while scientific explanations become more powerful andgeneral. [4] This view was popularized in the nineteenth century by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson Whi
Overview
Science and Religion: human constructions
Religion and science are human constructions that vary over time. Within any religion there are a variety of positions, branches, according to different interpretations of scripture that they consider sacred, inspired by a god or gods, and generally regarded as direct revelations of this (s) to man. There are a large variety of theological opinions within each religion, thus following a variety of ways in which human beings see the issues involving the gods and man. So in science, there are several views of his epistemology, ie, there are different views about how scientific knowledge is generated and the nature and authority of science. Some scientists see science as an instrument to approach the Absolute Truth, others see limited and restricted to experimental limitations and rational human. Some believe that it is possible to see something, others believe that it is only possible to exclude other possibilities and think the myriad of possibilities and conjectures of the mind, human ways of thinking do not exhaust all the variables of the problem that created the experiments are limited by the pre assumptions, as is the nature and their own perceptions, and sensitivity measurements are limited to the facts.Thus, there is a wide variety of epistemological conceptions of science and religion (of how religious and scientific knowledge are acquired) and the relations between science and religion (historically and currently), ranging from antagonism and separation until the close collaboration. [5], [6], [7], [8].
Relations between Science and Religion in history
The relationship between science and religion throughout history change and involve a very large and complex range of issues such as political, social, economic, and those involving the relations of authority and power, epistemological visions of times, so of scientific practices in each time, relationship between science and society, clashes between different cultures, etc. [9], [10].
in antiquity
At all times, human beings have always sought to know the supernatural - the gods - and nature. In antiquity, there were several ways to get to know the nature, but some of them were linked to the spiritual nature of cults, cult to deities and mystical rituals, emitologia [11]. Idolatry Babylonian, Sumerian, Egyptian and later Greek consisted in worshiping the things of nature, invoking the gods as they provide what they needed or wanted. Thus, the worship of the sun god, for example, consisted of invocation of spirits, accompanied by offerings in order to obtain the favorable weather conditions for a pleasant collection. In idolatry, the manifestation of spirits on one element of nature favored the blessing desired by the worshiper. It is an animistic view, where things of nature make "life" through the invocation of the deity and the manifestation of spirits [12]. Knowledge, in antiquity, was developed on the basis of agriculture, which was administered by priests who performed the worship of idols, which were often elements of nature. Observe the results of nature was therefore closely linked to the practice of idolatry. This way of knowing nature was associated with the invocation of spirits, with the exception of Hebrew civilization, the only one who loved and trusted him creator to its provisions, not worshiping created things [13].
Beside the Greek idolatry, appeared in ancient Greek thinkers who wanted to study nature without evoking spirits. These sought to stick to reason as the main instrument for knowledge.The dialectic and discourse gained much strength during this time where the established truths were won based on logical reasoning, induction, deduction, and the persuasiveness of the scholar. Several Greek rationalist schools emerged, the most famous of which are attributed to Plato and Aristotle.
Rationalism is a philosophical movement that believes that reason is the instrument to approach the Absolute Truth. Gained momentum with the views Platonic (Plato) that the world of ideas would be a perfect world where reality is [14], [15].
in the Middle Ages
Throughout the Middle Ages, there was a power struggle between the Catholic Church and the thinkers of nature. The Church wanted to impose it was the institution that would define what is truth on all matters, including the nature. This attitude prevented the freedom of an investigative nature. Initially the knowledge and Greek was banned from the twelfth century, with Thomas Aquinas and other "church fathers", some philosophical views of the nature of the Greeks were incorporated into Catholic theology and imposed on society. Thus, the Catholic Church was concentrated in itself the authority to religious matters and the nature, authority which all must submit, under threats of terrible punishments [16]. In the sixteenth century, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) fought for the authority of science, "science will tell you how it is heaven, and religion as one goes to heaven." Galileo was pressured to recant before the Inquisition Court, saying it was a false idea that the Earth revolved around its axis and around the sun. The imposing posture of the Church, thinking that she should be who determines the Truth, also about the nature was the cause of many controversies in the early modern era. Natural philosophy began to struggle to tell society that it would study the nature and have authority to issue opinions [17].
