Professor Richard Dawkins stated that 'morality comes from evolution'. Professor John Lennox was well prepared and stated that 'The very fact that an atheist can be good is not possible without a foundation. You cannot get ethics from science.' Morality cannot be derived from matter and energy through evolution as believed by Atheist. As a result, ethics would be crumbling without foundation as good and evil is not justified and accounted for.
God 's existence has been a continuous debate certainly for centuries. The issue of God 's existence is debatable because of the different kind of controversies that can be raised from an "Atheist as being the non-believer of God" and a "Theist who is the believer of God". An atheist can raise different objections on the order of the universe by claiming that the science is a reason behind the perfection of the universe. In Aquinas 's fifth argument, he claims that the order of the universe cannot be explained by chance, but only by design and purpose. To explain this order of the universe he concludes that, there is an intelligent being whom we call "God".
But from this apparent inconscient void emerges Matter, Life, Mind and finally the Spirit and the supramental Consciousness through which we become aware of the Reality, and enter into union with it. Evolution is then an evolution of Consciousness, an evolution of the Spirit in things, and only outwardly an evolution of species. Aurobindo believes in the graded manifestation of the Divine from matter to spirit. He thus strongly opposed the Advaita tendencies to regard appearances as cosmic illusion. Aurobindo opines that “individual salvation can have no real sense if existence in the cosmos is itself an illusion.”6 The Advaitins consider Nature as a procession from the Absolute, the Uncaused Cause.
His philosophical contributions are basically in the philosophy of religion and philosophy of science. He stirred so much discussion with his early work in the philosophy of religion, a series of books comprising of ‘The Coherence of Theism’, ‘The Existence of God’, and ‘Faith and Reason’. Richard Swinburne can be said to be theist because of his works which he talked about the belief of God. Meanwhile, theism can be said to be the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (Dictionary, 1986). As a member of the Orthodox Church, he is recognised as one of the foremost Christian apologists, arguing in his various articles and books that faith in Christianity is rational and coherent in a rigorous philosophical sense While Swinburne
The truth of science: Empiricists versus Popper versus Kuhn Abstract This paper is going to discuss the truth of science throughout the past centuries. So the Empiricists, who believed in truth by observation. And how Karl Popper (1902-1994) and Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) tried to get closer to a better scientific model by fal- sification and paradigm shifts respectively. 1 Introduction For as far as we know through writings and draw- ings people have always been interested in doing some kind of science. The word science comes from the Latin word ”scientia”, which means ”knowl- edge”.
On the other hand, hard rationalists, who refuse to acknowledge anything that is not scientifically proven, tend to be ‘atheists’, a stance that advocates a stubborn disbelief in the existence of god. Apart from these two basic streams of belief, there is also the question of the knowability of the reality of god. Those who think we can know whether god exists or not are called ‘gnostic’ and those who think that there is no conceivable way for us to confirm the existence or non-existence of god are called ‘agnostic’.
They accept natural cause as a viable explanation for how the universe came to its present state. They want to be accepted as men of science, yet desire to be viewed as Christians. They believe in some type of god. Despite claims to the contrary, their belief conflicts with the Bible and its teaching about God as creator. The term “theistic evolution” is an
Karl Popper, the renowned philosopher of science, said: “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak of reality”. Despite the increasing complexities of modern society and the resultant challenges presented to knowledge since his statement was made in 1934, Popper’s words provide a concise and profound insight into the posed question: Does robust knowledge require both consensus and disagreement? Popper’s work stimulated many thoughts on many things, one such being the role falsifiability plays in producing robust knowledge. Many of us believe in religion or have certain religious beliefs, yet we seldom think about disagreeing with religious concepts. Personally, in the past, I have had fairly provocative debates in my mind whether Christianity has had enough disagreement, apart from the expected consensus, to claim robust knowledge.
SCIENCE Albert Einstein described the science and religion in his paper; he said that "Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible". Science also deals to tell the truth based on some observation and evidence, but some time science theories and inventions may be not fulfill all the requirements that anyone strongly believe on that and it will always create reasoning upon these theories and inventions. RELIGION On the other hand religion has defined all the aspects and necessary points of human life and teaches the mankind to spend their lives on specific rules and regulations which religion has. Religion is about belief, and it teaches to human being that believe on facts what it has and religion don 't believe on evidence. VIEWS OF SOME PHILOSOPHERS AND SCIENTISTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND RELIGION Some philosophers are not agree with "conflict" between religion and science, one of them is Swami Vivekananda
With the development of science, some theories of Darwin have become accepted facts. And in science the fact is the truth. [4] For hundreds of years, people’s minds were imprisoned by theology. However, Darwin’s theories had changed people’s way of knowing the world that with a scientific view to discover the world. In a sense, Darwin’s theory of evolution is a revolutionary breakthrough in natural