Tuesday, January 14, 2014

THY: Lecture Note : Science and Religion : Dark Ages to the Renaissance

Commwnt on this:

"Whether or not God made Man in his image. It is certain that man makes gods in his" - Xenophanes

To observe Western Science during the crumbling of the Roman Empire to the Rennaissance is like similar to the Veneral Bede's study of the tides - it is diurnal: it goes back and forth. What makes it interesting is to see how Religion - State, Collective and Personal plays a big part in it.

To better understand this we need to look at beginnings of Christianity in Rome. Christianity was one of many sects in the Empire. Probably what differentiated it from the other sects was its promise of redemption in the afterlife and the coming day of Judgment. Most importantly its emphasis on One God. Monotheism, although not solely the belief of Christians, led to its conflict with the Roman State, especially near the end of its division and dissolution. Early Christians refusal to offer sacrifices to the survival of the Roman Empire made them convenient scapegoats for massacre, executions and ridicule. Some were willing to become maetyrs to their Faith. Of course this was not constantly the situation: The treatment changed from Emperor to Emperor and from situation to situation.  Of course as the Empire crumbled one saw an increase in persecution.

This all changed when the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. A military victory enabled by the blessing of the Christian God made Constantin Emperor of both the Eastern and Western Roman Empire. This changed everything. Christians were no longer the scapegoats.

One has to understand though at this time that Christianity was not Christianity as we know. It was in itself composed of many groups. And the Early Christian Fathers were often talking and debating on what Christianity was. It was time when the Bishop of Rome was the Bishop of Rome and not the Pope.

It was at this period that Christians tackled the question of Christianity and Ancient Knowledge - among them Science and it varied. Origen (185-254) proclaimed the initial conformity of ancient learning, especially Alexandrian Science with Christian Faith (Dampler,1959). Saint Augustine (354- 430) mixed Platonian Philosophy with the teachings from the Epistle of Saint Paul. What complicated the state between science and religion and faith was predominantly the importance of Christian faith in individual redemption as Saint Ambrose said," To discuss the position and nature of the earth does not help us in our hope of life to come".

The adversarial attitude of Early Christians to science thus leads to an ambivalence or ironically persecution. Bishop Theophilus has a branch of the Alexandrian Library burned in 390 and in 415 the last Alexandrian. Mathematician was murdered cruelly by a Christian mob - skinned alived - allegedly instigated by the Patriarch Cyril.

When the Roman Empire crumbled. It fragmented into different parts. Power devolved to the local chiefs or lords and to the Religious Groups. It was the time of Feudalism and the Monastery and Abbeys. 

Knowledge and science survived. In Salerno, Naples - Benedictine Monks were reading the books of Hypocrates and Galen. Salerno was a secular hub of learning becoming a link to the Ancient world and the then contemporary world. Of course knowledge and learning thrived elsewhere in Constantinople, Baghdad and the Islamic kingdoms in Spain were busy translating,preserving and improving knowledge. And in time this knowledge began to filter back into Europe

Science and knowledge in Europe was fragmented but slowly there were signs of learning. Emperor and Kings like Charlemagne ans Alfred began secular schools. These became the seeds of Universities. In Bologna schools for legal studies, medicines and philosophy were established. Student Guilds or Universitas were established for mutual protection and hiring of teachers. In Paris a community of Teachers or Universitas was formed. The academic study focused on the basic trivium - grammar, rhetoric and dialectic and specialized on advance quadrivium - arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. This of course led to theology.

Again we see here an attempt to reconcile religious belief and science - in this Plato s science. The books of Aristotle were not yet fully translated into Latin for Europe.And when the full works of Aristotle was regained it opened a flood gate of problem and change in the relationship of Chrisrian religion and science.

It took sometime but people like the Bishop of Lincoln and Chancellor of Oxford Robert Grosseteste and his pupel Roger Bacon unlocked the works of Aristotle. Making it available for study. In 1209 the works were condemned by a Church Council in Paris and in 1223 the University of Paris included the works as a subject of study.