in the Modern Age
With modernity, philosophy of nature developed its own methods of investigation and became institutionally secular, that is, independent of the Church. The observation and experimentation have been construed as being very important for the knowledge of nature. Over time the vision on how to perform the process of knowing the nature (Naturphilosophie) was modified. René Descartes (1596-1650), one of the mechanical philosophers proposed the "dualistic reality," ie, the existence of two separate worlds, "the kingdom of material extension of an essentially geometric and mechanical" and "kingdom of the substance of thought, that has no extension "[16].Thus, he divorced the mind from the body by rational belief. Rationalism is a philosophical movement that emphasizes the a priori, as a tool for ideas to approach the truth. For Descartes, the body was a machine. In the mechanistic view, the physical machine or human inventions is the same as the physics of nature. This allowed the reductionist view, where the object is considered a small sample of the world. Later, reductionism will influence modern science, where the laboratory, the reproduction of nature in the laboratory, is seen as a test sample of the world, and therefore concentrates on the status can be viewed as if nature itself. However, we know that is not nature but a human attempt to reproduce it [18].
Was gradually breaking up the old relationship between philosophy and the philosophy of nature, which later comes to be called science.This occurred when the individual sciences (the different branches of knowledge) now have a claim to independent knowledge and methodologically guaranteed. At that time, philosophy and science began to compete. This attitude was in the nineteenth century and was founded by a certain philosophy or way of understanding the world, designadapositivismo [14].
Positivism is a philosophical outlook based on inductivism in verificationism and empiricism.Empiricism is a philosophical doctrine that considers the experiment as a tool to draw near to absolute truth (gradually). Positivists do not exempt the limitations of scientific method in action, but submestimaram the influence of the worldview of the scientist and the conceptions a priori that it has about an object of study of nature. They also overestimated the experiment (together with a priori reason that designs the experiment and the experimental apparatus) as tools to check something, prove something.Furthermore, had the belief that science always progresses, the history of science has proven to be erroneous, the ebb and flow of scientific conceptions over time. Examples are the atom and the design of the light wave [7]. Some of the proponents of positivism were Francis Bacon (1561-1626), John Locke (1632-1677), George Berkeley (1685-1753), David Hume (1711-1776) and Auguste Comte (1798-1856). Empiricism reduces everything experience, without asking for a priori forms, ie, the pre-suppositions and metaphysics that involves [18]. The verificationism is the belief that it is possible to verify or prove anything with absolute certainty (the empiricists think this comes through the experiment, based on observation; rationalists think it is through reason). The inductivism is a philosophical position that sees as valid and rational exercise of the true generalization of a statement about something specific (positivism that assertion is unfounded on observation).Thus, from observations it follows a progressive law or general principle. [19].
The positivist conception of science and religion of Comte
The atheist sociologist Auguste Comte (1798-1856) intended to form a new "science of society" by positivism. The science of positivist point of view is an "exact science, methodically controlled (by the scientific method), part of experiments and observations, thus achieving, step by step, the knowledge of universal principles and higher or" facts ", such asNewton's concept of gravitation. The natural sciences have assumed that character bit by bit "[20]. What was once thought of as "facts" absolute truths, because of this dogmatic stance, called Hilton Japiassu by the philosopher of "rationalistic puritanism" (preach the primacy of the rational or scientific about other forms of knowledge, by the excessive reliance on reason as the Configurator instrument that takes the human attempt to seek absolute truth [21]) denies today understand differently.
