The clash of science and religion in humanity
Introduction
It is natural to think that science and religion are antipodes of humanity that have been constantly shocking since their respective beginnings and that this dichotomy will only be broken when either of them surrenders or ceases to exist, but many times what is ignored what is ignored what It exists behind. It is logical to imagine that both forms of thinking promote a specific way to glimpse life and answer existential questions that have prosecuted us tirelessly since we have use of reason.
However, this has not always been interpreted as that every human being must choose how he wants to explain his reality, but has caused confrontations that date back centuries, and I will discuss this expressing my most sincere opinion about it without disrespecting any ideology and being being The most objective as possible. While it is true that religion exists from the moment in which human beings began to ask ourselves why many phenomena that seemed to have no logical explanation, science cannot say the same.
Developing
Although from ancient times there are civilizations with their own methods to do science (such as Hindus, Egyptians, Babylonians, Maya, Aztecs, Romans, Greeks, Incas, among many others) (Blanca), It is not until a few centuries that a formal system was established that has allowed us to produce rational, systematic, verifiable, exact and fallible knowledge through scientific research. To be more specific, science ceases to be a practice that varied depending on the culture we referred to in the seventeenth century with the emergence of illustration (Hodgson).
According to Peter Hodgson, it is here when, in Europe, the foundations of what would be the science we use today, with a certain method and with the universality that characterizes it as such. It would be difficult to historically locate the emergence of a process as controversial as the science-religion conflict because the history we have registered is equivocal and is very altered, but it can be located approximately in the 16th century. This is when Nicolás Copernicus proposed his Heliocentric Theory (Alfonseca).
This sustained, among other things, that the earth was not the center of the universe as thought, but that it is the sun and that the planets orbit around it (Copernicus and heliocentrism). It should be stressed that a very similar planetary model had already been proposed by Aristarco de Samos in the third century to. C. (Pardo), but did not cause the stir that Copernicus had to endure. The collision is usually placed in this historical period because this Copernican proposition broke with what was established until that moment (geocentric theory), which lit the flame of the conflict.
It happens that, despite the fact that the Catholic Church was the one that had an indisputable participation in the denial and penalty of the scientific models that also contradicted the dogmas of all religions that based its doctrines on geocentric theory, such as Islam and the Judaism. Such was the contempt that caused the heliocentric theory that ended up costing Copernicus, and here officially begins the dispute between the two "sides". On the other hand, Italian astronomers Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno continued the work that Copernicus had started, but, for the elapl of science, they suffered the same fate.
Observing this situation I can infer that everything began because the Catholic Church noticed that its interests were threatened with the scientific development that, for the good of humanity, was being achieved. To be direct, I think that none of this would have happened if only human nature would not have been put in between, because the dilemma does not lie in the ideology that a certain group can defend, but in the fervent desire that we carry inside all the Human beings to have the predominant thought and to profit from the naivety of the masses.
In addition to the causes mentioned in the subject exposed above, science and religion tend to suffer strong clashes for the essence that each one has (its ideologies). As is known, science seeks to study reality by applying a rigid method that is considered as valid within the scientific field and, thus, responds to questions that could not be answered rightly either with intuition or faith. However, religion explains these issues using faith as the main source of truth.
Any unknown phenomenon is attributed to the existence of an omnipotent entity that uses us as puppets to fulfill their divine work. Now, the situation is not found here, because the most conventional thing is that different groups of humans think differently about the same topic. However, the mixture becomes dangerous when we add the human factor. It has been repeatedly in the story that we have documented that ideological incompatibilities have always led to disputes, whether they are armed or peaceful.
This is why, throughout history, scientists and religious have been involved in clashes that could have been avoided if the Pacific dialogue. In spite of the differences, the ideal would be that the different forms that exist of understanding reality and all the events that occur inevitably, but not everything is rose color are respected. Unfortunately, for humanity, within religious groups there are numerous individuals who take their beliefs very seriously, and do whatever it is to impose their creeds.
Some of the most popular cases of this religious radicalism are: Las Cruzadas, where the Catholic Church held armed conflicts against Muslims to "recover the Holy Earth" (crossed); the Holy Inquisition, a period in which the "heretics" were executed by defering from the thought of the Catholic Church (JJD); And the terrorist attacks starring radical Muslims who affirm that all those who do not share Islam are "infidels" and must be executed in the name of Allah (Herrera).
Having analyzed the ideology that follows each, it is time to deepen the objective of each. As I mentioned, religion pursues what benefits it at all costs, regardless of what in doing so is right or not. In contrast, science is interested in knowing that it can benefit the human condition and, in addition, expand our wiper horizons to offer us optimal development as a species, and thus be able to transcend with the passage of the centuries. So, if this is so, it would be successful to affirm that biologist Richard Dawkins has always been right by establishing the following:
“Could it be that religion is an infectious disease of reason?”(Science and religion) If there is an organized system that allows us A doctrine that, instead of providing us with knowledge to continue advancing as a species, tells us that this effect is due to the divine action of an omnipresent, omnisapient and perfect entity that we have never seen?
conclusion
To conclude, perhaps it is due to the fact that it is very simple for human masses to attribute any rarity that is difficult scientists who dedicated their lives to scientific advancement. Fruit of this limited thought, the use of religions is given both lucrative and power. I would like to cite a phrase by Richard Dawkins that, in my opinion, is the most accurate that can be commented on religion: “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with the non -understanding of the world.”(Ignacio)
Leave feedback