Lies, Damned Lies, Science, and Theology: Why Everyone Needs to Know the Truth About Science and Religion

Author(s):  
Richard Cheetham
2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-161
Author(s):  
Søren Brier ◽  

This text is written in the honor of my scholarly friend John Deely, discussing the claims regarding the relation of modern science and religion put forth in Ashley and Deely, How Science Enriches Theology. I view it as the confrontation of a Peircean and a Thomist philosophical view of modern science and its relation to religion. I argue that the book demonstrates the problems inherent in the dialogue between a Thomist theist and a Peircean panentheist process view. Furthermore, that they are central to the contemporary philosophy of science discussion of the relation between the types of knowledge produced in the sciences and in theology. The important choice seems to be whether the link between science and religion should be based on a panentheist process concept of the divine as arising from a pure zero or on a theology with a personal god as the absolute and eternal source. I argue that Peirce’s triadic semiotic process philosophy is a unique form of panentheism in the way it draws on a combination of Schelling, Unitarianism, plus Emerson, and the transcendentalist’s spiritual ecumenical reading of Buddhist emptiness ontology and non-dualist Advaita Vedanta. This and Peirce’s synechism produce a non-confessional theological process philosophy. The surprising conclusion is that, because of its extended process philosophical grounding in emptiness, this panentheism does not assume any supernatural quality about the divine force of reasoning that drives Cosmogony. Rather Peirce’s pragmaticist formulation stands out as a true non-reductionist alternative to logical positivism’s reductionist unity science, especially in its form of mechanicism based on a concept of transcendental absolute law. The panentheism process view is also an alternative to the many forms of radical constructivism and postmodernism on the other hand. This is one of the reasons why Deely insightfully named Peirce the first true postmodernist.


2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Buitendag ◽  
Corneliu C. Simut

This article’s premise is that science holds the promise of deepening religious perspectives on creation. The natural sciences have convincingly proved that nature is not static, or a ready-made creation dropped from heaven. Theologians need to read nature as scientists see it and engage with that understanding theologically.The concept of resonance is applied to denote this tangential relationship as an eco-social constructivist understanding of reality. Two proponents, one scientist and one theologian, have been chosen who share this view of a holistic reality, and the objective is to determine the degree of resonance viable of these magisteria. A method of polycentric hermeneutics is thus pursued.Although we referred to the concept of consilience regarding von Humboldt’s enterprise, it is not in the authors’ scope to achieve this with science and theology as disciplines sui generis. However, if resonance becomes vital in understanding reality, faith is inevitable (Anselm). If a creation theology seeks a degree of plausibility, it requires the feedback-loop methodology of science. We all share one earth: the closer we all come to a shared end, the closer we also come together and relativise differences. The naturalist Edward O. Wilson suggested that science and religion should set aside their differences to save the planet. Resonance has the potential to let new horizons emerge in our mutual endeavour to come to grips with reality and to map out certain tangentially overlapping magisteria.Contribution: Through resonance, the thought constructs of a scientist and a theologian are juxtaposed. An iterative hermeneutics’ importance is emphasised in the theology and science discourse, if faith seeks understanding and leads to awe. And the conclusion is that the ‘spiritual dimension’ and the ‘natural dimension’ do not only overlap but are tangential, as they engage with the same reality.


1970 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 261-264
Author(s):  
Stanisław Wszołek

This is the second book by Michael Heller which presents to English readers his previously written papers on science and theology. The first one, The New Physics and a New Theology (Vatican Observatory Publications 1996) is worth mentioning in this context because in it, Michael Heller proposes a new direction in theology - the theology of science. The theology of science as envisioned by Heller is defined as an authentic theological reflection on the existence, foundations, methods, and results of modern science. Its purpose is to break down the mutual lack of trust between science and theology and to help theology advance to a new stage, where it can participate creatively in the currents of modern thought. Philosophers of science examine the boundaries of natural science and what can be known by the methods of science alone. Theology extends beyond these boundaries to include the supernatural, although Heller is far from embracing any kind of dualism. His way of extending these boundaries is different. A good example is provided by Einstein's famous question, „Why is the world comprehensible?" Neither Einstein nor any other philosopher or scientist is able to answer this question. It is theology that has to take over and seek the answer to Einstein's question. Heller provides more similar issues.


Author(s):  
Teresa Obolevitch

Chapter 2 tackles the relationship between science and religion in the eighteenth century known as the Age of Enlightenment. The state policy of Westernization which was promoted chiefly by Peter I and Catherine II caused an immensely expansive spread of scientific knowledge and, in consequence, resulted in the first attempts to establish a relationship between science and theology. The chapter analyses this problem from both scientific and theological perspectives. First of all, in the eighteenth century the Russian Academy of Sciences was opened and Russian philosophy at that time tried to interpret scientific data in accordance with theological truths. Yet, on the other hand, a number of Orthodox theologians highlighted the limitation of scientific knowledge. This chapter analyzes the thought of Michael Lomonosov, Gregory Skovoroda, Theophan Prokopovich, and others representatives of the Russian Age of Enlightenment.


