EssaysForStudent.com - Free Essays, Term Papers & Book Notes
Search

A Basic Understanding of Science, Religion, and of a “whole” Reality

By:   •  Essay  •  892 Words  •  May 3, 2011  •  2,914 Views

Page 1 of 4

A Basic Understanding of Science, Religion, and of a “whole” Reality

A Basic Understanding of Science, Religion, and of a "Whole" Reality

One of the most fundamental, yet mostly deeply misunderstood concepts in America is that of science. Let me be clear as to what specifically defines science. The systematic knowledge of the physical world, gained through observation and experimentation. This definition encompasses many scientific topics and studies such as the following: physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, zoology, astronomy, and so forth. One of the topics that is specifically left out of the realm of science is religion, as religion is based on metaphysical beliefs, not on observations of the readily physical. Scientists seek to understand the physical parts of reality, while theologians and religious leaders seek to understand the metaphysical parts of reality.

Much to my everlasting annoyance, people tend to "mesh" the two differing aspects of physical and metaphysical concepts. I've witnessed people mix the two concepts to either define science as a "religion" while dismissing the general concept of religion, or to dismiss science because it doesn't offer metaphysical explanations. When people do either, they clearly demonstrate how deeply misinformed they are about what science is designed to do. People must also view physical and metaphysical understandings of reality as parallel, but never intersecting. Both unique parts are required to create a "whole" view of reality.

First off, science does not function to prove or destroy anything regarding the metaphysical. If science did function to do so, it would not be valid science. Religious groups often cite Charles Darwin's creation of the Theory of Evolution as a complete lie and direct threat to Christian ideals, attacking it as if the theory was formulated with the sole purpose of destroying the concept of a "divine creator." When in fact, Darwin never claimed that a "divine creator" did not exist, he merely implied that the concept of a "divine creator" added no further insight to understanding and explaining his theory.

Furthermore, it was his obligation as a respectable scientist to remove metaphysical connotations from his studies. Religious leaders and followers often fail to grasp this basic scientific obligation. If Darwin had included anything concerning the metaphysical to his studies, the scientific community would now consider his theory preposterous. It would be similar to blaming the observable outcome of a chemical reaction on "spirits" as opposed to the differing elements chemical properties, or that rain falls from "heaven" as opposed to from the atmosphere. It simply does not make sense to intersect or "mesh" the metaphysical and physical.

I do not hear nearly as many intense opinions regarding other scientific principles and practices, to the same degree that I hear about Evolution. For such a monumental issue to be made out of one scientific ideal contradicting religious beliefs is baffling to me. Most of science does.

On the other side of the spectrum of things that baffle me, when people use science to justify that there is no "divine creator" and that metaphysical beliefs are illogical based on "scientific evidence." Just as religious followers reject science because it lacks a metaphysical explanation, people who are usually self-proclaimed atheists reject religion because it lacks a physical

Continue for 3 more pages »  •  Join now to read essay A Basic Understanding of Science, Religion, and of a “whole” Reality
Download as (for upgraded members)
txt
pdf