Philosophy of religion / Freud AO1

New Atheists seem to argue that scientific theories are based only on evidence, whilst religion runs away from evidence. The claim is that atheism is rational and scientific while religion is irrational and superstitious. Faith is not an element of science since evidence for a correct conviction compels us to accept its truth. As Dawkins says “Faith is a state of mind that leads people to believe something – it doesn’t matter what – in the total absence of supporting evidence. If there were good supporting evidence, then faith would be superfluous…”
However, Alister McGrath points out that such a view “fails to make the critical distinction between the ‘total absence of supporting evidence’ and the ‘absence of totally supporting evidence’.” It is true that some facts about the world have been proved (e.g. the chemical formula for water) but the bigger scientific questions such as is there a Grand Unified Theory that explains everything rely on answers based on the best evidence available but they are not certainties. In future years they may well change as new evidence is considered. As Gauch concluded “Science rests on faith”.
Dawkins in his book “The God Delusion” does argue that the existence of God is a testable hypothesis and concludes that the hypothesis is falsifiable. Therefore the hypothesis is open to the scientific method. So here is a New Atheist proponent arguing that that the existence of God is a meaningful hypothesis. This implies that religion and science are compatible. This compatibility is reflected in the fact that scientists who are also Christians have debated against Dawkins. Possible one of the most well-known debates was between Dawkins and John Lennox who is Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Oxford. .

Science answers the question “how” while religion answers the question “why”. They deal with two very different areas. Religion involves faith while science is concerned with facts. But it is admitted that “science has no methods for deciding what is ethical.” So that supports the view that science and religion are incompatible. However, some New Atheists argue that moral values are about promoting human wellbeing and since science tells about what promotes wellbeing “it can determine moral values”.
It should also be noted that “God is not an inhabitant of the universe, he is the reason why there is a universe at all.” Therefore, there is a difference between science and religion. Science works only on observable data and draws a conclusion or hypothesis from that data. Some people point out that “subatomic particles cannot strictly be observed, yet cannot be regarded as non-existent for this reason”. The best scientific theories offer explanations of both observable and unobservable aspects of the world. Therefore, science is compatible with religion.

The first example is the better example of the two. A number of scholars are referred to in a relevant context and there are a number of relevant quotations that are attributed. Some examples are given to illustrate the point. The structure of the debate shows a process of reasoning. It responds to points made and raises counter points which are then addressed. The argument reaches a conclusion that is supported by the discussion.
In contrast, the second example has no mention of any scholars and although it does have some quotations, none are attributed and not all are relevant. There is no clear process of reasoning, and the conclusion does not follow from the arguments given.

This is a revision focused activity, putting together the earlier skills learnt. It is about creating an end product, applying the skills required by AO1. A bulleted summary is given though it is not necessary to develop all the bullet points. The order of the bullet points may also need changing. A variety of quotations are provided, but again not all are required.