Category: Religion
Human actions should be based on scientific fact, not religious faith. Do you agree?
But the caveat is that it is important for those that tow religious doctrine to base their actions on moral outcomes instead of blind faith.
While there is no doubt that science is valuable and explains many concepts objectively, but we should not completely forget about religion. While human beliefs should be driven by scientific fact rather than religious facts, science should be only relied on when it provides definite answers and absolute solutions. Religious facts should be relied in the areas which are ambiguous.
Science provides objective solutions and evidence to many problems. Scientific facts explain many phenomena. For example, from the daily cycle of day and night, to the occurrence of earthquakes and tsunamis. Scientific facts have also provided us with cures for many diseases and life-threatening situations. On the other hand, religious facts have always tried to associate all phenomena with a supreme being. For example, it was considered that leprosy was a curse of god and signified impurity. Many people in the older times believed that curing diseases required penance and rituals to pacify the angry gods. However, scientific evidence has proved that diseases and illnesses are caused by bacteria, viruses and anti-bodies, which has caused many diseases to be cured scientifically. Champions of scientific fact suggest that human actions should be guided by scientific facts rather than human actions.
Science has provided people with weapons of mass destruction but only our morals guide us whether to use them or not. Though religion does not base its facts on empirical research, it does provide us solutions to moral dilemmas through dictating what is right and wrong. Though some religious practices today may be considered oppressive it cannot be denied that majority of religious teachings are positive as they teach people kindness, compassion and honesty. Though these tenets can be practiced without the need of faith, it can be said that religion provides an authoritative institute which makes sure that these principles are adhered to, It is also true that without religion it would be difficult to provide basis for moral actions. If more people considered only science as god then there is possibility that everyone can turn into doctor Frankenstein and would try to consider themselves as god. Therefore, humans should place their actions on religious faith rather than scientific facts when moral dilemmas arise.
Science also fails in providing substantial evidence of our existence of where did we come from and its meaning. The scientific evidence does not satisfy us on an emotional level as the answers provided by science are ambiguous. For example, science fails to explain how creatures, be it human beings or even unicellular organisms have such complex and intricate structure. It then begs the question that is it just by chance or is it because some higher power has made them this way. Thus, science does not always provide evidence about such questions, and thus people often rely on religious fact.
Logically, it seem prudent that human actions should be based mostly on scientific fact. However, in the absence of conclusive evidence, we should place our faith in religion. Individuals who believe in religion should not be derided as religion gives them hope instead of just objective facts. But the caveat is that it is important for those that tow religious doctrine to base their actions on moral outcomes instead of blind faith.
Secular education is better than religious education. Discuss.
• Secular education is more beneficial.
• Religion should be taught in the home not at school
• Some countries go by the principle of separation of church and state
• Religious education can lead to segregation and stereotyping
• Not all families are religious
• Time could be spent on other subjects
• Does not always meet the needs of a multicultural society
• Children could be taught in ways that disturb their own legitimate beliefs
• Some parents send their children to “faith schools” in spite of not being religious themselves. These schools sometimes have the reputation of being well-disciplined and promoting high achievement
• It can increase divisions in a community and a nation
• Perhaps the teaching of ethics and morals, as an alternative
• The local place of worship can provide education, out of school hours
• Religious institutions can also provide secular education, eg SAJC, CJC, ACJC
How far is religious belief, like art, a matter of changing taste?
Religious belief is a matter of changing tastes in that:
- belief has adapted itself to the growth of scientific understanding over time
- denominations and new religions have sprouted like isms in art
- changing technology has influenced belief, as it has influenced styles in art
- religious belief and art have both been subject to plays of power and patronage.
It is not a matter of changing tastes in that:
- certain beliefs/doctrines have remained steadfast over time
- scripture continues to be the benchmark for orthodox belief
- the circumstantial details of observance have changed, but not the beliefs themselves
- art and taste are superficial in comparison with the profound role of religion in our lives.
