The consistencies of science and religion in opposing each other are well known, and have been since the first major philosophical breakthroughs of the post-antiquity era (or modern), namely the 17th century onwards. In the beginning, during the centuries were religion dominated both public and political agendas, there was a stark unavailability of scientific understanding and practice; but following on from the Renaissance, a memorable period renowned for its flowering of free thought and expression, there was a seemingly unforeseen reawakening of interest in subjects of deep intuition, i.e. astronomy, which was characterised by the studies and posited theories, as well as innovative personalities of philosophers/early scientists like Kepler, Galileo and Newton.
Through these men, and other similar thinkers and devisers, there was a consequent division (perhaps pre-existent, but only then realised in actuality) formed between the theoretical bodies of science and religion. These opposing bodies of thought and practice were, and still remain, naturally antithetical because of their underlying principles. Religion, which can be said to have originated in superstition and worship (as early as the time of Neanderthal man, although in a very rudimentary form), is, in effect, a mental application of reservation; reserving, or instead repressing, the right to explore and explain in any detail below the acknowledgement of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent entity. The adverse laws of science, and functions of the 'scientific method' (the art of empirical investigation that reinforces proffered hypothetical thinking, which can lead to theories and the establishment of facts) entail great, and, in the eyes of religious cynics, incredible discoveries that aim to further the advancement of our understanding, and also considered fundamental for prosperity (e.g. weapons technologies) and, evidently recently, posterity (e.g. energy production alternatives to fossil fuel consumption).
In historical context, religious advocates, like the popes of the Catholic Church, were often afraid of scientific and philosophical insight, and unafraid to restraint it. But gradually, after undergoing decisive changes in mental proclivity, a cerebral gag-reflex that prevented total religious submission in some enabled the desire to observe, to understand and to explain the existing phenomena that accompanies human perception. Ergo: the adoption of science over religion. This conflict of mentalities can be referred to as 'The Great Divide'; however, science and religion do not necessarily have to be hung at opposite ends of the scale.
Through these men, and other similar thinkers and devisers, there was a consequent division (perhaps pre-existent, but only then realised in actuality) formed between the theoretical bodies of science and religion. These opposing bodies of thought and practice were, and still remain, naturally antithetical because of their underlying principles. Religion, which can be said to have originated in superstition and worship (as early as the time of Neanderthal man, although in a very rudimentary form), is, in effect, a mental application of reservation; reserving, or instead repressing, the right to explore and explain in any detail below the acknowledgement of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent entity. The adverse laws of science, and functions of the 'scientific method' (the art of empirical investigation that reinforces proffered hypothetical thinking, which can lead to theories and the establishment of facts) entail great, and, in the eyes of religious cynics, incredible discoveries that aim to further the advancement of our understanding, and also considered fundamental for prosperity (e.g. weapons technologies) and, evidently recently, posterity (e.g. energy production alternatives to fossil fuel consumption).
In historical context, religious advocates, like the popes of the Catholic Church, were often afraid of scientific and philosophical insight, and unafraid to restraint it. But gradually, after undergoing decisive changes in mental proclivity, a cerebral gag-reflex that prevented total religious submission in some enabled the desire to observe, to understand and to explain the existing phenomena that accompanies human perception. Ergo: the adoption of science over religion. This conflict of mentalities can be referred to as 'The Great Divide'; however, science and religion do not necessarily have to be hung at opposite ends of the scale.
No comments:
Post a Comment