Science and religion is incompatible--论文代写范文精选

维特根斯坦说，即使所有可能的科学问题已经回答了,生活依然没有任何改动。许多信仰科学的人认为取代宗教成是一种积极的意义。例如爱因斯坦曾说,宗教和科学不一定是不相容的。下面的paper代写范文进行阐述。

Both reliion and patterns of sexual behaviour as cohesive forces have been, and increasingly will be, radically challenged by science, both as a mode of thought and as the source of technologies which change the environment in which societies operate, both at the societal level and at the level of the individual human being. An extreme view no doubt is that science and religion are totally incompatible and thus as science progresses, religion as an important cohesive force will simply disappear, with important consequences for many existing societies. This is a prospect which has long been commented on. So Amiel (1922), the 19th century Swiss author, said:

What then is a science that it should have this potential destructive force? T.H. Huxley (1869), Darwin's bulldog, described science as that fashioning by Nature of a picture of herself, in the mind of man, which we call Science but, less rhetorically, science can be seen the brain's demand for consistency, for relatedness in phenomena. The history of science differs from the history of other cultural institutions in that it produces a progressively more adequate understanding of the natural world. Lorenz (1966, 249) characterised scientific truth as

"wrested from a reality existing outside and independent of the human brain. Since this reality is the same for all human beings, all correct, scientific results will always agree with each other ... [where political doctrine is allowed to influence] these particular results will simply fail on practical application." ,p
One does not need to be a realist to believe that there is an external, material world that has some kind of inherent order -- one can believe in such things but also maintain that the knowledge of that order is always partial and incomplete, such that realist notions of scientific theories asymptotically approaching Truth can be seen as radically misguided.


"We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched" (Wittgenstein 1922).
Many have seen the need for science is some way to replace religion as a positive force in society. So John Morley (Huxley, 1926, 235)said that
"the next great task of Science is to create a religion for humanity."
It can be argued (notably for example by Einstein, 1938,;1950) that religion and science are not necessarily incompatible.

"Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? [Cosmic religious feeling] The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgements of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. On the relation of religion and science."


Einstein offered his views as a physicist. Others with closer contact with biological thought have also taken positions. So;"The modern scientific view of the universe is incomparably more wonderful than any competing view, at any time in history, in any culture or religion, anywhere." (Dawkins, 1994).
"Unless at least half my colleagues are dunces, there can be no conflict between science and religion." (Gould 1996)

Perhaps some of what von Uexkull wrote as a zoologist about the umwelt of the woodlouse is relevant. Each creature has the instruments of perception and analysis necessary for the life it actually leads. The limits of the world it perceives are set by the instruments available to it. We humans, like other creatures, have a limited array of senses (not, for example, including some senses available to bats, electric eels, dogs, fish, bees). The world we can perceive and claim to understand is delimited by the senses we have and the brain resources available to make use of them. Science provides a static sketch of reality as we are able to perceive it (not capable of course of dealing with the totality of reality in space and time). With different senses and different brains we would perceive a different world and one might argue that there is room for religious speculation and for religion as a construct to deal with total reality in space and time (including such minor questions as wonder that we exist or anything exists or that matter behaves as we think it does). Before science, there must be consciousness and we perceive the natural world only through consciousness; at the least, as already noted, religion might serve as a catalyst for the development of human thought. What makes science unsuitable as a religion? To a hungry people, science offers only stone; it cannot deal with problems of freedom and indetermination, free will as a practical problem. Reason (science) has no answer, as yet, to the question (central to religion) "What should I do? ". However, the division between Is and Ought may not be ultimate; we begin to see the possibility of the transformation of moral ideas into facts that can be assimilated to scientific phenomena since they are linked to evolution and represent new elements comparable to anatomical and physiological characters.

Sociology
A necessary project is how best to inject biology into sociology, or into the theory of the society. A sociobiology of societies has to be founded on a sociobiology of the individuals forming the society, where the validity of the insights of evolutionary psychology is for consideration, and on a biologizing of sociology, the interpretation of social forms in the light of evolutionary thinking. If sociology as at present organised presents a satisfactory account of the functioning of society and the forces which hold a society together, then no new sociobiological approach would be needed. The contention here is that sociology is inadequate insofar as it focuses only on interplay of groups, power structures and learned behaviour without introducing biological or evolutionary considerations.

There are varying accounts of the nature of sociology. There is no single authoritative statement but the following conflation of views from many different sources may be generally acceptable:
The basic insight of sociology is that human behaviour is shaped by the groups to which people belong and by the social interaction that takes place within those groups. The sociological perspective enables us to see society as a temporary social product, created by human beings and capable of being changed by them as well. Most behavioural and social sciences assume human sociality is a by-product of individualism. Briefly put, individuals are fundamentally self-interested; "social" refers to the exchange of costs and benefits in the pursuit of outcomes of purely personal value, and "society" is the aggregate of individuals in pursuit of their respective self-interests.

Sociologists would say that societies survive because of the acquiescence of population in the prevailing power structure, and the direction pursued by the power system. The genetic make-up has little or nothing to with success or failure. It is the culture which determines the persistence and prosperity of the society - and this is only very loosely related to the composition of the population in biological terms. The nation- state offers most of its members a stronger sense of security, belonging or affiliation, and even personal identity, than does any alternative large group. Society as a whole succeeds in shaping the character of its members to create the kinds of citizens it requires for social well being; modern political systems routinely shape the identities, memories, stereotypes, beliefs, language, emotions, and actions of their citizens. Ideology integrates and gives consistency to individuals' wide-ranging experiences, beliefs and values, and organises their social drives.

Up to now sociologists have generally resisted any attempt to introduce evolutionary or biological considerations into the understanding of the functioning of society but this has not produced any clear and useful account or any consensus. A recent President of the American Sociological Association has said that the field finds itself in the doldrums. In an interview, Jonathan H. Turner (1997), an eminent sociologist, has expanded on this:

"I am a firm believer that sociology can be a natural science; the ultimate goal of sociology is to produce abstract laws and models about basic social processes, and then, to assess these with data. Sociology has failed to become a mature science after over 150 years of work; if we lack accomplishments, we cannot blame it on our youth; the answer lies in how we have organized and practised sociology. Why has the promise of sociology been lost in the last decades? How did a discipline dedicated to discovering the nature of human social organization and to making a better world come to be so split and divided, and so often trivial? The science of social organization seems incapable of saying much about the world's mostly organisational problems."

In this he follows Talcott Parsons (1966) who was committed to an evolutionary model of social development and came in the later years of his life to take a much deeper interest in the biological sciences. This seems indispensable. There is an imperative need for biology (and so for evolutionary considerations) in considering society because our main concerns: birth, death, survival, children, food and drink, warmth, protection from weather, disease, are all biological and the manner in which these concerns can be dealt with, needs satisfied, is dependent on human mental and physical evolution.

Genetic and cultural processes interact. Insofar as genes or complexes of genes influence behaviour, culture can determine within a population the survival or elimination of genes or gene-complexes - modify gene-frequencies relevant for behaviour e.g. socially responsive or unresponsive behavioural traits and the genes which are a precondition for their existence. Ideas change behaviour, and behaviour changes the possibilities and probabilities of physical survival and multiplication, of physical change. Ideas change response to the environment and change the environment (directly and indirectly). Ideas change neural structure, restructure brains and minds.

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。(论文代写)
更多paper代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有paper代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X(论文代写)