“It is better to be a woman than a man” To what extent is this true in today’s world?
There is a common perception that women are incapable, weak and powerless. However, this is invalid in First World liberal democracies as women are highly educated and independent. The quote suggests that men have been taken over by women in many aspects of life and females are in a better position in the modern world. There is an evident increase of advantages in being a woman today than before yet it does not hold true in every part of the World. Women in third world nations and countries governed by Islamic law are seen to be ill-treated and fit the characteristic of the common perception. It is certainly more favourable in being a man than a woman in such parts of the world.
Women in patriarchal societies do not have the power to defend themselves. The high incidence of honour killings, rapes and bride burning suggests that women do not have the voice in these societies. In Pakistan, honour killing cases occur 1000 times annually, of which the majority accounts for women. With these continuous events growing women are still seen as helpless in such situations and the failure to address this issue is due to bad governance. There are no policies in favour of women and they live in fear. Any dishonour brought to the family has no right to resolve the issue through killing as there is no law to support such actions. Yet these uneducated women who have no control of their lives are unable to fight for their rights and to stop such outrageous practices.
Men are also more favoured in Eastern countries as they are able to produce male progeny. In terms of food, health and education men are always receiving the best and parents are biased towards boys. In a country that does not practice gender equality, men will continue to dominate and women will be at a disadvantage. The tradition to carry on one’s ancestral line is pivotal to a family in Eastern countries as compared to the western cultures. The desire for a male child is so strong to the point where extreme measures such as sex-selective abortion are practised although it is against law. Giving birth to a female is often said to be a waste as girls can no longer contribute to the family after marrying off to their husband’s families as they have the responsibility of taking care of their in-laws. Thus, men still have the upper hand in Eastern countries.
Seen in another light being a woman in a Scandinavian country is more advantageous as there is egalitarianism. The ‘Equal Opportunity Act’ in the United Kingdom serves as a law to protect women from any discrimination they face. Women are accorded the free rein to discover their full potential and men are sometimes marginalised. Stores, goods and services are often designed to suit women’s taste. Female politicians are also given the chance to be elected as the President such as Hillary Clinton who is currently competing to become the next President of the United States. Even in societies, women are able to hold higher positions in the corporate world such as Marissa Mayer, the recently appointed CEO of Yahoo. These examples really show how it is better to be a woman than a man. However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is too absolute to assert that women are absolutely better than men.
In conclusion, different countries have different cultures and law. There is still a large proportion of women suffering due to gender inequality. For women to be in power in future, more measures have to be put in place. If voices of women are not heard, there will be more social unrest in the future as more women right activists seek justice for these women. Hence in today’s world women are yet to be better than men.
‘Human actions should be based on scientific fact, not religious faith’. How far do you agree with this statement?
Religion has always had an undeniable arm in the world. “God might not be dead, but God sure leaves a lot of people dead” This was one social science professor’s response to Nietzsche’s famous proclamation that “God is dead”. Evidently, he is trying to point out the influence of religion upon our views and decisions in society. Religion affects every society on a personal level because it also affects every aspect of our lives. At the same time, today’s society is also influenced heavily by advanced science and technology. Human actions, if based on either science or religion, may result in grave consequences. However, scientific fact is definitely more trustworthy and reliable than religion for it can explain and manipulate the physical world.
Scientific fact ensures that the decisions we make are rational and always to our best interests after taking into account the cost and benefits of the decisions we are making. Today, we see apps and software with the ability to provide us with the most advantageous or the profitable choice we can make, be it for business level or personal level decisions. Furthermore, we can see the emergence of apps that enables us to make decisions based on our heart. “Choice compass”, an application, use our smartphone’s camera to analyse changes in our heart rhythm while we consider each of two choices: such as ‘buy’ or ‘don’t buy’. It then tells us which of the choices returned heart dynamic associated with positive rather than negative decisions, allegedly tapping into our innate ‘body wisdom’, giving a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘follow your heart’. Another app, “Best Decision” claims to take the emotional agony out of making a decision by helping us arrive at the best conclusion objectively, grading potential outcomes under various criteria. With technology being advanced enough to read our minds and provide us with the most practical solution that will only benefit us, there is no need to base or actions on religion which in today’s context is becoming an out-dated concept.