Two of the most important Aristotelian scholars were Albertus Magus (1206-1280) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Both rationalized Aristotelian works with contemporary sciences. Aquinos, who would become Saint Thomas Aquinas, believed that there were two sources of knowledge:

First, the Christian Faith.  Gained through the scriptures,the Church Fathers and Church Tradition.

Second, the truths reached by human reason as set forth by Plato and Aristotle.

While Augustine the kingdom of heaven could be reached by faith alone, Aquinas believed the Kingdom of Heaven could be reached also by logic and reason. He, Aquinas, also believed in the Ptolemy's earth-centered view of astronomy - as a working hypothesis.

Something not followed by his disciples. The geocentric view of the universe became an Orthodox view of the Church and would plagued it later on.

There were also other scientists. Roger Bacon studied and wrote about mathemathics, astronomy and conceptualized several inventions. Bacon believed and insisted the only way to verify the works of Aristotle and company was to test and observe. Pope Clement Iv urged Bacon to write his work, but when Pope Clement IV died Bacon lost his protector and was imprisoned. 

Others, like Bacon were William of Occam and Duns Scrotus who revolted against scholasticism and claimed freedom for both.

In 1879 - in the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII established the doctrine of Aquinas as the official Roman Catholic Philosophy.

Meanwhile back in the Renaissance

Nicholas Koppernigk (1473-1543) or Copernicus was a pupil of Novare of Bologna who found the Ptolemeic astronomy to cumbersome.

"Copernicus search what books were available, and found that, according to Cicero, Hicetas thought that the Earth revolved around its axis, and, according to Plutarch, others had the same opinion, or even thought with Aristarchus that the Earth moved around the Sun... For Copernicus to Pythagoras and to Plato the object was to find the most simplest and harmonious picture of Heaven"

Copernicus published an abstract of his work in 1530 and in 1543 the complete work - De Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium. Osiander wrote a preface to the book describing was an aid to mathematical simplicity. The theory was criticized by the science of its time - debunking it by saying if the Earth moved eould not objects fly up and about, and wont time lag? 

Potentially what Copernicus, and later Kepler did was by research and mathematic disproved the Ptolemic view of the universe. And since it was criticized by other scientists it did not make the rounds as fast as it should. But when Galileo Galleli and his new telescope proved Copernicus theory by discovering Jupiter s satellites - a miniature universe things became interesting. In 1616 the Pope reproved Galileo and the theory was condemned as false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture.

It seems the great effort to rationalize philosophy and science and to rationalize religion ans science despite best effort by Thomas Aquinas and the Christian Scholars unraveled when it hit a snag from Copernicus and Galileo. 

Perhaps Bacon and Occam were correct in separating the two. Aa has been often misquoted in the story of Galileo, A Cardinal said that your task is to describe the heavens, while ours is to go Heaven.

What do you think?


Dampler, William Cecil. A Shorter History of Science. Meridian Books. New York. 1959.

Lacey, Robert. Great Tales from English History : Cheddar Man to the Peasant Revolt, C7150 - AD 1381. 2003.


  1. Religion and science is like oil and water so they should really be separated. Most of the time, the former is stuck in its scriptures, takes a long time to adapt, and is not as dynamic and flexible as the latter.

    Andrew Kevin Mayor

  2. From the lecture, I think that Saint Thomas Aquinas and the rest of the Christian scholars were right to reconcile religion (philosophy) and science since both are related to one another. I believe that the former can help answer the questions of the latter; while the latter explains in a logical way the mysteries of the former - both complement each other.

  3. I agree that no matter whom man worships, he will always create this being as similar and as close to his image because people are somewhat already incapable of thinking of any being that is more superior than himself because he hasn't encountered one. Two proofs of this is that (1) We think that other religions that worships a god that has in the least bit characteristic of an animal or any other being, as an absurd idea and (2) we will always want to remain in power even if it means using another entity or being.