Comte wished to accomplish a collective dominance by the combined forces who led the society (bankers and capitalists) to the circle of scientists positivists, with views of the authority of science to replace the authority of the clergy and nobility. Auguste Comte argued that the individual human knowledge (the various branches of knowledge) goes through three stages: religious, philosophical and scientific.Thus, Comte thought there were three historical periods: the time religious man explaining phenomena using supernatural causes; time in philosophic explained using rational principles, the scientific age, explained by natural laws, which by itself explain Thus only the phenomena he gave authority to speak for science over nature, winning the religious dogmatism, which was the Church's attempt to centralize itself the authority to speak on the nature [14].
Comte's desire was to found a "kind of religion of humanity" where the love of humanity would be the "ultimate nature", and preached altruism.Comte's positivism had the following pillars: 1) can be detached from the real from the imaginary, 2) is to be encouraged, which has application to improvement of life and not the "idle", 3) before the decision is right what is "logical harmony", 4) the belief that there is accurate and that this should be preferred before the uncertain, 5) the constructive (the idea of progress) should be chosen over the position "critical-negative"; and 6) the relative (to stop the imposition and dogmáticade claim absoluteness of theology and metaphysics) [14].
Auguste Comte argued that the individual human knowledge (the various branches of knowledge) goes through three stages: religious, philosophical and scientific. At that time religious man explains the phenomena using supernatural causes; philosophical at the time, explains using rational principles, the scientific age, explained by natural laws, which by itself explain the phenomena [14].
From Modern to Contemporary Age
Great revolutions in scientific thought, especially in physics, with quantum physics and relativity of Einstein, encouraged further study of history and epistemology of science in the twentieth century.Gaston Bachelard, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Lakatos Emri and other scientists, philosophers and historians of science have tried to describe the process of doing science based on the studies of history of science and logic. They realized, scientific development that has occurred in the late nineteenth to the twentieth century, the positivist assumptions about science, such as reliance on observation and also exacerbated the pre-logical assumptions that led to the creation of the experiments, were points that should beReformed epistemology in science [22]. These philosophers of science have raised the presence of various subjective factors in the thinking of scientists who ultimately provide even misunderstandings about the nature. Thus, the imagination, vision of the person on God or the gods and the origin of the universe, its social, political, their assumptions about efficiencies of experimental apparatus and devices (and those that reproduce with fidelity to nature, pre-conceptions or beliefs about the behavior of nature, are elements that should be considered when analyzing the process of doing science - even the rigors of the modern definition of science they have to be excluded from the process. [23] The scientific method is currently set as a filter for minimal personal origin of such influences within science by requiring consistency constant, the simple and comprehensive, with the natural world.
Today we know that the laboratory experiment is trying to play one of what happens in nature, exposing part of nature but not nature in its entirety. [24]. Thus, the simplified nature so that we can study it, because if we fail to realize the immense number of variables that involve a real or natural system simultaneously, we have to do it piecemeal. The measurement process is a limited system chosen a second chance and pre-theoretical assumptions, which can be refined to the limit of practical implementation, not ending, however, absolute precision. Accordingly, the complete description of nature in all its details is not reachable even for modern science: the science builds models of nature, and understand through these models. These can be refined to the limit imposed by practical conditions, but more that the same work, a model of nature is not nature itself. In this respect the history of science has shown to produce valid knowledge about nature is a major challenge for mankind [23], [25].
Limitations of Science and Religion
It is inherent to the human quest to understand the supernatural (and thus to understand its origin and purpose) and also to know the nature and live with it, take care of it and extract from it sustenance and provision. The human being has their opinions about both, about God or the gods and the nature, it is an integral being, thinking about its origin and purpose and that is embedded in nature. He carries his world view in all the activities you do. Their assumptions and ways of searching are influenced by their way of thinking about the world, ie, their subjectivity is present with you in all the activities it performs.Evidence for the presence of subjectivity in the process of doing science has been reported by several students of the history and philosophy of science such as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Gaston Bachelard, ImreLakatos, Alexandre Koyré and others [26], [27], [28 ].
The branch of philosophy that deals with views on how human beings come to know is chamadaepistemologia. There are several attitudes and beliefs of how scientific knowledge is given. So there are a variety of positions and beliefs (views) of epistemological science [29], [28].