On the other hand, science cannot explain everything in the universe and it certainly cannot be perceived to be precise when it comes to deciding what the heart wants. Science does not claim to offer a full or complete understanding of the universe but merely hopes to move closer to the truth. Science cannot prove certain things like moral and experiential truth. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgements for their own lives like euthanasia. Science helps us describe how the world is but it cannot make any judgements about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good or bad.
This does not necessarily mean that we can act based on our religious faith because history has shown us the consequences can be very grave such as genocide. By its very nature, religion can make different groups of people disagree and the quintessence of religion is faith in something that can neither be seen nor proven, cannot be debunked as well. Holocaust and crusades exemplify how desensitizing feelings of hatred can hypnotise individuals and blind them to common sense. In absence of common sense, a Hobbesian nightmare of ‘war of all against all’ does not seem far away if we were to act based on our religious faith. Science, on the other hand, is able to provide us with common sense and the ability to make logical decisions, unlike ones that are heavily influenced by the blind faith of religions.
Religion, however, provides a group of individuals common mortality and decisions made as a form of community-based on religion will not lead to any form of harm as all religions encourage love and kindness. Buddha’s words, “All beings long for happiness. Therefore, the extent thy compassion to all. He, who wishes his own happiness, let him cultivate goodwill towards all the world”. While the Bible reads “Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you. For if you love only those that love you, what reward have ye?” Furthermore, mot believers across the globe belong to one of a few major religions and most of these religions, although practised in various forms preach the same kind of moral values.
“The world would be a better place if religion did not exist.” What is your view?
Karl Marx once said that religion is the “opium of the masses”. By saying this Marx questioned the function of religion in society. Even today there are many liberals that religion divides people. To a certain extent, it is true because religion has been a cause of conflict in many societies in the past and the present. This makes it evident why people think that the world would be a better place if religion did not exist. However, this is a myopic view of religion because, despite its negatives, the positives cannot be ignored. Therefore, the world would not be a better place without religion because religion provides people with the necessary comfort, acts as a moral guide and offers people hope in an increasingly chaotic world.
Liberals believe that religion is the root of conflict in many societies. They believe that if religion did not exist, people would have been spared from numerous wars, riots and conflicts. To a certain extent, this is true because people have always used religion as a tool to incite violence. An example of this can be the Crusader war which was fought between the Christians and the Muslims, with an aim to capture the sacred places from the Muslims and to right wrongs done against Christianity. Similarly, other wars like the Thirty Years’ War was also a result of religion. Even in the present times religion is responsible for many conflicts and acts of terrorism within society. Be it in the form of the 9/11 attacks, in the form of atrocities committed against Rohingya Muslims or Hindus being mistreated in Pakistan, religion is at the root of all these conflicts. It is evident from these points that religion is often used as a tool to incite violence and justify atrocities done against people. Thus, liberals believe that religion should not exist in the world because it is the cause of unnecessary conflict in society and does not align with modern beliefs.
Many with liberal views also believe that religion should not exist because it conflicts with scientific ideas. Today many believe in science to the extent that science can be termed as a modern religion. Religion was previously used by many to explain natural phenomena and disasters like earthquakes, floods and famine. However, today many of these natural phenomena are explained by science and are no longer dependent on religious explanation. While religion gives explanations based on superstitions and faith. Science leads to objective truth. Critics of religion believe that religious beliefs if passed onto the next generation can hinder scientific developments. This is evident from the fact that religion even today hinders scientific progress where technologies like CRISPR are opposed by religious leaders and communities. In such cases, it becomes clear that denunciation of religion is necessary because it hinders logical and progressive thought. Therefore, the world without religion would be a better place as it would not clash with scientific ideas.