    Grandiehl Shyrr G. Enriquez

  4. This conflict between religion and science is endless. Humankind up until now is having trouble whether to believe in something illogical or to completely follow logical science. It's disappointing that the Church, who should be promoting good deeds, would go as far as persecuting science and those who seeks to explain the things around us. They say that these scientist, mathematicians, or philosophers, question God, but I believe that God gave us reasoning for us to use it.

  5. 2013-70005
    Since the beginning of time, there have been no evidences to prove of God's existence. The concept of God was only made because of man's superiority complex and insecurity.

  6. The quote would be difficult to explain since the concepts of God and Man are different yet closely related. However, it can be observed that our own understanding of man seems to be constant and coherent with others' viewpoint. Our perspective on God (or gods), however, has always been very subjective.

    Joben Ryan A. Padre

  7. Science and religion are two things that are related but should be separated, even though there are some unknown things for one that can be answered by another. We should remember that these two fields can stand alone, thus, not bringing any disagreement between the people who supports them, and to their ideas.

  8. Just like how Plato described man as a dual creature by distinguishing the body from the soul and the material world from the ideal world, religion and science should be separated from one another. Religion cannot be tested nor proven wrong or right since the human understanding comprehend the yearning of the soul and the so-called ideal world (if ever it exists, no one knows as well) however, science explains the material world or the world in our eyes which we can prove through knowledge and senses. Since faith and science are separated realms, the two cannot relate nor explain each other and that was the mistake of the people from the medieval age.
    Jessa De Guzman-201324095

  9. Religion is to faith and Science is to reason. In the quote above, man making god in his likeness basically means that science dynamically rationalizes everything that happens around us, whether to disprove or prove, define or redefine whilst religion dogmatically accepts the unknown/unperceived, in any case man either agrees based on facts or believes without the need for empirical evidence.

    Adrian Tolentino

  10. Bianca Anne M. Fabia

    Contrary to what Bacon and Occam believed that religion and science should be separate, I think that religion and science could be together because they could complement each other; what science can’t answer, religion could possibly supply the answer, and vice versa.

    Regarding my opinion on the introductory quotation, I think that it’s true because I think that most of us see God depending on our current state in life and based on what we think is our personal relationship with Him.

  11. I think that a world with only one of the two: science and religion, is unbalanced. Rkeligion promotes morality and science promotes logic and reason, both of which are important to this society. But however important religion is,it should refrain from restricting the works of science because their opinions are based on two different things. Both are important but it is better if they operate independently.
    Corpuz, Raiza M.

  12. Science and Religion coexist. They're two peas in a pod. Without the other, Science may not have significant hypotheses to prove or disprove-- just like Mythbusters without myths. One seemingly endless debate to support this is the theory of creation vs the theory of evolution. Because of religion, we became aware of our existence and started questioning how it all began. Most, if not all, used to believe that we were created by a supreme being. Of course, we are not to blame since we didn't have the ways and means to test this hypothesis then. So we believed anyway... until science and technology and Charles Darwin came and the rest is history.


  13. Religion and science are so powerful and broad that it's merely impossible to reconcile it completely, although we can still find some similarities between them. In my opinion, we should learn how to deal and utilize them in our life because I believe they do play great roles in our development as believers of God and seekers of knowledge in this world.

  14. Science and religion may have never-ending conflicts with each other, but I really think that both can go harmoniously together. One can say that they are related, and with enough time and study, both could reconcile. After all, there are also a lot of things that religion and science both and agree on.

  15. Religion and science have always been competing, for as long as I can remember. Until now, there are a lot of sensitive issues that have a scientific explanation and a religious explanation as well. I think it is only up to the individual's beliefs and perceptions as to which he/she will believe an that reconciling religion with science will always be an arduous task.

    Clarice Alyanna Adeva

  16. It unsettles me to know that religion would sometimes go out of its way to defend its theory despite being challenged by sound science proven by study and experimentation even to the point of accusing scientists of heresy and prosecuting them. However, I do not think religious belief and science should be completely separated from one another. As said by Ms. Gruyal before me, both complement each other where science logically explains the unknowns of religion while religion helps fill in the gaps in knowledge within science. As to the quote, I think that gods were created by man in the first place in order to create a a thought of "divine power" to give authority to a certain person or group to control other people. It also gives the impression that humans are superior to everything else and that we are closer to divinity than any other living thing on this planet.


