Not to mention that evolution breaks many scientific laws which include; the second law of thermodynamics, the law of cause and effect, and the law of biogenesis. So, to say that evolution is the only scientific theory, is like saying creationism is the only religious theory. Which is also untrue. Neither creationism and or evolution can be proven one-hundred percent. So why should we just teach one to our growing minds?
Atheism 2.0 possess the characterizations of empowerment, tolerance, and optimism. Atheism 2.0 gives off a more uplifting and positive vibe rather than the tone previously given by New Atheism. Atheism 2.0 does make some arguments but does not outright argue against religion. In a video by The Human Project, they state their disapproval of religion by stating "A 1,000 years ago, we were all God 's creation, except the guys next door were heathens." The Human Project is pointing out their discontentment with the doctrine of religion and the hypocrisy they see in it.
In “The Impossibility of Religious Freedom," Winifred Sullivan addresses the issue of no definitions of what is religion in the first amendment. The court had to decide "whether the religious practice in question is legally religious," and without definitions and clear lines this task was very difficult and controversial. The Mormon community had similar issues with religion and politics when it came to practicing polygamy. Mormons believe that polygamy allowed believers to "reach the highest levels of salvation," making polygamy part of their religious beliefs. The main issue seen throughout these articles and Bonomi, is the need for the government to have a way of defining religion if they want to make laws and later enforce them.
For instance, according to Hughes (2010, Contradictions from the Enlightenment Roots of Transhumanism), the atheism of most transhumanists could be inherited from the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is associated with secularization, as the ideas of that time were intended to encourage skepticism about superstition and get rid of blind faith. Likewise, transhumanists are mostly secular. In 2007, 93% of members of the World Transhumanist Association (Humanity+, 2008), answered “yes” to the question “Do you expect human progress to result from human accomplishment rather than divine intervention, grace, or redemption?”, and 90% did not agree with “clear divinely-set limits on what humans should do,” and pointed out that their “concept of ‘the meaning of life’ derived from human responsibility and opportunity, not than from divine revelation.” Whereas the majority of transhumanists define themselves as atheists, other portion of the transhumanism movement developed forms of transhumanism theologies due to belief in the inevitable progress and control by technology. The similar thing happened with the Enlightenment, as many thinkers of that time believed their religious faiths were consistent with reason.
Secular ethic is a branch of moral philosophy in which ethics is based on human sense such as logic, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance (which is the source of religious ethics). So, basically, secular ethics is based on believe that the morality comes from its own and not by the God. People believe that without religion they also can be a moral person. The first argument that support secularism is it is hard to prove the existence of supernatural. Plus, there is a lot of argument stated that the there is no God which is stronger than those who support that God exist.
In this case the Bible does not give a detailed explanation about how the world was created but only talks about who created the worlds, on the other hand science explains how old the earth is and how it was made. Like Augustine says that the two books of God cannot contradict each other, which means that conflicts arise when any of these Books are interpreted wrong. Conflict arise only if one has a presupposition that science is false, but making science and theology interact with each other through dialogue will shed some light on the truths that they claim. These two books are meant to answer different questions and it isn’t fair to impose and scientific question on the Bible because the Bible was not meant to answer the mechanical functions of the natural world but the Bible gives a purpose for life and talks about the cause of life.
Nicalea Greenlee Astronomy, 7 December 15, 2017 Science vs. Religion Science and religion has always been an argument for years. I think science and religion are both very important to the way of life and how we see the entire universe. But I believe religion is more believable than science. For science can be proven wrong at any given time and religion can never be stated untrue.
In the movie "GOD 'S NOT DEAD", a character with the name of Josh Wheaton once quoted, "Atheist say that no one can prove the existence of God and they 're right, but I say that no one can disprove that God exist." This is true because many atheists throughout the ages have always questioned the existence of God and try to prove that he is not real but they have not disproved that he does not exist either. Most atheist are philosophers and philosophers use science to try to prove that they are right and say that science has an explanation to why everything exists. "Science 's tools will never prove or disprove God 's existence." Francis Collins is right about this because people cannot prove something that is in the nature of this world to prove something that is supernatural.
We must be able to use knowledge to question judgement. A question many people would ask that does not have empirical evidence to prove tends to be if God exists? There is no empirical evidence whether god exists, inductive reasoning and intuition strongly oppose each other at this point because deductive reasoning would ask for evidence to suggest that God exists however my intuition would say that God does exist through personal experiences. CREATIONISM: However the big bang could be argued because monotheists believe that a higher being is only possible to create such an event. By using inductive reasoning, solid evidence can eliminate any sense of doubts.
In the society created by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, there is no dominant religion or prominent presence thereof because it seems to conflict with “machinery, medicine and happiness”. One can see how that is true because religion is usually guided by set superstitions that inhibit one from scientific pursuit. For example, evolution is a risky subject when referring to the Bible because that book says God created the world, but in most of modern-day society and in this one, it is clear that God did not create the world. Science is backed by reason and logic while religion is backed up by the faith of the individual. In this society, everything is organized in a way that makes logical sense: the caste system, creating multitudes of humans