(A level GP) Does religion decline when science advances?

I went through A level as a science student. I fully understand the dread of having to deal with general paper which tyrannically demands pretty extensive research into everything in the world and thoughts of high level of maturity. Surviving general paper is made many times more difficult if you are still struggling with the English language. I therefore decide to write answers to science related general paper questions to help science students who are not so good in English. I don't assert these are perfect essays but I do try my best.

General paper question: "The more science advances, the more religion will decline." How far do you agree?

This is a complex question that is riddled with many factors such as time, political condition, place, what idea of science is at stake and what religion we are considering. For example, in the 16th century, the roman Catholic Church in Italy was so powerful that they could prosecute anyone convicted of crimes such as heresy and blasphemy against Christianity. The Galileo affair demonstrates to us how Galileo with his scientific findings stepped onto such a mine with the consequence of life imprisonment. Today however we see that science has advanced very far but, still, many people adopt religions. In this limited essay, I shall confine the word "decline" to refer to two areas, political power over science and number of religious believers.

Decline in power over science and/or number of religious believers... 

It was in the past in Europe where verses in the Bible were taken literally. Galileo through observations of heavenly bodies concluded that some planets orbit around the sun disproving the religious notion that everything including the sun revolves around the earth. He strongly adhered to his stand and refused to yield to the demands of the church to modify his results and suit the Bible. We know the sad outcome of his refusal. Today, many people including scientists practice science and yet they can be religious Christians without being affected by the Bible. The Big Bang theory is a recent creation which goes in contrary to the Biblical notion of genesis but, thank god, the scientists involved were not burned to death. It must be mentioned there are still some applications of science such as in-vitro fertilisation, cloning, genetic modification that are sensitive to religions which may view these "playing god" acts as unnatural. But religions can no longer effectively impose on these scientific research.

Religion no longer has control over science... 

The Islamic Ottoman Empire which gave rise to many great scientific and mathematical discoveries tells that not all religions are at serious odds with science. Incidents involving conflicts between science and religions are not heard of in eastern countries such as India and China too probably because religions in the east were more spiritual and less explicit in discussing about the natural world. Then the 20th century sees the rise of the abstract world of molecules, atoms right down to sub-atomic particles. Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism tell about the cycle of creation and destruction. Fritjof Capar, at the beach, meditated and came to a spiritual realisation that marries Hinduism and quantum physics. He then authored the famous Tao of Physics that describes the parallel between the dancing goddess of Shiva and the dynamic quantum world of particles engaged in constant interactions of creation and annihilation. Even Niels Bohr wore the symbol of yin and yang when he received his Nobel prize in physics. I can't say that eastern religions teach about quantum physics but we certainly don't see any conflict between them whether in the past or present. And there will not likely be any conflict in the future.

Not all religions are at odds with science... 

Today's advanced technologies are a result of centuries of scientific research and discoveries that were the fruits of the perseverance and determination of individual scientists. A few of the stories involve science-and-religion conflict. But the consumers who use the end products of science in their contemporary lives would be totally ignorant of the science and their histories. Being deeply religious does not seem to prevent one from using technologies regardless of whether the science behind agrees with their religions.

Deeply religious people will still use the applications of science... 

Religions might have declined in their political power over science but there could be many more believers around the world given the rapid increase in world population. Whether religious or not, scientists continue with their research free from the oppressive clutches of religion, and people from all walks of life continue with their lives with the aid of technologies. It sounds schizophrenic but that is how it is. I can't resolve that. On the other hand, religious institutions continue with their theological search and expand though they have less political influence over science than in the past.

The number of religious believers  has not declined... 

(661 words)

Here's a short video of David Attenborough speaking about religious people who asked him to acknowledge God when he shows the beauty of nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfa88SeNohY

(A Level GP) Is science unreliable?

I saw this 2011 General Paper essay question and decided to give my two-cent view.

Question: "Science is unreliable, being based as much on theory as on fact."Is this a fair comment? (500-800 words)

The statement "Science is unreliable" is born out of a lack of faith in science. It completely disregards the fact that today's technology is based on the foundation of science if this statement is made in modern times. The reason provided in this statement being "[science] is based as much on theory as on fact" illustrates a misunderstanding of how science works.

