• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Describe the major differences which may exist between a scientific and religious account of the origins of the universe There are two different types

Extracts from this document...


AMDG Jordan Gray Describe the major differences which may exist between a scientific and religious account of the origins of the universe There are two different types of arguments which revolve around how the universe began and of its origins. The scientific account of this is "The Big Bang" theory which states that the universe originated from the supernova (death) of a star and all the tiny particles fused together. The religious classification of this is how "God created the world in six days, on the seventh he rested". Both sides tell us that the opposing argument is utter nonsense and to believe `their` account. These two contradictory proclamations have both been around for hundreds of years and I will explain the major differences between them throughout this essay. Science teaches us many things which challenge the argument of the scientific account. ...read more.


Is basically the argument of science, and it is backed up furthermore with facts and proof; "When the star exploded..." This makes the argument very compelling and believable because when people find out about this view of the origin of the universe they will look for facts to back up what they have been told, the religious view can't offer any proof or facts. Religion on the other hand disputes in contradiction with the view of science and believes that the universe was created by the one and only God, not by particles and atoms fusing and performing the, once believed to be, impossible. For thousands of years before people knew about physical cosmology they accepted that the world was "created in six days". Although no proof at all was proposed they believed this account as there was no alternative and. ...read more.


Now, to me this seems too perfect and it undermines the argument of religion, weakening it and deeming it to be artificial. No evidence is given to back up each of its claims it is all about what happened and nothing about how or why it happened which surplus is shown in the argument of science. However, Genesis (the creation of the world) tells us literally of this view but maybe it is not to be taken literally, but metaphorically. In this case it is much easier and much more practical to believe, we can understand the relationship between God and the universe and how we as people were created. This brings me to conclude that in my opinion science is to a large extent the greater explanation of the origins of the universe because it states a realistic claim, and backs it up with proof and evidence. Religion however, does not. It states a claim of an impractical and idealistic manor and has no proof or evidence to back these claims up. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Existence of God section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Existence of God essays

  1. How Does Achebe Show Two Different Cultures In 'Things Fall Apart'?

    In Christian religion, although their god is referred to as male, its gender is not defined. Okonkwo's inner feelings greatly conflict. His masculine side tells him that showing emotion is feminine, and therefore the wrong thing for a man to do.

  2. What are the differences between "I am certain" and "it is certain", and is ...

    weather man said that we could expect showers and since the meteorologists carried out tests and did experiments to gather this information. "Human beings are not purely rational, we cannot stop ourselves from including our values and judgements in our interpretations.

  1. Logical Positivism and the Meaninglessness of Religious Language.

    Believers are not, however, able to say precisely what would count as a falsification, which implies that in practice we may not be able to say with certainty whether such beliefs have been falsified. He explains this through a parable: In an occupied country during a war, a resistance fighter

  2. Examine the differences which may exist between a religious and scientific interpretation of the ...

    Astrophysicists have also concluded this meaning; according to this model at least, that at one point in the past the entire universe was contained within a space smaller than a pinhead. Something as yet unknown, and unexplained, caused an explosion of such mammoth force and power that it caused the

  1. corporate religious experience such as the toronto blessing tell us nothing about god

    all understanding and experience" [http://mysite.wanadoomembers.co.uk/tsas_re/alevel/miracle.pdf] Hume says "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence" Therefore corporate religious experience, doesn't tell anything about God as there is little empirical evidence to support the claims for the miraculous. Hume sees as religion is unreasonable and since "Uniform experience of natural law outweighs the testimony of any alleged miracle."

  2. Explain why religious people may have problems with transplant surgery.

    Some accept the use of organs from the dead and living donors, some from only live ones and some like Roman Catholics and most evangelical Protestants completely reject all transplants. Most Christians agree with transplant surgery, and many carry donor cards so their organs can be used for others after death.

  1. Individual religious experience means individual religious fantasy; corporate religious experience means corporate religious fantasy; ...

    Pojman argues against such a strong argument 1. The reports are too amorphous 2. The reports are circular- acceptance of them depends on background belief in God 3. Reports are not capable of being confirmed as with perceptual experiences thus, they are not checkable, not predictable.

  2. Does God Exist?

    This being because; all of the main arguments can be flawed, and this is because there is no reasoning. One needs some sort of reasoning to believe an argument; this argument simply gives a definition of what god might be if he did exist, no reasons for his existence.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work