Nature of the scientific, historical approach
Since the sixteenth century to the present day, has been the common view that religion and science use different methods to address different issues and the scientific method an objective approach to measure, calculate and describe the natural world, physical and materialreligions and the more subjective, based on the varying notions of authority, revelation, intuition, belief in the supernatural, the individual experience, or a combination of these to understand the universe. However, philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn, throughout the history of science, realized that the subjective elements of the human being are also present in humans that examines the nature or do science [30]. Thus, the pre-suppositions, hypotheses and theoretical models, the methods of deductive reasoning (linked to assumptions and beliefs that are exhausted by the variables of the problem model used) and inductive (which makes use of generalizations), forms measuring the object of study and measurements of these sensors are variables that are also part of scientific practice and are often subjective, limited and contaminated by the visions that each scientist brings, regardless of their desire to remain impartial and its ethical commitment to seek the truth and give faithful witness to what he perceives [17].
Limitations of science and deception
The limitations of science and the nature of the errors that it incurs are part of the condition of human activity it is. This in no way invalidates because she has made important contributions to humanity, such as vaccines, electricity, refrigeration of food, etc., as well as better understanding of the behavior of nature, although these are limited, temporary and subject toerrors.
Some scientific views that were later considered mistakes of science, which strongly influenced the human thinking involved the central themes of science as the possibility of the infinite, the nature of matter and chemical reactions, the origin of life, the cause of epidemics. Some examples of errors of science were the geocentric model (the idea that the planets revolved around the Earth), Euclidean geometry, the Theory of Relativity Newton, caloric (it was believed that heat was a substance and not a form of energy), etc. [31]. It is worth mentioning that the use of the term error refers to comparisons between old theories and theories later, since scientific knowledge is constantly under construction (see section Science and Religion: human constructions).
Every human being has a position on the gods and like it or not your vision about that influences all other areas of your life, because we are whole beings and we can not separate our views on the vision we have of the gods of nature. Thus, all positions must be respected and should avoid postures or intolerant attitudes that diminish any human being by his conception of God or nature.Science has rigors, and seeks to avail himself of the observation, experimentation, but also the assumptions, models, logical reasoning to better understand the nature and help society to have better quality of life (provision, sustenance, survival). However, scientists, like all human beings are not free of mistakes as they often show different nature is the way the man assumed, since the human limitations prevent them from controlling all the variables of the experiment and the assumptions of human mind sometimes make mistakes and fail to achieve the complexity of the world around us. Therefore, both the reason (rational conjecture) and observation (limited to the human senses: touch, hearing, vision, and equipment which it is taken for measurements) are restricted, limited and flawed [17].
According to Martins, "despite all the comings and goings and perpetual uncertainty, there is no doubt that our scientific knowledge is superior to two centuries ago, or of antiquity. But it is accepting the uncertainties and abandoning the blind dogmatism that science can continue to progress and change. And not by a naive optimism and devoid of criticism "[32].
Examples of mistakes of Science in human history
Some examples of errors of scientific theories or thoughts of scientific revolutions throughout history were the reform of Newtonian gravitation theory with Einstein's General Relativity, for example. But as soon as changes occur views on the behavior of nature throughout history, part science, and how the history of science shows, sometimes there is the theoretical positions taken very ancient, centuries later, when it perceives some inconsistency in current view. An example is the atomistic view, coming from the ancient Greeks and then was dropped by the Aristotelian view of the 5 elements and then resumed the centuries. Another example would be the corpuscular nature of light, which was Newton's view, which was abandoned by the sight of Huygens wave and later resumed at the Modern Physics, which allowed the birth of quantum physics [33].
Limitations of Religions
Both science and religion are human constructions, and as such, subject to mistakes and human limitations. Religions are based on generally (but not always) in the interpretation of scripture held sacred, or hermeneutics, the branch of theology that studies the gods.Religions are subject to other views about the world and the interests of political, social, economic, philosophy, etc. as well as any institution including the scientific community [12].
