Is Atheism a religion without a church or temple ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PPs who advocate that religion and science are always in conflict — (this is not a dig at atheists but simply
Addressing the shortcomings of that conflict typology for relationship between science and religion) ..


Scientific reasoning grew out of religious/ philosophical reasoning over hundreds of years. Further, science at high conceptual levels requires creativity and imagination. Science is not black and white, and neither is religion.

>>>>>>>>>>
Commentary: Thinking differently about science and religion
Tom McLeish
([e-mail]) University of York, Heslington, York, UK
Physics Today 71, 2, 10 (2018);

Maintaining the “alternative fact” that science and religion, and in particular Christianity, are in conflict is hurting science. Over the past year, three occasions have left me with strong visual memories and deep impressions that point towards a better approach …

Common across the three occasions is the theme of surprisingly deep and constructive mutual engagement of science and religious belief. The conference on shale-gas recovery was between academic Earth scientists and a few dozen senior church leaders, including bishops of the Church of England. The author of the impressive New Testament scholarship was Isaac Newton. And the play that so impressed me, staged by the Riding Lights Theatre Company in the elegant renaissance church of St Michael le Belfrey in York, featured a 20th-century Job as a research physicist.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3831


>>>>>>>>>>
Science and Religion
The great courses
Lawrence M. Principe, Ph.D.
InstitutionJohns Hopkins University
Alma materHistory of Science, Johns Hopkins University

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


>>>>>>>>
Faith Reason and Science
Philosophy Talk
Does faith obscure reason? Does reason obscure faith? Or perhaps their subject matters are different. Faith might address one area of our lives and reason and science another. Faith may allow us to see meaning, values, and God, while reason sees everything else, whatever that may be. Or perhaps faith and reason are fundamentally intertwined. Is faith void of reason? Is it irrational to be faithful? Are science and rationality void of faith? John and Ken welcome Nancey Murphy, author of Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will, to explore the meaning of faith and the place of faith and reason in religion, scientific practice, and our knowledge of ourselves and the world around us

https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/faith-reason-and-science

>>>>>
If science and religion are properly understood, they cannot be in contradiction because they concern different matters. Science and religion are like two different windows for looking at the world. The two windows look at the same world, but they show different aspects of that world.
https://www.ineos.com/inch-magazine/articles/issue-7/debate/

You could say the same for sorcery, or Tarot cards or anything that takes alternatives to science seriously.

If you like religion - fine. Enjoy it. Believe it. teach it to your children. Just don't equate with science and don't expect other people to believe as you do.

And if you want to live in a dogmatic ahistorical echo chamber please go ahead. Apparently you already are …
Someone with many family members and friends who are both scientists and people of faith …

Notice how religious pp is insulting and previous pp is not. This kind of response is common among some religious people - they feel they have the right to insult people who do not believe the way that they do.

No I noticed atheist PP was patronizing and intellectually close minded … while claiming to have a superior grasp on truth without evidence he/ she claims to be beholden to …

Religious pp is being insulting again and making spurious claims. They just can't help it. Thankfully , not all religious people are like this. I'm not sure this behavior is even related to religion. It may be more of a personality defect exacerbated by extreme religious beliefs and discomfort with people who do not share them.

So you don't think it's related to religion, but it's related to religion? Interesting premise. You are one of the most illogical posters in the religion forums, and that's really saying something.

More insults. Good bye

If you feel insulted when people point out your logical flaws, that's on you.

I think I am the previous PP whom you were responding to - that religion and science do not seem to be in conflict but offer differ windows into truth.

I was not insulted and did not say goodbye. I just was not convinced by the certitude with which you believe science and religion to be in perpetual conflict.

As noted, in order to speak to PP’s point that no one would agree with me, I have many family and friends with advanced science degrees from top universities in US and other countries who also enjoy rich lives of faith. If anything their faith makes them better scientists as they approach their work with humility and diligence as well as with open minds and hearts. I also have family and good friends who are atheists/ agnostics but they tend to be open minded and non dogmatic about their beliefs. We respect each other and appreciate our different strengths as people.

