Conflict between science and faith

Science elucidates and describes the universe and all the structures and life forms that
exist. Tillich suggests that science is the product of human beings cognitive reasoning.
Throughout history, science as a form of reasoning comes closest to challenging faiths validity
(63). For instance, in comparing the scientific views and the Christian views pertaining creation
of the universe the conclusions differ profoundly. The Big Bang Theory is a scientific theory
that a mighty explosion gave birth to the world. Through millions of years, the products of the
explosion collided into each resulting to matter. From matter, life began and thus earths creation.
Science further provides theories that explain the existence and its continuity. The Darwins
Theory suggests that evolution of species took place when the simplest forms of acquired
complexities through a phenomenon termed as natural selection. In other words, through
natural selection, the species that adapted to the earthly conditions survived and those that did
not seized to exist. They became extinct such as the dinosaurs and the dodo bird. On the other
hand, Christians base their faith on the belief that creation was the work of God that took seven
days. His words brought beings into existence as well as the earth and his breathe gave human
beings life. On the seventh day creation concluded with God resting. Therefore, to most people
there exists a conflict between the two views (Tillich 63). In his book the Dynamics of faith,
Tillich (2001), rejects this assertion by providing reasons as to why the two have no basis of
conflict. In response to this conflict, Tillich suggests that there is no conflict because they
differ in terms of their dimensions of meaning, and that past conflicts did not involve the
really real notions of truth.
Science exists as a way to elucidate and describe the universe and all the structures and
life forms. A scientific truth is an acceptable statement that satisfactorily describes the laws of the
structures that match reality. Additionally, such laws undergo verification from time to time to

ascertain their accuracy as science changes over the years (Tillich 63). However, the truth-value
does not diminish based on this uncertainty. Simply, the new and verified finding replaces the
outdated hypothesis. Science exists on the notion that as long as acceptable scientific resources
do not verify it, it does not exist. In this light, the truth of faith has no conflict of interest with the
truth of science since its truth is the word of God that never undergoes changes and not confined
to limitations of quantity and quality. Theologians who study the faith have no basis of
comparison since they both exist in different dimensions. From this dimensions they derive their
meaning and since one dimension cannot interfere with another, there cannot exist any conflict
between the two views (Tillich 64). The same applies to the underlying scientific fields, namely
biology, physics, and psychology. In this light, a scientist destroys a well-controlled scientific
model when he subjects the Christians story of creation to a scientific description. On the other
hand, a theologian cannot validate an argument involving the existence and participation of a
supreme and infinite being in the big bang theory or the evolution process. There is no basis for
comparison and therefore they cannot conflict each other (Tillich 6).
Faith and reason only conflict with each other when they are not in their true natures. In
other words, faith and science in their purest and truest natures have no reason for conflict. This
Truth from both views is the really real notion of the truth (Tillich 61). However, error comes
about when the cognitive mind mistakes it with the one that seems as the truth. Additionally, the
error may come as a distorted way of expressing the really real. This created conflict since it
gave birth to a faith and a science which both lacked validity associated with a particular
dimension. The truth is prone to such vulnerabilities. For instance, the representatives of the faith
delayed the onset of modern astronomy on the basis that symbols in astronomy that resembled
those of the Christians blasphemed (Tillich 64). On the other hand, the representatives of science
through their work express subjective as well as detached faith through their work. Subjectively,

the scientists only care is their work and for it, they will die for what they believe is the truth.
Objectively, the scientists express their concern in their work by creating a symbol of
monstrosity that involves a mechanism that negates everything else including their scientific
prowess. In this way, they express their faith in their work (Tillich 64).
In conclusion, there exists no conflict between the views of faith and those of science
since they exist in separate dimensions. Conflict arises when the truths undergo wrongful or
misleading interpretation. Science cannot compete, validate, or challenge faith since only
scientific truths can negate or challenge each other. Additionally, only truths based on faith can
challenge, validate, or negate each other. The times where the representatives of the two
conflicted involved wrong interpretation of the two views. The false science deprived human
beings their humanity and the false faith used biblical literalism to distort the truth making it a
totally different truth (Tillich 63). Tillich warns theologians not to subject faiths truth to a
scientific description as this endeavor fosters more conflict as proven by historical events (65).

Works Cited
Tillich, Paul. Dynamics of Faith. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 2001. Print