Conclusion
Religion and science are not instruments to attain the Absolute Truth, as they are subject to errors because they are made by humans, although there may be positions dogmatic, intolerant or overpowering, both about religion and science. However, for those who believe in gods, a creator of monotheism in the case - these are usually the truth and the holy scriptures are truth revealed, the perpetrators of these deities, made through the use of designated and writers inspired by them. Dogmatic and intolerant attitudes appear to have search status, authority over the other, for purposes of exercise of power and domination over others (linked to self-exaltation and pride humans). Unfortunately, the history of mankind shows that there was use of intolerance, bigotry and imposition of both religion and science. Examples of these intolerances are respectively the Inquisition in the Middle Ages and the scientific dogmatism of some scientists today (as Richard Dawkins ridicules the belief in gods told by him with arguments as scientific, but full of visions said that absolute truths and extrapolate beyond the scope assumptions and the limited human trials or attempts to reproduce the nature of the artificial and restricted the number of simultaneous variables that humans can control. In this sense, one should avoid any behavior that disparages or devalues the design of our neighbors and strike the values of equality among all people, whether arising out of religion and science. The equality and respect have been objects of struggle and goals for living the good sought by various regulatory agencies in the world, values which safeguard the rights humanosvisam [21].
A matter of choice?
There are several positions when considering the relationship between science and religion.This will complete the merger of the incompatibility between science and religion.Nothing prevents, however some positions have elements of more than one of these positions or categories. The advocates of these positions have, each, arguments defending his views and criticizing the other points. The risk assessment is left to the reader.
Current position against the tenets of science
In the positivist view of science [28] (see also item Relationships between Science and Religion in history-in the modern age), there is the Scientific Method as a watershed between scientific and unscientific. The Scientific Method considers the natural evidence - after a few considerations that give rise to the so-called scientific facts - as absolute truths involved in the production of scientific knowledge. On these facts, which together form a single set valid in its entirety for all seats scientific ideas are proposals to connect them in a natural relation of cause and effect. The ideas in science are never taken as absolute as they are in perpetual mandatory testing, in perpetual conflict with known facts, and especially with the fact that perhaps may be discovered. Ideas are always open to change so they can fit all the facts then known in harmony, forming inseparably along with these, what is called a scientific theory.Thus, the scientific method explicitly prohibits the existence of dogma in science. The science and its theories evolve over time.
In religion is almost always the opposite.Dogmatic ideas, taken as absolute truths, and is generally recorded the same in a sacred tome, which are always absolute and incontestable but rarely spelled denotative but connotative, and yet revealed by one or more beings omnipotent, omniscient and all-seeing (gods) beings for which there is no concrete evidence of existence - with the same matters of faith - are the cornerstones of any religion. When natural events directly confronted with the tenets of a religion, dogma, they also founded on faith and not fact, what usually happens when religion and its dogmas try to make sense of understanding of the phenomena encountered in the natural world we live in, religion are obliged to deny these facts, ignore them, hide them, or "adjust" them to their dogmas, since their dogmas can not switch to adjust to contradictory facts. Associated with the fanaticism of many, many cases were cited where the facts, along with their discoverers, just literally incinerated.
Galileo Galilei, the father of modern science and the scientific method has not been proven, for some, this attitude of the religious view of the statements, though suffering penalties brought by his inquisitors that, not much smaller, if not killed him in the flesh, killed him, unceremoniously, in full, with regard to its scientific output and the "discomfort" they caused.
In these terms the science does not enter the religious sphere as science, despite adopting the scientific method and be based on the results obtained using the same - a method in which dogmatism, in this scenario, because almost no space is never coherently to produce valid knowledge about the natural world in which we live, this is limited to simply adopt ideas not dogmatic. She does not go beyond that, you fight through any dogmatic idea. Science is not at war with religion declared so. However, it is verified that the history of science is full of reports of landslides usually painful dogmas, often ancient, compared to natural facts gradually discovered over time, both with regard to extreme positions within science itself and in relation to religions.
