Religion and Science - Barbour’s dialogue model represents wise approach

[Anonymous]

Community service reminder for the forum atheists and for any theists who think they have to choose between religion and science - science and religion do not need to be seen and approached as being in conflict …

For better understanding how science and religion are related to reality, I recommend reading the brilliant physicist and theologian Ian Barbour. His work on reconciling science and religion, describes a four-category typology of the ways we may think science and religion relate to one another: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration.

He advocated for the dialogue model.

Ian Barbour’s 4 models of the interaction between religion and science:
* Conflict: Science and religion are in conflict. This view assumes that either science or religion is true while the other is necessarily false, and thus the perspectives of each will be in conflict.
* Independence: Both science and religion can be true, but in different domains. This view assumes that science and religion focus on different things, so as long as each keeps to its own domain, it can yield truth in that domain (Stephen J Gould’s idea of non-overlapping magesteria would be an example of this view).
* Dialogue: Science and religion can be conversation partners, as they both contain truth about many things. This view doesn’t assume that science and religion are the same, but that there is enough overlap in what they focus on to mutually inform one another about truths.
* Integration: The truths of science and religion can be integrated into a larger whole. This view assumes that the best way to understand the world is through an integration of science and religion, because they are complementary modes of knowing the truth about reality.

https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/enr3470/chapter/4-3/

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/us/ian-barbour-academic-who-resisted-conflicts-of-faith-and-science-dies-at-90.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

[Anonymous]

This online course is excellent (costs $200 though) for anyone interested in thoughtful overview of historical relationship between western science and religion.

https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/science-and-religion

Course Overview
Two crucial forces, science and religion, helped shape Western civilization and continue to interact in our daily lives. What is the nature of their relationship? When do they conflict, and how do they influence each other in pursuit of knowledge and truth? Contrary to prevailing notions that they must perpetually clash, science and theology have actually been partners in an age-old adventure. This course covers both the historical sweep and philosophical flashpoints of this epic interaction.

Professor Lawrence M. Principe unfolds a surprisingly cooperative dynamic in which theologians and natural scientists share methods, ideas, aspirations, and a tradition of disputational dialogue.

[Anonymous]

https://www.famousscientists.org/great-scientists-christians/
34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians
Here are some of the greatest scientists in history who were also deeply committed to their Christian faiths

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Community service reminder for the forum atheists and for any theists who think they have to choose between religion and science - science and religion do not need to be seen and approached as being in conflict …

For better understanding how science and religion are related to reality, I recommend reading the brilliant physicist and theologian Ian Barbour. His work on reconciling science and religion, describes a four-category typology of the ways we may think science and religion relate to one another: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration.

He advocated for the dialogue model.

Ian Barbour’s 4 models of the interaction between religion and science:
* Conflict: Science and religion are in conflict. This view assumes that either science or religion is true while the other is necessarily false, and thus the perspectives of each will be in conflict.
* Independence: Both science and religion can be true, but in different domains. This view assumes that science and religion focus on different things, so as long as each keeps to its own domain, it can yield truth in that domain (Stephen J Gould’s idea of non-overlapping magesteria would be an example of this view).
* Dialogue: Science and religion can be conversation partners, as they both contain truth about many things. This view doesn’t assume that science and religion are the same, but that there is enough overlap in what they focus on to mutually inform one another about truths.
* Integration: The truths of science and religion can be integrated into a larger whole. This view assumes that the best way to understand the world is through an integration of science and religion, because they are complementary modes of knowing the truth about reality.

https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/enr3470/chapter/4-3/

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/us/ian-barbour-academic-who-resisted-conflicts-of-faith-and-science-dies-at-90.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Community service reminder for the forum atheists and for any theists who think they have to choose between religion and science

The above is strictly opinion. Think what you like about religion and science. As many people already know, in today's society, you don[t have to choose. Some people accept both, some people do not.

[Anonymous]

Bottom line, compartmentalize:
real world = science
supernatural world = religion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.famousscientists.org/great-scientists-christians/
34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians
Here are some of the greatest scientists in history who were also deeply committed to their Christian faiths

What about great scientists who were committed to faiths other than the Christian faith?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line, compartmentalize:
real world = science
supernatural world = religion

Unnecessary Polarization = emotional flight or fight response rather than thoughtful discussion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.famousscientists.org/great-scientists-christians/
34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians
Here are some of the greatest scientists in history who were also deeply committed to their Christian faiths

What about great scientists who were committed to faiths other than the Christian faith?

There must be many of those - but they did not play as great a role on the evolution of western science as early western universities were Christian. Perhaps looking to older Muslim or Hindu universities might reveal non western scientists of faith ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Community service reminder for the forum atheists and for any theists who think they have to choose between religion and science - science and religion do not need to be seen and approached as being in conflict …

For better understanding how science and religion are related to reality, I recommend reading the brilliant physicist and theologian Ian Barbour. His work on reconciling science and religion, describes a four-category typology of the ways we may think science and religion relate to one another: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration.

He advocated for the dialogue model.

Ian Barbour’s 4 models of the interaction between religion and science:
* Conflict: Science and religion are in conflict. This view assumes that either science or religion is true while the other is necessarily false, and thus the perspectives of each will be in conflict.
* Independence: Both science and religion can be true, but in different domains. This view assumes that science and religion focus on different things, so as long as each keeps to its own domain, it can yield truth in that domain (Stephen J Gould’s idea of non-overlapping magesteria would be an example of this view).
* Dialogue: Science and religion can be conversation partners, as they both contain truth about many things. This view doesn’t assume that science and religion are the same, but that there is enough overlap in what they focus on to mutually inform one another about truths.
* Integration: The truths of science and religion can be integrated into a larger whole. This view assumes that the best way to understand the world is through an integration of science and religion, because they are complementary modes of knowing the truth about reality.

https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/enr3470/chapter/4-3/

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/us/ian-barbour-academic-who-resisted-conflicts-of-faith-and-science-dies-at-90.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Community service reminder for the forum atheists and for any theists who think they have to choose between religion and science

The above is strictly opinion. Think what you like about religion and science. As many people already know, in today's society, you don[t have to choose. Some people accept both, some people do not.

Strictly opinion by a brilliant and highly educated physicist and theologian, Ian Barbour.

Why don’t you try reading his work and commenting on the substance of his ideas rather than knee jerk defensiveness of your combat position?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line, compartmentalize:
real world = science
supernatural world = religion

Unnecessary Polarization = emotional flight or fight response rather than thoughtful discussion

Or...just concisely capturing reality.

There is no reconciling the two worlds. Therefore, compartmentalize.

[Anonymous]

I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

+1

At best, scientists aren't hampered by religion. At worst, they are called heretics and killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

I don’t know anyone who interprets genesis literally (not the Eucharist for that matter)

I personally know brilliant scientists who have great faith and it does not hurt their work or credibility at all. It probably does not help their work either but they are well rounded people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

+1

At best, scientists aren't hampered by religion. At worst, they are called heretics and killed.

It is interesting that the most dogmatic and close-minded posters in this forum appear to be atheists.

Try reading the highly educated and brilliant Barbour and comment on his typology rather than regurgitating the same unnecessarily hostile opinions in every thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

+1

At best, scientists aren't hampered by religion. At worst, they are called heretics and killed.

It is interesting that the most dogmatic and close-minded posters in this forum appear to be atheists.

Try reading the highly educated and brilliant Barbour and comment on his typology rather than regurgitating the same unnecessarily hostile opinions in every thread.

In summary, he uses divinity to explain the unknown.