Opponents of religion also bring forth the fact that religion also influences political spheres. While in countries like the US and UK there is a distinction between the church and the state, it cannot be denied that religion does influence certain political agendas. For example, in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, many laws are created and implemented keeping in mind the religious beliefs of the people. It can be said that these countries violate human rights within their countries. In fact, some of the most oppressive countries in the world use religion to influence and control people. This was also seen in classical times when the clergy were given the role of being consultants to the monarchs which led to the oppression of the serfs in the past. Religion when transcends from personal belief to influence political beliefs can lead to corruption of government and oppression of people. Religious corruption needs to be avoided so as to maintain a healthy and harmonious society. This is absolutely not possible if religion is influencing laws and policies that can affect all the people within the society. Thus, the world be a better place if religion did not exist as it can lead to corrupt and oppressive governance.
However, despite the negative impacts of religion, one cannot avoid the myriad of benefits it brings to society. Scientific discoveries are necessary and there should be little to no hindrance in scientific progress. However, one cannot deny that religion acts as a balance between science and what is right for society. Through genetic engineering can prove as a boon for people with diseases like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s one cannot deny that it brings along a lot of ethical questions. After all, how can people justify bizarre transplants or the concept of designer babies? Religion acts as a restraint on scientific discoveries that can wreak havoc on humanity if left unregulated or unchecked. It can be said that religion helps to uphold moral and ethical values in society. Religion also acts as a moral compass for people who believe in religions as it is through religious teachings people know that stealing, lying or murdering is wrong. For example, in many religions like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam there are guidelines for becoming a good human being. Thus, religion acts as a moral compass for scientific discoveries as well as for people within the society and makes the world relatively a better place.
Religion does act as a dividing factor in today’s world. However, one cannot deny that it also brings people together. In secular societies, all communities and religions are respected and people come together to celebrate important religious events. In Singapore, the festival of Thaipusam and Diwali is witnessed and celebrated by all regardless of race or religion. Similarly, around the world, people celebrate Christmas and Easter and participate in activities like Carol singing and dressing up as Santa Claus. In this sense, it can be said that religion fosters a deep understanding of various customs and traditions among people. As a result, people also come closer and feel a sense of belonging within the societies. The majority of the religion also propagates peace and harmony within the society. It can thus be said that it is not religion that leads to violence but the religious leaders who misconstrue religious doctrines to serve their own agendas. Thus, it can be said that religion if properly understood and practised can lead to a harmonious society and make the world a better place.
Religion also meets the emotional and spiritual needs of an individual. In an extremely chaotic world where people are surrounded by negativity, religion acts as an anchor which gives people hope. There have been many anecdotes where people have felt the power of religion impacting their lives in positive ways. Many times, we hear of incidents where the dead came back to life after incessant prayers for people recovering from debilitating diseases. Religion gives people hope and mental peace. From the singing of religious hymns to chanting of aum or meditating people have always felt a tranquillity which they cannot achieve from any other activity. Religion is helpful in improving the well-being of people. It is the religion that has the power to answer metaphysical questions about existence, suffering and the afterlife. Thus, religion is an important coping mechanism for most people and helps in making the world a better place.
In conclusion, despite its shortcomings, the positive impact of religion cannot be undermined. Religion has proved to be an efficient moral guide to people and has given them hope in turbulent times. Religion has contributed to society in moral, emotional and spiritual terms. Removal of religion from society would lead to feelings of chaos, insecurity and excesses.
Science and religion will always come into conflict. Discuss.
The reality is that no one can actually place such large amounts of quotes in an essay unless they use the quote regularly and for the same topic.
