The Instigator
esalee129
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kvasir
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Will science and religion be a conflict?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Kvasir
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 544 times Debate No: 67184
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

esalee129

Con

Science and religion has had conflicts will they stop or will they continue?
Kvasir

Pro

I accept the debate. I interpret the subject as "Will [there be conflicts between] science and religion [in the future]? My task as Pro must then be to argue the case that there will still be conflicts between religion and science in the future. The Con must argue that there will not be conflicts between religion and science in the future.

I think we can agree that conflicts between religion and science have existed for a long time [1]. It is Con"s task to argue that the conflicts will stop now. Therefore, the BoP is on my opponent. I will now provide a structure and some definitions for this debate because the Instigator has not done so. If the Con disagrees with my definitions or structure, it must be argued for in round two.

First round: Acceptance. No arguments.
Second round " fourth round: Arguments and rebuttals
Fifth round: Rebuttals, summary etc. No new arguments.

Religion - an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods [2]
Science - knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation [3]
Conflict - strong disagreement between people, groups, etc., that results in often angry argument [4]

[1] http://www.gutenberg.org...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
esalee129

Con

esalee129 forfeited this round.
Kvasir

Pro

Read comment. I will skip this round due to holidays etc. I will not post arguments this round in order to give my opponent enough time to prepare an argument. I hope he/she will be able to engage in this debate the next round.

Regardless, I will give my argument(s) in round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
esalee129

Con

esalee129 forfeited this round.
Kvasir

Pro

Argument: Why should conflicts stop?

"Perhaps the earliest known conflict between science and religion occurred in ancient Babylon in what is present-day Iraq. The priests had taught that lunar eclipses were caused by the restlessness of the gods. They were considered evil omens that were directed against -- and threatened the lives of -- their kings. Then, local astronomers discovered the 18 year and 11.3 day (223 synodic month) interval between lunar eclipses. This suggested that the eclipses had natural cause. The discovery did not affect the superstitious beliefs of the priests; they still regarded eclipses as a time of great danger to their kings. However, armed with an accurate prediction of the next eclipse, they were able to substitute a temporary king during the interval around the eclipse, thus giving protection to the real king. The substitute was killed afterwards, so that omen was always fulfilled." [1]

From this excerpt, we see how conflict between religion and science has existed for more than two thousand years. In this historical event, the priests did a seemingly strange thing. They tried to explain the lunar eclipse by saying that it was caused by the restlessness of the gods. We even see how the priests takes advantage of the scientific development, yet present it as though they still knew what was causing it. Today, most people do not think that lunar eclipses are caused by the restlessness of the gods. This means that we, by the means of science [2], have explained something that was previously unknown. This has also meant that religion can no longer claim to explain it without evidence.

This is called "God of the gaps" [3] " the idea that because we cannot understand it, God probably created or controls it. We see this occur in the excerpt above. The "wise men" of the time could not explain it, therefore it was the work of the gods. There can be given many, many such examples throughout history, where science again and again has refuted religious beliefs. Examples are the idea of a flat earth, the idea of the universe circling around the earth, and the scientific theory of evolution. For every step science takes, through observations and experiments, religion inevitably has to take a step back. For after all religious beliefs are only beliefs, while scientific theories are backed by mountains of evidence.

Thus for conflicts between religion and science to stop, one of two things must happen. Either, scientific development must stop, or religious activity must stop. Science has brought much good to our planet " just consider the amount of things provided to you by scientific activity and development in the past. Science has brought much good in the past, a logical assumption would be that it will continue to do so in the future. I therefore do not think science can or will be abandoned. Religion is a more likely candidate, but most religious people will not give up what they believe in only to stop conflicts.

Conclusion:

Scientific development will continue, as it has for the last couple of thousand years. Religion and the beliefs of religious people must then continue to fall back on their opinions, as they have in the past. As science progresses and develops, there will continue to be conflicts, as there has been in the past.

I have given my argument for why there will be conflicts between religion and science in the future by showing that there has been, and why there has been, conflicts between them in the past. Even today, there are conflicts around evolution and creationism in schools. So I ask my opponent, why should the conflicts stop now?

Comment:

My opponent was supposed to post his/her argument this round, but instead forfeited or ran out of time. My opponent has forfeited two rounds in a row. I will give him/her the benefit of doubt " that he/she has been busy. I respect and understand this. However if my opponent continues to forfeit throughout this debate (which, sadly, happens way to often) I will extend my argument and regard it as a full forfeit. I hope my opponent is able to continue this debate. Regarding the sources: I do not often use Wikipedia, but I believe it reliably explains the God of the gaps "Phenomenon".

Sources:

[1] http://www.religioustolerance.org...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
esalee129

Con

esalee129 forfeited this round.
Kvasir

Pro

My opponent has (as expected) forfeited round 4 as well.

Argument extended.
Debate Round No. 4
esalee129

Con

esalee129 forfeited this round.
Kvasir

Pro

My opponent has forfeited four out of five rounds. He/she has not given any argument at all to support his/her cause. My opponent has not in any way rebutted my argument.

Arguments extended.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Kvasir 2 years ago
Kvasir
My opponent has forfeited round two. I will give him/her the benefit of doubt and that he/she has not been able to formulate an argument because of holiday preparations. This is perfecty understandable. I myself am also very busy in the holidays with family, friends etc. I will therefore try to drag out the debate slightly. This means that I will not post an argument in round two because the Instigator did not do so. l will also wait the full 72 hours before skipping my argument in order to essentially give my opponent an additional 140 hours to prepare his/her argument. I hope this will give him/her enough time, so that we can continue the debate in round three.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
esalee129KvasirTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made no arguments, so Pro's arguments were more than enough for argument points. Pro's sources helped structure the debate and make his winning argument, so points go to Pro. Conduct to Pro for Con's round forfeits.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
esalee129KvasirTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture