On Tuesday, Nov. 6, the Philosophy Club hosted a Religion vs. Science debate in the University Center Ballroom.

“The turnout was great,” Vice President of Philosophy Club Brett Barrofio said. “The club had high expectations, but we didn’t expect 250 people to come out. Last year about 75 people attended, so it’s exciting to see the number triple.”

The president of the Philosophy Club, Andy Bowen, kicked off the debate by welcoming the audience and introducing the speakers. Associate philosophy professor Leslie C. Miller, anthropology professor Gregory Batchelder, Senior Pastor of New Life Church Ken Vander Horst and Philosophy professor Dr. David Hale were all present for the debate. The topics started off with each participant defining his or her personal definitions of religion and science and the similarities and differences between the two.

“I think talking about these issues can be cathartic,” Barrofio said. “I’ve always been told that it’s impolite to talk religion or politics, so it’s not surprising that there are misconceptions about both sides. Openly discussing these topics not only shows where religion and science divide, but also where they converge.”

Naturally, they expanded to other topics such as whether religion provided order and whether or not society needed order at all. Another question was how to define “Godless nations,” and whether people need religion at all. They talked about the history and beginnings of religion and science as well. The debate focused heavily on Christianity as the primary religion to which science was being compared, and all sides of the debate argued their various points fairly and intelligently.

After the first hour, the debate turned into an open-floor conversation, and the audience was open to ask questions. The discussion gradually led to harder-hitting topics ,and participants began to debate the definition of truth and argue whether or not science was in fact just another type of religion.

Each question was weighed and discussed at length before moving on. Many of the students asking questions had majors that pertained to the debate, such as science or philosophy, so they were able to argue their points thoroughly. The open format allowed all parties to contribute to the discussion.

The debate was enlightening, and the open discussion forum made for an engaging evening.

“There will definitely be a similar event next fall,” Barrofio said. “We’ve been talking about trying a different topic for the spring semester.”

celehr@mavs.coloradomesa.edu