  17. I believe and acknowledge that religion did a great deal in furthering science during the past, but for them to continue intertwined in society today might prove counterproductive. I would personally rather have the two separated, for the purpose of avoiding conflict and extending mutual respect. While I understand that both religion and science have problems of their own, I think separating the two would be a good first step, in order to allow both to grow and develop independent of each other, as their fundamental concepts tend to clash with each other at times.

    Umali, Erwin Dennis H.

  18. Religious scriptures are not meant to be treated as scientific manuscripts nor as historical records. Despite that, science does not strive to debunk religion and its doctrines, but rather to manifest and revel at the product of faith and spirituality that are solely derived from meditation upon scripture and its timeless principles in the context of our present day society.


  19. I actually believe that science and religion can never be separated from each other, yet it deserves to have a separate distinction between two. Even though I am a christian who believes in God,I don't believe to every word that the bibles says.And it was enough for me that i am happy living my religion causing no harm to others and at the same time trying to contribute on the science, and same with religion, the man made.Its only a matter of respecting one's opinion on what to believe.
    Jenna Barrera

  20. I believe in God and in his superiority, and I also believe that we shouldn't make our own gods. He was the one who gave us life so why would we thank him back by making and praising other gods. How people see God is greatly affected by the kind of society and environment today and I would say that because of this, people do not only make gods but also think of whether or not God exists.

  21. I do not think it is good to mix science and religion because these two are very different from each other. Science relies on scientific facts and religion relies on faith. One needs hard scientific evidence and the other requires you to have a leap of faith. I remember what my christian living teacher said back in grade school.
    Never confuse science and religion. Remember that Science answers how everything is created while religion or our beliefs answers the question why did God create or made this.


  22. Science and religion might seem to be two contradicting propositions. While there might be theories opposing the Holy Scripture, the people's constant desire for answers and their stronger faith in God (or gods) are enough to draw a line reminding us that progress on one side doesn't make the other any less.

  23. It is difficult to reconcile science and faith -- one relies on stark truths while the other relies on constantly changing theories. Which description fits which, however, is always a point of contention. I admire Saint Thomas and the others who have managed to find common ground, but personally I think that one's perception of a higher being is merely the result of their search for a higher being.

  24. Religion and science are rather complementary than conflicting. For the human race to have discovered the wonders of science, there must be a Great Someone who have the capacity to give men the gift of knowledge. Men, who are that Great Someone's creations, are able to also create (i.e.machines, robots) because of the wisdom and reasoning bestowed to them. However, the knowledge men has is limited (the creations they made has no life in the sense that they could not create another one according to their image; e.g. the robots could not create another robot by itself). This boundary and limit all the more prove of the Creator's divine power, and even His mere existence.

  25. I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas that there are two sources of knowledge. First is gained through the scriptures and second by human reason. We can learn about God by reading the scriptures and I believe that God has also given us the freedom to seek for knowledge, to learn why things happen or to know the reason behind things. He gave us freedom to study the world that He made.


  26. I strongly believe in scientific ideologies, but that doesn't make me any less of a Christian. I don't understand why people always have to compare Religion and Science because they complement each other anyway.

    Julliene Solidum

  27. I definitely agree with the quote. God, whoever he really is, would have the same image of man. But ask a man who God is, his answer would depend on which religion he supports. There are so many beliefs of who God is, how he looks like, his virtues, etc.

    2013 - 17819

  28. I think Science and Religion must work together. Both of them look for answers and is propelled by curiosity but the only difference is that religion settles with faith. It seeks the big truth that we cannot fathom. We are always subject to limitations. I believe that Religion sets the limitations of Sciences to become humane to everything around us and to discover things with the proper disposition of stewardship. Science, on the other hand make us discover things that are tangible and applied. Things are discovered pragmatically and methodological. There are thins Science can answer but is only limited because of the limitations of the human mind., a probable cause for errors. And so,things that we cannot understand through pragmatism and within limitations, we put into faith. They need to work together but not fully combined.