2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Søren Brier

AbstractThis review assesses Ashley and Deely’s claims regarding the relation of science and religion, taking Einstein’s famous statement that “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” as its starting point. It argues that Ashley and Deely’s book


Author(s):  
Teresa Obolevitch

Chapter 10 analyzes the thought of Semen Frank who intended to expose the absolute priority of theology and “justify” secular branches of knowledge using theological tools. For him the relationship between science and theology is nothing other than a part of the question of religion as such, the correlation between the transcendency and the immanency of God. Frank was deeply concerned about the atheistic propaganda in the Soviet Union. In particular, he objected to the alleged conflict between science and religion. In his works Frank intended to unmask the falsity of this conclusion as well as to propose such a model of the relationship between these spheres which would be in accordance with a Christian worldview.


Author(s):  
Nancey Murphy

Philosophical discussion of the relation between modern science and religion has tended to focus on Christianity, because of its dominance in the West. The relations between science and Christianity have been too complex to be described by the ‘warfare’ model popularized by A.D. White (1896) and J.W. Draper (1874). An adequate account of the past two centuries requires a distinction between conservative and liberal positions. Conservative Christians tend to see theology and science as partially intersecting bodies of knowledge. God is revealed in ‘two books’: the Bible and nature. Ideally, science and theology ought to present a single, consistent account of reality; but in fact there have been instances where the results of science have (apparently) contradicted Scripture, in particular with regard to the age of the universe and the origin of the human species. Liberals tend to see science and religion as complementary but non-interacting, as having concerns so different as to make conflict impossible. This approach can be traced to Immanuel Kant, who distinguished sharply between pure reason (science) and practical reason (morality). More recent versions contrast science, which deals with the what and how of the natural world, and religion, which deals with meaning, or contrast science and religion as employing distinct languages. However, since the 1960s a growing number of scholars with liberal theological leanings have taken an interest in science and have denied that the two disciplines can be isolated from one another. Topics within science that offer fruitful points for dialogue with theology include Big-Bang cosmology and its possible implications for the doctrine of creation, the ‘fine-tuning’ of the cosmological constants and the possible implications of this for design arguments, and evolution and genetics, with their implications for a new understanding of the human individual. Perhaps of greater import are the indirect relations between science and theology. Newtonian physics fostered an understanding of the natural world as strictly determined by natural laws; this in turn had serious consequences for understanding divine action and human freedom. Twentieth-century developments such as quantum physics and chaos theory call for a revised view of causation. Advances in the philosophy of science in the second half of the twentieth century provide a much more sophisticated account of knowledge than was available earlier, and this has important implications for methods of argument in theology.


Author(s):  
David Hutchings ◽  
James C. Ungureanu

This book is a popular-level study of the conflict thesis: the notion that science and religion have been at war with each other throughout history, and that humanity must ultimately make its choice between the two. The origins of the conflict thesis are usually given as two works by nineteenth-century Americans, John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, who wrote History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1876) and A History of the Warfare Between Science and Theology in Christendom (1896), respectively. In these volumes, Draper and White relate stories such as the Church’s suppression of the sphericity of the Earth and of heliocentrism; its banning of dissection, anesthetic, and inoculation; its persecution of scientists; its dedication to irrationality in the face of reason; and much more. Yet their thesis has been thoroughly debunked in the literature, and their tales largely found to be myths. Despite this, they still circulate today, and many still believe that we must pick a side: God or science. This book uses accessible stories and anecdotes to analyze Draper, White, their true motivations, their books, their thorough debunking, the modern persistence of their flawed views, and the possibility of moving beyond them—toward true reconciliation. It is a history of science and religion, and of how, despite the common acceptance of the contrary, the latter has actually been of great benefit to the former. Rumors of a centuries-old war between God and science, it turns out, have been greatly exaggerated.


2021 ◽  
pp. 375-388
Author(s):  
Дмитрий Кирьянов

Вопросы взаимоотношения науки и религии уже много лет находятся в центре внимания учёных, богословов и философов. Среди множества книг, посвящённых дискуссиям о взаимоотношении науки и веры, встречается не так много работ, написанных православными богословами. Книга британского православного священника и одного из ведущих учёных в области диалога православного богословия и науки Кристофера Найта «Наука и христианская вера: руководство для сомневающихся» представляет особый интерес, поскольку написана человеком, который, как и многие учёные в академической области «наука и религия» обладает естественнонаучным и богословским образованием. The relationship between science and religion has been the focus of scholars, theologians and philosophers for many years. Among the many books devoted to the debate on the relationship between science and faith, there are not many works written by Orthodox theologians. Christopher Knight, a British Orthodox priest and one of the leading scholars in the field of dialogue between Orthodox theology and science, Science and Christian Faith: A Guide for the Doubting, is of particular interest because it is written by someone who, like many scholars in the academic field of "science and religion", has a background in science and theology.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document