It should be noted therefore that the current front position of science to religion is not to deny the existence of a god or gods: science does not claim that god or gods do not exist. However the position of science is a current position on the nature, where any fact or natural phenomenon are automatically objects of study, these terms and the absence of supernatural facts ametafísica places beyond the reach of science.The proposal "There is a God omnipotent, omniscient and all-seeing" is by definition outside the scope of a scientific hypothesis, since, like the statement "emeralds are green or not green," it violates the boundaries that define a scientific hypothesis, the be testable and falsifiable necessarily face the facts of nature. Both cases cited are not falsifiable in the face of natural facts and lie therefore outside the realm of science and the natural world.
It comes down to the attitude of modern science in the phrase "Science does not go the merits of the gods." Accordingly it is perfectly possible coexistence between science and religion since science does not extend beyond the boundaries of the natural world, not manifesting itself and therefore can not therefore impose any conditions on any dogma present in religious doctrines, expressly provided that these dogmas do not come into contradiction with natural fact - scientific fact - any natural or scientific theory. In terms of religion would be an extension of science beyond the natural world beyond the borders of the known, coexisting in harmony with science. However, the converse is not true.There is no room for dogma and dogmatic positions within science in its modern version, and science is not concerned with the study of "universes" or "phenomena" physically inaccessible. These are outside of its domain, and as such, it says nothing about them or desafirma.
Conflicts between religion and science arise only when they want to impose religious dogma on natural facts checked and scientific theories that have natural explanations for these facts, even when in explicit contradiction to these.Accordingly, the dogmatic religious stance ends up by enemy science as natural facts, scientific facts as true, are necessarily subject to studies of science and its theories. However this is not a problem for science - do not worry that in principle the religious dogmas - but a problem for their religious and dogmatic positions only, provided that they do not want to make use of political authority or mass give priority to its tenets, the last case in which science can not abstain and comes into play, often creating conflicts of epic proportions in the most bitter [34].
Position of Conflict
This position emphasizes the differences between science and religion and considers religious education as being incompatible with science education. This view has major influence of the positivist Comte's religion, commented on the history of this page, where religion is seen as a step lower on the cognitive development of knowledge of the history of mankind (see history). So for people who adopt this position, religious education is a threat to science education because there are, according to them, "metaphysical incompatibilities, doctrinal, methodological and attitudinal" [35].
People who espouse this view deny the relationship between science and religion. They are also called "puritanical rationalist" because they are adherents of rationalism in which reason the system is established as the absolute system. According Japiassu, adherents of rationalism promote a scientism which states that "science is the only way that may lead us to the Truth, and consequently the Good Fair [36]. Rationalism differs from the rationale. The Rationality by material use of reason and the reason is that it is understood that reason is limited and is not therefore omnipotent. Rationalism is a "belief that every object can only be considered and solved by a good use of reason" [37] . Rationalism can be seen as a worldview that excludes all irrational, emotional feelings, needs, passions, in short, all subjectivity [21].
Rationalism and Scientism
According Japiassu [21], rationalism and scientism gained ground in the 2nd half of the nineteenth century, when science would put itself the power to explain everything, placing itself as absolute reference, and thus to perform the role of religion on society [38].
Thus, in this position, religion is seen as linked to the subjective faith and reason and science (and science experiment), therefore preach the superiority of science to say in the world. Some scientists go so far that vision to use her knowledge to make statements about God or gods, such as Richard Dawkins in his controversial book "The God Delusion" [39], where he treats those who believe as beingsless intelligent, claiming that it is wiser not to believe in gods. Other contemporary scholars such as Daniel Dennett eMichel Onfray, along with Dawkins, consider that there are benefits of religion.
