Science and Religion: Their Logical Similarity

John F. Miller

doi:10.1017/s0034412500003954

Science and Religion: Their Logical Similarity

Religious Studies ◽

10.1017/s0034412500003954 ◽

1969 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 49-68 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

John F. Miller

Keyword(s):

Science And Religion ◽

Religious Believer ◽

Existence Of God

In his “Theology and Falsification” Professor Antony Flew challenges the sophisticated religious believer to state under what conceivable occurrences he would concede that there really is no God Who loves mankind:‘Just what would have to happen not merely (morally and wrongly) to tempt but also, logically and rightly, to entitle us to say “God does not love us” or even “God does not exist”? I therefore put…the simple central questions, “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or of the existence of, God”?’

Download Full-text

Necessary Being And Some Types Of Tautology

Philosophy ◽

10.1017/s0031819100055170 ◽

1964 ◽

Vol 39 (147) ◽

pp. 1-17

Author(s):

P. Æ. Hutchings

Keyword(s):

Natural Theology ◽

Great Part ◽

Religious Believer ◽

Existence Of God ◽

Necessary Being

Critics of the notion of Necessary Being, and critics of arguments for the existence of God, have often claimed to find flaws in the notion or the arguments, and to find flaws that are due to the presence of concealed tautologies. No theist who recalls the unfortunate ‘proof’ of St Anselm and its rejection by St Thomas would dare to claim, his hand on his heart, that tautology has never lurked like a serpent in the garden of natural theology. But the ways in which tautology and talk about God come together on occasion may or may not undermine natural theology in general. I for one am loath to abandon arguments for the existence of God, or give up talk of Necessary Being, since, unlike Professor Findlay, I am unwilling to reverence, much less to worship, a focus imaginarius and I want a real God, or none at all. One of the questions is, of course: does the religious believer want a God who must be too real to be real at all? Another question is: if one can sensibly talk of a God so real as to be Necessary, are there grounds for saying that this possible Necessary Being exists? Between them these questions cover a great part, though by no means all, of the ground of modern discussions on the matter of God.

Download Full-text

Rational Explanation in Science and Religion

The Territories of Human Reason ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198813101.003.0006 ◽

2018 ◽

pp. 124-153

Author(s):

Alister E. McGrath

Keyword(s):

Science And Religion ◽

Natural Sciences ◽

Christian Theology ◽

Good Theory ◽

Existence Of God ◽

Rational Explanation

This chapter considers what it means to ‘explain’ something in the natural sciences and Christian theology. A number of theories of explanation are considered, including ‘ontic’ and ‘epistemic’ approaches to explanation. Their respective merits and applications are examined. Particular attention is paid to ‘unitative explanation’, the idea that a good theory is able to enfold other theories, or enable things which were previously seen as unrelated to be considered as part of a greater coherent whole. The implications of these reflections for theological explanation are then considered, with the focus on one of Thomas Aquinas’s famous arguments for the existence of God—the ‘Second Way’.

Download Full-text

Science and Religion: Partners in Education?

Scottish Journal of Theology ◽

10.1017/s0036930600043131 ◽

1978 ◽

Vol 31 (5) ◽

pp. 401-416

Author(s):

David G. Kibble

Keyword(s):

Secondary School ◽

Science And Religion ◽

The Other ◽

Religious Believer ◽

Average Pupil ◽

Secondary School Pupils

Believing as I do that the ‘problem’ of science and religion is not a problem at all, provided that each is seen in the correct way and that each does not try to encroach upon the other, it will be my purpose in this paper to point out some of the difficulties in educating secondary school pupils into this fact. In popular thought, and in the thought of the average pupil, science produces severe problems for the religious believer, and it is assumed that the scientist is the purveyor of truth, whilst the religious believer is one who clings to unscientific beliefs in the attempt to hold on to his faith. In popular thought a scientist could not believe in religion because science has supposedly disproved the foundations of religion piece by piece over the centuries. Such a view, however, of science and religion is totally wrong.

Download Full-text

Philosophy of Religion: A Very Short Introduction

10.1093/actrade/9780198754961.001.0001 ◽

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Tim Bayne

Keyword(s):

Philosophy Of Religion ◽

Problem Of Evil ◽

Science And Religion ◽

Why a Panpsychist Should Adopt Theism: God, Galileo, and Goff

Journal of Consciousness Studies ◽

10.53765/20512201.28.9.250 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 28 (9) ◽

pp. 250-267

Author(s):

J. Leidenhag

Keyword(s):

Deep Level ◽

Science And Religion ◽

Cosmological Argument ◽

Divine Action ◽

Existence Of God ◽

Principle Of Sufficient Reason ◽

Emergence Theory ◽

The Relationship ◽

The Universe ◽

Level Of Agreement

This paper argues that there is a deep level of agreement between panpsychism and theism. Goff's Galileo's Error would have been even more compelling than it already is if Goff had portrayed a panpsychist cosmos as the world created by God, not as a spiritual alternative to theism. First, I critique Goff's assumption of incompatibilism, with regards the relationship between science and religion, and argue that panpsychism provides unique resources for articulating divine action. Second, I argue that most panpsychists endorse either the 'principle of sufficient reason' or a 'causal principle' in their rejection of emergence theory, and that if either of these principles are applied to the universe as a whole this would imply a further endorsement of the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

Download Full-text

Pascal's Wager as an Argument for Not Believing in God

Religious Studies ◽

10.1017/s0034412500014700 ◽

1983 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

pp. 57-64 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Michael Martin

Keyword(s):

Decision Theory ◽

Religious Believer ◽

Existence Of God ◽

Pascal’S Wager ◽

Plausible Argument

Can Pascal's wager for the existence of God be turned against the religious believer and used as an argument for not believing in God? Although such an argument has been very briefly sketched by others its details have remained undeveloped. In this paper this argument is worked out in detail in the context of decision theory and is defended against objections. The result is a plausible argument for atheism.

Download Full-text