    Roxanne Jennifer D. Abuel

  29. Whether or not man is made in the image of God, man still is used to the belief that he is - to keep his ego and to claim his opportunity of possessing the characteristics of God.

    Nikka Marie Sales

  30. Bianca Anne M. Fabia

    Contrary to what Bacon and Occam believed that religion and science should be separate, I think that religion and science could be together because they could complement each other; what science can’t answer, religion could possibly supply the answer, and vice versa. Regarding my opinion on the introductory quotation, I think that it’s true because I think that most of us see God depending on our current state in life and based on what we think is our personal relationship with Him.

  31. Krystine Pearl Robles 201370142

    science historically has been stunted by religion; held back by the church (just take note of the dark ages and you'll see what i mean) and while it is admirable to try to reconcile the two i believe science and religion operate on different fields. if a man or a woman can use science to bolster their faith then that is fair and respectable but the two are different matters--religion is of the mind and spirit: immeasurable, whereas science deals with the concrete matters of our lives and existence--the delineations come in terms of what they deal with and what they attempt to measure or make sense ofomething

  32. I think that as time pass by, we are able to see and realize that religion and science is connected and that they support each other. Everything did not just come into place, there must be Someone greater who has created this world, and that is when we go back to the Bible, which proves that there is a God to whom we can always count on,


  33. At this point in time, it would be unwise to completely separate science and religion since it is somewhat thanks to religion that the study of the sciences became more widespread. That is not to say though that religion is always right, but it's more like a catalyst for further studies (i.e. people who want to prove that religion is right try to find means to prove it, while those who don't believe in religion try to find ways to discredit it, and so people are driven to search for the truth).


  34. I think science and religion should be separated. Science is always according to evidence while religion (Christianity) is based on faith (and the Bible). There are those who still believe in the literal interpretations of the Bible. Science will never make assumptions on faith.


  35. Science and faith should go hand in hand because they really do complement each other and the so-called conflicts between the two are either subjective matters or nonsense.

  36. I think science does not aspire to refute religious principles because it merely discovers and determines the true nature of the physical universe around us. Science basically originates from man's wisdom, which begins with the fear of the Lord, as per Holy Bible. I hope one day, both religion and science will be working together, in a mutually complementary manner, for the betterment of mankind.


  37. "Science explains HOW while Religion explains WHY."

    The only true problem lies with that which science tend to create a vague interpretation of "faith" and to have no logical method to prove it.
    Honestly, I find no definite reason why Religion and Science should be reciprocally restricted. Both practices can coexist harmoniously by uncovering a plane with minds barely simply open.


  38. I think that the irreconcilable differences between scientific inquiry and Christian doctrine reveal two important truths about humanity. First, faith can be so deeply ingrained in peoples' souls that it often transcends the boundaries of other aspects of life. Second, despite the hindrances to quenching curiosity, humans still persevere to seek the answers. Without the determination of the scientists in the past, the whole world would have stopped evolving a long time ago.

    Denise Anne R. Castro

  39. I have written a position paper regarding Science and Religion before. And even during the early ages, there has been misunderstandings amongst this two ideologies. But I believe that they could meet somewhere in between.

    Eric John V. Allanigue

  40. I don't understand why there has to be conflict between faith (particularly Christianity) and science. The Bible doesn't say anything against the acquisition of knowledge, and even miracles in the Bible can be explained scientifically. Those additional dogmas invented by religion are the ones that create antagonism between these two things.

  41. 2013-41509

    i really think that religion has been a hindrance to science. that is why people before did not learned what was the truth that time. the church used its power to control the minds of the people.

  42. 2013-41509

    i really think that religion was a hindrance to science. that is why people before did not know what was true that time. the church used its powers to control the minds of the people.

