Assess the view that the scientific method has made the religious method redundant (12 marks)

Created by: B.B.Revision
Created on: 01-04-24 16:44


	Assess the view that the scientific method has made the religious method redundant (12 marks)
	Advantages SCIENCE HAS MADE THE RELIGIOUS METHOD REDUNDANT: Science is concerned with that which is repeatable and evidenced whereas religion is concerned with faith (fideism). Creationism relies on faith in the authority of scripture - for which we have no evidence - while evolutionary theory finds its basis in the observation of fossil records, genetic mutations etc. In response to Wittgenstein, it can be argued that an anti-realist approach is not supported by either form of life, both believing themselves to be making claims about reality. If this is the case, where they conflict, one or neither of them has to be true. T. S. Kuhn argued that scientific revolutions lead to paradigm shifts, in which schools of thought are pitched against each other until such a time as sufficient evidence is produced to favour the new paradigm over the previous. This could be used to argue that the scientific paradigm of Darwinism has replaced that of Creationism, making it redundant. Kuhn argued that truth itself was evolving - Darwinism is the prevailing truth and Creationism is going extinct	Disadvantages SCIENCE HAS NOT MADE THE RELIGIOUS METHOD REDUNDANT: The scientific method faces the problem of induction - it relies on past experiences of cause and effect to predict future outcomes but, as David Hume recognised, "All inferences from experience...are effects of custom, not of reasoning". Though perhaps justified through probability, the scientific method also requires faith, only it is faith in laws of causality, rather than in God Wittgenstein argued that science and religion were different 'language games' and so both scientific and religious methods have meaning within their respective forms of life. The scientific method has not made the religious method redundant as the religious method works within the religious language game and the scientific method within the scientific language game. New scientific theories have been put forward which would allow for the religious method to remain in some respect. Intelligent Design theory, proponents of which include Michael Behe and Stephen C. Meyer, argues that there is sufficient evidence to be sceptical of evolution on the grounds that some organisms appear to be complex in such a way that no successive series of adaptation could have led to their development, and the best solution for this is an intelligent designer e.g., the bombardier beetle. While Intelligent Design is not accepted by prevailing scientific institutions, in 2019 a list was published of over 1000 doctoral scientists who declared themselves sceptical of Darwin's theory of evolution.
	Evaluation The scientific method has by no means made the religious method redundant, as scientific theory can be falsified by any body of contradictory evidence which comes to light, which is arguably the case with the growing doubt among scholars about the truth of Darwin's theory of evolution. Furthermore, we, like Kuhn, typically assume a chronological bias, viewing the most modern theories as the closest to the truth, assuming that paradigm shifts always lead to progression in knowledge. However, we have no firm reason to believe this.

Assess the view that the scientific method has made the religious method redundant (12 marks)

Advantages

SCIENCE HAS MADE THE RELIGIOUS METHOD REDUNDANT:
Science is concerned with that which is repeatable and evidenced whereas religion is concerned with faith (fideism). Creationism relies on faith in the authority of scripture - for which we have no evidence - while evolutionary theory finds its basis in the observation of fossil records, genetic mutations etc.
In response to Wittgenstein, it can be argued that an anti-realist approach is not supported by either form of life, both believing themselves to be making claims about reality. If this is the case, where they conflict, one or neither of them has to be true. T. S. Kuhn argued that scientific revolutions lead to paradigm shifts, in which schools of thought are pitched against each other until such a time as sufficient evidence is produced to favour the new paradigm over the previous. This could be used to argue that the scientific paradigm of Darwinism has replaced that of Creationism, making it redundant. Kuhn argued that truth itself was evolving - Darwinism is the prevailing truth and Creationism is going extinct

Disadvantages

SCIENCE HAS NOT MADE THE RELIGIOUS METHOD REDUNDANT:
The scientific method faces the problem of induction - it relies on past experiences of cause and effect to predict future outcomes but, as David Hume recognised, "All inferences from experience...are effects of custom, not of reasoning". Though perhaps justified through probability, the scientific method also requires faith, only it is faith in laws of causality, rather than in God
Wittgenstein argued that science and religion were different 'language games' and so both scientific and religious methods have meaning within their respective forms of life. The scientific method has not made the religious method redundant as the religious method works within the religious language game and the scientific method within the scientific language game.
New scientific theories have been put forward which would allow for the religious method to remain in some respect. Intelligent Design theory, proponents of which include Michael Behe and Stephen C. Meyer, argues that there is sufficient evidence to be sceptical of evolution on the grounds that some organisms appear to be complex in such a way that no successive series of adaptation could have led to their development, and the best solution for this is an intelligent designer e.g., the bombardier beetle. While Intelligent Design is not accepted by prevailing scientific institutions, in 2019 a list was published of over 1000 doctoral scientists who declared themselves sceptical of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Evaluation

The scientific method has by no means made the religious method redundant, as scientific theory can be falsified by any body of contradictory evidence which comes to light, which is arguably the case with the growing doubt among scholars about the truth of Darwin's theory of evolution. Furthermore, we, like Kuhn, typically assume a chronological bias, viewing the most modern theories as the closest to the truth, assuming that paradigm shifts always lead to progression in knowledge. However, we have no firm reason to believe this.

Get Revising

Assess the view that the scientific method has made the religious method redundant (12 marks)