Science is based on observations... 

Science has been based on observations of nature, of our surroundings. Scientists are curious and so ask questions about what they observe without being affected by other's opinions and preconceptions. During Galileo's time, many people, even scientists, when being posed a question, asked back "What did Aristotle say?" They took everything Aristotle had said as being true without carrying out investigations or experiments. Because Aristotle said that heavier objects fall faster and therefore reach the ground earlier than lighter objects if they are released from the same height, people believed him. Only the skeptical Galileo carried out experiments to test that claim and discovered that all objects fall at the same rate of increase in speed we call acceleration due to gravity. During Francesco Redi's time, people believed that maggots came from rotten meat. But Redi carried out experiments to dispel that belief. With careful consideration of variables by set-ups that changed only the accessibility of the meat by houseflies, he found that maggots did not appear on meat that was sealed tightly in containers.

How do theories arise? 

If the lack of faith in science is due to that science is based on theories, we need first to understand what a theory is, its use and how it comes about. The kinetic theory of particles, for example, zoom into the microscopic world of invisible perpetually-moving particles of matter. This theory, with the aid a model of particles, helps us understand and explain phenomena and experimental results in the macroscopic world. So far it works as it predicts other phenomena accurately even though we cannot directly observe particles.

Theories may be right or wrong... 

Yes, there have been theories that seem to be based on speculations instead of experimental verifications. Some of these theories would be directly or indirectly supported by new evidence. Einstein's impressive Theory of Relativity which tells the deflection of light by gravity, and the slowing down of time, shortening of length and increase in mass as a person travels near the speed of light is created using rigorous mathematics without experimental support. Later experiments by other scientists showed results that were predicted by this theory. And this theory is even being applied in the construction of the Global Positioning System. Some theories, however, did not stand the test of time. The phlogiston theory stating that fuels contain a fire-like element called phlogiston was proved false by Antoine Lavoisier. Today, we understand that combustion is a chemical reaction between a fuel and oxygen in the air to produce carbon dioxide and water vapor. The theory that all space including vacuo is filled with a material called aether in which light needs to move through space was held to be true for a very long time until the Michelson-Morley experiment showed there was no such thing as aether.

Why science needs theories? 

The fact that theories could be false should not erode our faith in science because we need theories to aid understanding and make predictions. This is especially so pertaining to the unobservable nano world of atoms and molecules, or to the vast expanse of time beyond Earth's existence to the notion of the Big Bang created to explain recent observations such as that light from distant stars tend to have longer wavelength. Science is after all a quest of knowledge, the search for truth through a process that necessitates a continuous cycle of the creation and negation of hypotheses and theories.

"The science of today is the technology of tomorrow" Edward Teller

Last but not least, today's advanced technologies in communication, construction, transport, medicine, food, entertainment and more will not be what they are today without the foundation of science.

Theories will be tested by experiments... 

We can see from the above that even if scientists come out with theories without experimentation, their theories would need to be tested by experiments before they can be widely accepted. It is thus more precise to say science is based on facts rather than on theories. Theories are tools in science for understanding and predictions. The comment that science is unreliable as it is based on theories as on facts is therefore unfair.

"Facts are the air of scientists. Without them you can never fly." Linus Pauling

(725 words)



Other Science-related General Paper essay questions:
- Is it possible to protect the environment when many countries require increasing amounts of energy to progress? (2007)
- Should research into expensive medical treatments be allowed when only a few can afford them? (2007)
- "The more science advances, the more religion will decline." To what extent do you agree? (2006)
- Should every country have the right to carry out unlimited scientific research? (2009)
- To what extent has technology had an impact on both privacy and security in your country? (2009)
- Can mathematics be seen as anything more than a useful tool in everyday life? (2010)
- To what extent has technology had a negative impact on the skill levels of people? (2010)
- Can space research be justified nowadays? (2011)
- How far is it acceptable for technology to be used only for financial benefit? (2012)
- Consider the view that mathematics possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty. (2012)
- "People in the Arts, living or dead, receive far more recognition than those in the Sciences, even though it is less deserved." Consider this claim. (2012)