  43. I don't believe science and religion are opposed; in fact I think they can complement each other when used properly. There are good reasons for a lot of the beliefs in a religion, only most of the time they're hidden away inside encyclicals and catechism books, which nobody except theologians read. Without those reasons and without rationality and science, religion would have deteriorated into a bunch of superstitious beliefs and would lack any sense of cohesion. And while many scientists don't believe in the specific concept of God, I think everybody has to believe in something. People can believe in love, or friendship, or morals. In general, science and religion are parts of a human that are both needed, and I admire Thomas Aquinas for trying to find a way to reconcile them. Maybe it would be okay if people just kept open minds.

    -Clare Tan, 2013-14912

  44. Science and religion has always been, and perhaps always will be, in contention with one another. Each institution will always fight for truth, or at least which one of them holds the truth. Personally I think it is because both have entirely different foundations on their ideas. Science, generally, derives its ideas on investigations and experiments. Religion, on the other hand, generally founds its ideas on different doctrines and mainly faith. Basically, it will always be in contention with each other because they have foundations that will always be in conflict. In the case of what people will believe, I personally think they will mostly believe what would benefit their situation the most, what would make them feel and understand better. In the end, I think it's just all simply subjective.

    Audrey Anne A. Arocha

  45. 2013-68149
    I can actually relate the Philippines to the conflict between science and religion. We Filipinos have our devotion to the Nazareno or to saints but then we also believe in philosophy and logic. We're lacking in consistency. Unlike the Westerners, who are very much consistent to what they believe in. They believe in science and none other than science. maybe that's why they excel in such things.

  46. You can't serve two masters. You can't completely believe science and religion at the same time, but you may believe in some points in one, and some in the other. I do believe in cells, prehistoric times and the continental drift, but I believe in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But yeah, I think Religion and Science should be separated.

    Maricella D. Valdivia

  47. Science and religion should be mutually exclusive, part of the same universe but two different sets. But both need to complement each other so as to give us answers to all our inquiries.


  48. I don't think that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I just think that the people who believe in them can sometimes get into each other's way. If I had to describe my beliefs personally, I'd say "I believe in science." Because I do, but I don't think that religion is invalid. I don't mind those who practice it as long as they don't take my lack of belief against me. We just have to practice tolerance.

    Marianne Cadiz

  49. The purpose of science is seeking the knowledge about the word, by examining, testing, and proving the fact. Religion was born when human beings tried to make reasons about things what they cannot fully understand such as truth in the universe.
    Therefore, both science and religion were born in the process of rationalizing ideas.

    However, it is true that Christian churches blinded people to seek for the reasons by saying that the faith is everything. It is not only a historical incident when churches refused the science to protect people’s faith. As Christians learn from Jesus’s death on the cross, we, secularized people need to learn from Galileo Galilei’s death.

    Until now, especially in religious countries such as the US and the Philippines, there are teachers who teach Creationism in The Old Testament over Darwin’s Theory of Evolution regardless the fact that evolutionary theory is the most credible theory today while creationism does not have any scientific evidences.

    Those religious faiths in churches can be harmful on the development of science. Teaching Creationism in the science class at public school is out of the question. Thus, religion must be separated from the field of science.

