Reply to comment

In our last group meeting we discussed a lot about the differences between religion and science and the proper environments for teaching each together or separately.  I began to think a lot on what distinguishes the two from one another.  Religion tends to embody an aspect of trust that science does not; there is an element of faith and inner belief that must be assumed as a result of intangible evidence.  In science, this trust is nearly absent, and if present, stems from the fact that there is tangible evidence to support an assumed conception.  We also discussed how religion contains an assumed moral doctrine that is absent in science.  This morality tends to stem from the belief in an authority figure that is able to determine your actions.  Science on the other hand is not influenced by an authority; actions happen because science dictates them to occur.  However, in some sense science is dictated by an authority because certain theories are given a higher respect as a result of the popularity of the theorist and that of the subject matter.  (Does authority have an influence on the importance of our stories?) Religion tends to offer a discourse on the “why” and the “why not” debate while science tends to answer more of the “how” questions.  Professor Grobstein posed the question, “where does this morality come from?” A society constructs a hierarchy of approval, existing within it a necessary sense of needing to display proper conduct as a result of social laws.  In trying to further develop this idea, I started to ask myself if morality includes a sense of survival.  If so, then maybe the divide between science and religion isn’t as big as I originally thought it was.