To quote Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist and mathematician, “Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but both look out at the same universe. Both windows are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.” There are disparities between science and religion, such as nature of factualness and neutrality against subjectivity. To elucidate, religion is defined as a sea of beliefs and practices often organized around supernatural and moral claims, and often codified as prayer, ritual and religious law. Contrary to widespread conviction, there are congruence between science and religion as well. Given that there are points of comparison, it is hence a misleading fact of life that science and religion will always come into conflict on one hand. On the other hand, just as there are dual surfaces to a coin, it is almost positive that science and religion will arise to conflict. Science and religion may perchance suffice as supplements to each other then.
A derivation of conflict between science and religion ensues from the contrasting traits of legitimacy. In science, validity is incessantly revised. It is such that the more one discerns of the universe, the more interpretations one constructs, thereby drawing nearer to actuality. In contrast, religious facts are consistent and absolute. Gospel truth is printed in the Holy Texts, which hails from the mouth of the Almighty Himself. Therefore, science is based on empirical study of the material world whereas religion hinges upon individual or cultural assumptions, and divine revelations. The case in point includes conflict over cosmology, geology, astronomy. A mass of devotee within the conservative wing of Christianity claim that the earth is less than 10 000 years of age. They deduced that the creation and universal flood stories in the Biblical book of Genesis as being literally accurate although 95% of scientists reject a literal analysis. These scientists consider the earth to be approximately 4.5 billion-year-old, that no global flood has befallen, as well as that humanity evolved. Given the discrepant nature of reality, it is a precondition that will result in conflict.
Science is more objective proportionate to religion which is more idiosyncratic. Maximum communicability is the hallmark of scientific truth. As a result, science consists in great part in the endeavour to convey by means of a bureaucratic apparatus or medium such as mathematics that is altogether vulnerable to the scrutiny of any mathematically educated person. On condition that an individual carries out a stringently classified experiment or manner of calculation which is non-comprehensible to anybody else, then it is questionable scientifically. However, religion is more intuitive, pertaining to one’s intimate soul of respective attitudes and emotions. It seeks to satisfy the desire for personal salvation. Therefore, the subject of impartiality will lead to conflict between science and religion.
In addition, both entities pose conflict over themes including human sexuality, medical issues. For example, conservative Christian communities teach that homosexual behaviour demeanour is perverted and can be corrected through prayer and counselling. Nonetheless, researchers into human sexuality by and large are convinced that homosexual orientation is normal for a modest percentage of the human race, is innate, is undesired, is influenced by one’s genes to some degree, and cannot be changed through worship and guidance. Take euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, for another instance. Some faith groups champion that only God bestow life and hence solely God should reclaim breath.
The opposing faction conjectures that when a terminally ill person is in intractable suffering and wishes to depart, physicians ought to be sanctioned to lend a hand in dying. Albert Einstein stated that, “For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to and conditioned by, each other… yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be.” Thus, it is a fact of life that religion and science will always come into conflict over ethics.
Despite the numerous disparities between scientists and clerics, both are ambiguous contradiction of each other as there still remain similarities such as science and religion are ‘learned practices’ as well as both carry out significant purposes in Man’s life. No individual is born with an instinctive knowledge of the divine, likewise as no one is born with a hard-wired knowledge of science. They have their specific set of books from whence all information is inferred from, mentors acknowledged as scientists and pastors, philosophies of entity, directions and jargon. Albert Einstein also cited, “All regions, arts & sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed towards ennobling Man’s life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” Therefore, it is fallacious to postulate science and religion will always come into conflict since there are grey fields of harmony.
Religion can exploit science as its tenet whereas science can facilitate religion with its findings. While religion can critique science for more clarifications, sources, or significance, science should mull over religion and human morals. Science and religion work together to form adequate explanations to figure out the genuine meaning of being thus prompt awareness of our insight of realism. Having the status of being complements, in a way, science and religion depend upon each other. They merely call for receptive minds to what both are assembling and explaining but without the other, their elucidation for gist remains superficial. Therefore it is not true that it is a fact of life that science and religion will always come into conflict. As Pope John Paul II highlights, “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish… We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be.”