According to the defenders' argument mismatch, science and religion are incompatible because they produce knowledge in a way exactly opposite. In science we have, in accordance with the modern definition, the Scientific Method as a watershed between scientific and unscientific.The Scientific Method considers the natural evidence - after a few considerations that give rise to the so-called scientific facts - as absolute truths involved in the production of scientific knowledge. On these facts, which together form a single set valid in its entirety for all seats scientific ideas are proposals to connect them in a natural relation of cause and effect.
Religion has been the opposite. Dogmatic ideas, taken as absolute truths, and is generally recorded the same in a sacred tome, which are always absolute and incontestable but rarely spelled denotative but connotative, and yet revealed by one or more beings omnipotent, omniscient and all-seeing (god or gods) beings for which there is no evidence of existence - with the same matters of faith - are the cornerstones of any religion.
The scientific and religious dogmatism and its dangers
The scientific dogmatism has been a reaction to religious dogmatism. Historically, when natural evidence directly confronted the tenets of a religion, founded on faith (and not evidence of observations), the Catholic Church, not wanting to lose his authority to speak what is true also about the nature of those who thought pursueddifferently, acting intolerant and imposing. An example is the clash between Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church [16].
Thus, authoritarianism and religious imposition occur when religion and its dogmas try to make sense of understanding of the phenomena encountered in the natural world in which we live.The opposite side to that is the scientific atheism dogmatic, that you want, using science (as well as his authority), deluded [40]. The dogmatism of both the religions and science is something harmful because it prevents dialogue, generates conflict and even violence. Both religion and science are human constructions, and, as such, subject to mistakes and subject to the limitations intrinsic to being human. However, for those who believe, the gods and the sacred scriptures, the revelation (s) creator (s) are true and that belief must be respected as well as those who do not believe in a god or gods must be respected. The dialogue and communication has been cited by educators and psychiatrists as critical to the construction of knowledge of the individual and society, as well as transparency and freedom of dialogue and non-violent ncomunicação, essential to avoid conflicts between people [41], [ 42].
The ideas in science should not be taken as absolute as they are in perpetual mandatory testing, in perpetual conflict with known facts, and especially with the fact that perhaps may be discovered. Ideas are always open to change so they can fit all the facts then known in harmony, forming inseparably along with these, what is called a scientific theory. Moreover, the history of science has shown is that even the rigors of reason and experiments and the uncertainties arising from the science they do not prevent many mistakes from the mistakes in the pre-suppositions, hypotheses, design the way of measuring and experimental apparatus and many other variables such as subjective order social and economic influences that drive the scientific community and their investigations.Some of these mistakes has lasted for centuries and the errors have been part of scientific activity throughout history as the rule rather than exception [43] (see item limitations of science and religion).
Complementarity and Integration Position
In the position of complementarity or integration, the similarities between science and religion are emphasized. Science deals with natural and experiential issues, but the answers to existential problems lies with religion. So there is a complementarity. An example of this position is the geneticist Francis Collins, who sees no incompatibility between being a scientist and have faith. [44] Until the nineteenth century, most scientists were believers. From the 2nd half of the nineteenth century, the position of conflict has been more frequent in the scientific community [17].
Position of Indifference
The other no matter the issue. Or is simply religious, or just scientist. The parallel does not matter.
Position Fusion
Some opt for a merger between the ways of seeing the world. There are religions with characteristics of science and science with the characteristics of religion: Scientology is an example.
Worldviews
Another way to understand the positions on science and religion are the worldviews concerning the origin of the world and its government:
A: Creationism - an omnipotent being created the world and the first man.
B: Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution Biogenesis - scientific paradigms that explain respectively the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the diversity and complexity of vidacomo result of any changes and selective simplest living organisms - by the reproduction process - resulting of natural laws.
C: Intelligent Design - Life comes from an omnipotent and transcendent indirectly. An intelligent designer has provided the ability to model the matter and gave impetus to development.
The people stand on the issues: deleting, combining or merging.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Observação: somente um membro deste blog pode postar um comentário.