    Hayashi, Daiki

  50. Religion and Science. Why and How? Ha! Laughable. Religion was supposed to be the guiding light for people who are lost and a path towards enlightenment and salvation. It still is viewed as such today, thanks to the colonization efforts and influence of (and coercion by) the European empires, et. al.. Yes, "religion is the opiate of the masses" as the late Marx lamented, and they hold considerably great influence, control and power over the Western world, especially the upper parts. But what is it doing? For years and years it hindered the enlightenment and development that is brought about by science and technology, labeling it as heresy. Labeling something as a heresy just because it proved you wrong (even just a little ideation, or even just trying) or it doesn't adhere to your principles, teachings and doctrines, AND just because you have power is plain ABUSIVE. Again, what is happening now? The Roman Catholic Church has become the singularity for the standard of morality, and I mean it in every way. It is the heaviest entity that exerts force on the masses, through the guilt and fear of them going to heaven, and crushing mercilessly those who are unfazed by their pretty, sugary speeches. Get the analogy? Take for example, the Philippines. It took a LONG while before the RH Law permanently took its rightful place in the Philippine Constitution. Why? The clash was between the superpowers, the Church and the State. Through years of research and interpretation, the RH Law was created in order to mitigate the devastating effects of population explosion, for one. The Church countered with a debate of conception in order to stop the Senate from passing the bill in to Law. Even though, there is already the separation of the Church and the State, the former, with its immense power is still stepping over the lawn and asserting authority over a territory that is no longer theirs, devastatingly debilitating the advance of the country. They can, of course, offer advice, but they should be advised that advice is not an absolute command, nor is the Church an absolute force. I thought they were the paragon of morality? Isn't it disrespectful to force values and ideas into someone's throat? It would be acceptable if it was for reform, but this is for the advance of human society. Sexual education is needed. Period (no puns intended). But the Church has created this atmosphere of contempt and prejudice, suffocating those who try to learn these concepts by persecution. It saturates the masses with doctrines that slowly and slyly, changes our frame of mind, making us think that learning about sex corrupts our minds, which is funny because that's exactly what they are doing. Ye who condemns, shall be condemned. They condemn those who use hypnosis, as it is a "tool of the devil", but they are doing hypnosis on an unbelievably massive scale. Who is guilty of the greater crime now? They burn scholars on the stake and poor dear Galileo's work was labeled as a mere intellectual exercise (which is more than enough to break the heart of an earnest man of science) and put on house arrest. This will keep on happening, only the modes of silencing those who are held in contempt will change. I move for the complete separation of the Church and the State. No buts. Start being critical and not just swallow anything that is offered at your table. Not everything offered unto you has been filtered of the poison this world has been saturated with. A culture of contempt for those who deviate from the norms set by the "singularity of 'absolute' morality" is the status quo. I move for the separation of the Church and the State. Science pushes for development. Religion tries to write the status quo in stone and keep its power and influence forever. I move for the separation of the Church and the State. Anyone to second the motion?

    John Paul N. Ada

  51. I used to be taught that science explains the "how" of things while religion explains the "why" of things. Although this is so, the two aren't necessarily independent of each other. For example, science uses intuition and experimentation in order to explain how the world started, how we have evolved as a species and how we continue to evolve today. The creation story of the bible, on the other hand, tells us that we were created in the image of God. This story, however, is a type of myth, thereby explaining certain values such as why we live, why we were created and why must we shy away from sin. So although the two are used to answer different questions (the how and why), both benefit man by giving them insight and understanding.

    Darwin R. Del Rosario

  52. With the existence of science and religion, one can't casually explain the factual basis of miracles and the scientific explanation for a God without getting into an argument. Metaphorically speaking, science and religion are oil and water. You are certain that both exist in this world but they can't be thoroughly mixed. The two are fluid, but each has its own essentially unique aspects that distinguishes one from the other without completely separating.
    Since time immemorial, many issues have been raised and controversies told but very few have been settled.

    Chezza Maria C. Cabreros

  53. "“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
    - Dalai Lama XIV

    Chase Peralta

  54. Religion and science, though different entities, both look for one thing -- the truth about everything. They just do this task in very different ways from each other. If we acknowledge this commonality, we would see that we can draw conclusions scientifically and still be faithful to our faith.

    Soliman, Karla L.

  55. As a literature major, I think that the Church's bias towards believing their "scholars" (ie. St. Augustine/ St. Aquinas) is the reason why religion and science is hard to combine, not the ideas that the Scriptures contain. The people behind the Church held the public blind about the contents of the Bible. They considered themselves special, preferring to tell the people what things are "right" and "wrong" instead of letting them formulate questions and seek answers for themselves. Through careful and attentive reading of the Bible, one can see that the Bible contains ideas that science can prove. In themselves (without the additional "facts" that the Church promoted), the Bible and science can be complementary.


  56. I think that at some point, science could help explain religion and vice versa. Under some circumstances, they could complement and help each other. But there are instances wherein the two would most probably contradict, and I think this is only natural. Sometimes, things that cannot be explained by science could be explained by religion. But then these things aren't believed by people because it could not be explained by logic or reasoning. For me, if a thing cannot be explained by science or logic, it does not make it immediately wrong. It is not right as well. This is where faith and religion comes in.

