He believes that religious claims are the existence or nonexistence of facts and science are existence claims. He also believes that science falsifies religion. Dawkins proves that religion is fact based by stating that Jesus either had a corporeal form or he didn’t, there is no in between, also Heaven has a physical location, this as well is a scientific fact. He goes on to say how “There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain of science” He also states that religious beliefs are popularized because of their scientific power yet, when it is subjected to the “rigors of scientific criticism”, it is considered to not be fair to do that. At the end of his paper he goes on to say how he believes that religion is obscure, not sincere in its teachings, and distorts its language to sway people to believe in …show more content…
In Gould’s essay science is defined as fact and theory based, while religion is defined as teachings of morality and values. Dawkins’ seems to think that religious claims are the existence or nonexistence of facts while scientific claims are existence claims. He further goes on to say how morality means the ethics or principles of right and wrong and values are what is good and what is bad. Watson thinks that science like religion is a collection of theories, but unlike religion science is a collection of theories about the natural world. Which is why science and religion cannot be compared because we cannot compare different understandings of rationality and truth. While these three viewpoints have some similarities, how are we to decide what to believe? For me, I believe that science and religion do overlap in some ways, but they cannot be compared as to which one is better. Meaning although science is backed up by facts and while religion is based on beliefs, I do not believe that one is superior to the other. I think that science is about facts while religion is about culture along with teachings of morality and