Science and Christianity (Essay Sample)

Name:
Tutor:
Course:
Date:
Christianity and Culture in Dialogue
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. These words in the opening chapter of the Gospel of St. John form the basis of dominant Christian beliefs. It is upon their assertion that the story of creation in the Book of Genesis finds fertile grounds in Christianity. The prior existence of an all knowing God gives credence to the Creationists, who hold that the universe owes its existence to God as the causal agent. However, history has never been in deficit of rationalists, those who posit that all claims should agree with reason and logic. They questioned the Christian’s arbitrary believing in an invincible entity whose conception bordered absurdity. From their reasoning developed philosophy, a discipline that argues on the basis of logical reasoning. For lack of logical reasons to defend their position, believers of Creation base their arguments on faith, that is, believe in the absence of reason. They belong to the school of theology. As technology advanced, new approaches were adopted to explain the origin of life, based on scientific observations, systematic experimentation and evidence. While science agreed with philosophy on grounds of rationality, thee two have been at variance with theology. This essay focuses on examining the philosophical, theological and scientific arguments that have emerged in regard to the origin of the universe.
Until early 17th century, the earth was believed to be the centre of the universe. This belief was promoted by the church, probably resulting from a misinterpretation of the biblical reference of daybreak as sunrise, and sunset to refer to the end of the day. Astrologers of the time then inferred that ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ implied the sun’s journey from East to West. However, when Galileo demonstrated that it was the earth that moved around the sun, the clergy saw in this discovery a direct challenge to biblical teachings, upon which Christianity was based. Even at the face of death, the Galileo stood firm in defense of the first scientific discovery that will mark the beginning of the controversy between science and religion. From such an early time, religion and science were set on a collision course. While the former makes reference to the unseen, the latter appeals to the observable.
The question that arose is whether the minority could be right and the majority wrong. What placed Galileo on the defensive was because he was against popular beliefs. Even scientific discoveries had to be approved. This calls into our attention a dialogue between Socrates and Crito, when the former was in prison awaiting his death penalty. Upon Crito’s suggestion that people might judge him wrongly for letting him die while he had the means of arranging an escape, Socrates responded that there are a few who will understand the situation. This examines the problem of whether people should make decisions based on self-awareness, or because others regard it as right. Central to this argument is a question he posed to a young man who wanted to sue his father. Socrates had challenged whether actions were held as right because the gods considered them as such, or whether the gods considered them right because they were already right. This argument finds its way into the conflict between philosophy and theology, on the question of whether Christian values should be honored for being right in themselves, or simply because God demands so. In either case, it will emerge that either God is subjective or righteousness is arbitrary. The end conclusion of it is that every individual is right in his/her own way, and moral standards are no less than biased impositions. Perhaps Satan has a point too; may be it is time we paid attention. Eh?
However, St. Thomas Aquinas has a different view. He argues that by deriving their propositions from different fields of reference, theology and philosophy will never agree on anything. Since the Christian takes Biblical teachings as his starting point which the philosopher questions as inconsistent, then conclusions by either will always be incompatible. For instance, if God is infallible as claimed, why would he glorify King David for slaying his enemies, yet Jesus preached love for one’s enemy? And was this God not very impartial, against His character, to favor a section of His creatures by taking sides with the Israelites? Did the Philistines belong to Lucifer? Really, does He have any moral right to judge and condemn to hell any Egyptian first born son slaughtered by His Angel of Death during the exodus, when He comes back to judge the world as He promised? Conversely, would it be wrong to assume that He is so merciful that He will not afford to see His children, however sinful, burn in hell? The believer, the philosopher concludes, holds his beliefs because he is too naïve to reason and question. But then, that is the whole point about faith: believing like little children, without the vaguest shred of doubt. If you promise your one year old kid that you’ll buy him candy and went to the toilet, he will demand candy upon your return. Jesus did give a promise, right?
In mid 19th century, Charles Darwin formulated forth his Evolution theory, which discredited the Creation theory of origin. Using the common ancestry and natural selection models, he argued that the species evolved from lower forms of life over several years. This contrasted with the creationist theory, which put the origin of ...