    Bea Lejano

  57. The conflict between science and religion continues until today. Science aims to discover the true nature of physical universe around us but not find reason or proof to disprove principles of religion . Conflict arises because the two does not agree on some ideas or whatever. I know it'quite impossible that science and religion will agree with each other but I hope it will happen.


  58. For me, I think that Science, Religion, and Society should not be mixed together because there are things in our life that can't be proven. We just have to take it on faith for us to believe. Also, the key in mixing the 3 is simply respect but today, respect for each other is still not that strong so the 3 should not be mixed. Respecting one's opinion is a great key for better improvement of knowledge.

    Ed Mañalac

  59. Personally, religion and science are two things that cannot be combined or compared as they are based on very different things. Science is a very objective subject matter that has its foundation in proven concepts. Religion on the other hand may have historical scriptures and "miraculous proofs", but in the end mostly thrives on faith given by its followers on the beliefs and doctrine that come from a divine being.

    Victoria Onglao

  60. I think the ancient war between science and religion paved the way for the evolution of both. Science and religion have been clashing over the years but I think the two should come hand in hand.Over these past centuries, I think religion was used to understand what young science could not explain. Religion gives believers a sense of purpose while Science gives us explanations and tangible results.
    Edissy Ramos

  61. I think that Religion and Science do complement in some ways. There are things that Science could not answer but Religion can and vice versa. People always tend to compare Science and Religion because sometimes there are ideas in both sides that match.
    - Kimberly Pacle

  62. I personally believe that Science and Religion are not two completely separate entities. It is just that people view them in such a way that they always clash. However, for me, science is ther to support religion. Science is there to explain the wonderful world a higher being has created.

    Sabrina Romasoc

  63. Religion teaches us to rule over our lands, and I think that's what science is doing. I still have a positive outlook that someday, both will respect and compensate to each other's ways.

    Richelle Bernardez

  64. I believe that Science and Religion need each other. There should be no conflict and one aspect should respect the other aspect. What Science can't provide, Religion can. What Religion can't provide, Science will. These two concepts co-exists with each other.

    Joana Marie Garcia
    2013 16420

  65. There is no point in discussing religion with the same framework employed by natural scientists.

    By nature, religion makes no (or at the very least, rarely does) claim that the object of their praise and worship is a tangible object. By nature, science attempts only to tackle that which can be empirically proven or deduced given a set of hard facts.

    It may possible to wed philosophy and science in that, philosophy attempts to describe the gaps left by dry and technical naturalists.

    Malcolm Aniag

  66. I personally believe that Science and Religion have significant aspects which define the essential differences between the two. For one, religion has miracles and science have technological breakthroughs which belong exclusively to each. But no matter how distinguishable the line of differences is, both science and religion still contribute to the society’s development.

    Chezza Maria Cabreros
    2009 - 47855

  67. When we talk of Science and Religion, we are talking of 2 different things which serve 2 different purposes. Science is here to explain how the world works using the concepts and theories made by dedicated scientists. Religion is here to explain why as humans we should value our humanity. Though these are 2 different things, I personally believe they anchor each other and find balance. I'm not saying one affects the other. It's just both can affect a person like myself and that both shouldn't limit the advancement of the other because they are both separate entities.


  68. In my opinion, science and religion will never exist harmoniously in society. What science can't explain, religion can (and vice versa) .But I am not saying that these two are contending each other. It's just that they are two different perspective trying to explain phenomena happening in the universe. Each perspective should be respected and not made to oppose each other.

    Kris Jeruta

  69. Personally, I think science and religion are two incomparable things. Science is based on hard evidence, empirical data, and years of research and validation. One may begin to "suppose" or hypothesize in this field, but in the end each theory can be proved or disproved. Despite religion having its own history and evidence, the main source of its survival is really just through the faith that people put in it. The question to whether the beliefs are real can never really be proven, but will stand true only depending on the faith of the person.