The Nature of Science vs. or and Religion
On Monday we discussed an article that had to deal with the nature of science. This boggled my mind because I’ve always thought of science in categories such as biology, chemistry, anatomy etc. so to define the nature of science, basically its essence/meaning overall, is difficult for me to do. My idea on the nature of science may be a bit unorthodox because I come from a very religious/spiritual background and they say that science and religion don’t/shouldn’t mix. However, I’m not sure if I believe that…not completely anyway. I was raised to believe that anything I wanted to know about science could be explained in the Bible, and that subjects such as the big bang and evolution theories were against God because we are to believe that He made everything the way it was supposed to be and that we, humans, who were put on earth to fulfill His plan, shouldn’t question anything.
The article defines the nature of science as “a body of knowledge…and a set of practices…used to obtain…that knowledge” (Pg 6). I interpret this as “Man’s thirst to know the who, what, when, where, why and how of anything and everything.” However, did you ever wonder where this thirst came from? Theorists have suggested that it is something that is programmed in to us. They say it is programed in us to seek knowledge. I agree completely. So where does religion come in to this theory? The Bible suggests that were not meant to know all that we as a human race do now. When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden God told them not to eat from the fruit from the tree of good and evil, but they did anyway. Once they ate the fruit, the Bible says that “their eyes were open”, meaning that something clicked in their mind that their was more going on than just frolicking in a garden all day long. I believe that is the moment the “programming” that theorists are talking about actually happened. Once Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden, they had to learn how to make a living on their own and with no manual that spelled everything out for them, they had to go through a trial and error (exploration, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion) process until they got it right. While some religious people may see the idea of science as a sin before God, I see how it all started with a sin (eating the fruit) but not how the outcome (the nature of science) is a sin within its self. It’s like what I’ve been taught about pre-martial sex and out of wedlock children. My mom always said, “The sin is in the sex, not what comes from the inside of the sinner.”
My thought process in the nature of science may be very raw, but its what I believe. I can necessarily try to ignore the religious part of my being while in this class but it’s hard because that’s who I am. Also, as I stated before I do believe that religion and science can function together in some aspects. For example, I don’t believe in the theory of evolution but I do believe in the big bang theory to an extent. Yes, I believe that God created everything perfectly but I like to think that the way the creation of the world is described in the big bang theory is exactly how He caused it happen, but instead of the process taking hundreds of years like we think it did, it only took a day. I believe that the continents do fit together like pieces of a puzzle but I don’t believe in the Pangaea earthquake. I believe the God made them look like pieces of a puzzle for the same reason He made butterflies beautiful, its another something life for us to look at.
I don’t want to turn this into a religious debate. I’m not in to that. I just want to know if I’m the only who thinks this way and if not, why?
What do you think “the nature of science” is? Explain.
Can religion and science be mixed at all? Why or why not?