Dogmatists for either religion or science are tedious and tend to close down conversations rather than invite new questions or different approaches to solving problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PPs who advocate that religion and science are always in conflict — (this is not a dig at atheists but simply
Addressing the shortcomings of that conflict typology for relationship between science and religion) ..


Scientific reasoning grew out of religious/ philosophical reasoning over hundreds of years. Further, science at high conceptual levels requires creativity and imagination. Science is not black and white, and neither is religion.

>>>>>>>>>>
Commentary: Thinking differently about science and religion
Tom McLeish
([e-mail]) University of York, Heslington, York, UK
Physics Today 71, 2, 10 (2018);

Maintaining the “alternative fact” that science and religion, and in particular Christianity, are in conflict is hurting science. Over the past year, three occasions have left me with strong visual memories and deep impressions that point towards a better approach …

Common across the three occasions is the theme of surprisingly deep and constructive mutual engagement of science and religious belief. The conference on shale-gas recovery was between academic Earth scientists and a few dozen senior church leaders, including bishops of the Church of England. The author of the impressive New Testament scholarship was Isaac Newton. And the play that so impressed me, staged by the Riding Lights Theatre Company in the elegant renaissance church of St Michael le Belfrey in York, featured a 20th-century Job as a research physicist.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3831


>>>>>>>>>>
Science and Religion
The great courses
Lawrence M. Principe, Ph.D.
InstitutionJohns Hopkins University
Alma materHistory of Science, Johns Hopkins University

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


>>>>>>>>
Faith Reason and Science
Philosophy Talk
Does faith obscure reason? Does reason obscure faith? Or perhaps their subject matters are different. Faith might address one area of our lives and reason and science another. Faith may allow us to see meaning, values, and God, while reason sees everything else, whatever that may be. Or perhaps faith and reason are fundamentally intertwined. Is faith void of reason? Is it irrational to be faithful? Are science and rationality void of faith? John and Ken welcome Nancey Murphy, author of Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will, to explore the meaning of faith and the place of faith and reason in religion, scientific practice, and our knowledge of ourselves and the world around us

https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/faith-reason-and-science

>>>>>
If science and religion are properly understood, they cannot be in contradiction because they concern different matters. Science and religion are like two different windows for looking at the world. The two windows look at the same world, but they show different aspects of that world.
https://www.ineos.com/inch-magazine/articles/issue-7/debate/

You could say the same for sorcery, or Tarot cards or anything that takes alternatives to science seriously.

If you like religion - fine. Enjoy it. Believe it. teach it to your children. Just don't equate with science and don't expect other people to believe as you do.

And if you want to live in a dogmatic ahistorical echo chamber please go ahead. Apparently you already are …
Someone with many family members and friends who are both scientists and people of faith …

Notice how religious pp is insulting and previous pp is not. This kind of response is common among some religious people - they feel they have the right to insult people who do not believe the way that they do.

No I noticed atheist PP was patronizing and intellectually close minded … while claiming to have a superior grasp on truth without evidence he/ she claims to be beholden to …

Religious pp is being insulting again and making spurious claims. They just can't help it. Thankfully , not all religious people are like this. I'm not sure this behavior is even related to religion. It may be more of a personality defect exacerbated by extreme religious beliefs and discomfort with people who do not share them.

So you don't think it's related to religion, but it's related to religion? Interesting premise. You are one of the most illogical posters in the religion forums, and that's really saying something.

More insults. Good bye

If you feel insulted when people point out your logical flaws, that's on you.

I think I am the previous PP whom you were responding to - that religion and science do not seem to be in conflict but offer differ windows into truth.

I was not insulted and did not say goodbye. I just was not convinced by the certitude with which you believe science and religion to be in perpetual conflict.

As noted, in order to speak to PP’s point that no one would agree with me, I have many family and friends with advanced science degrees from top universities in US and other countries who also enjoy rich lives of faith. If anything their faith makes them better scientists as they approach their work with humility and diligence as well as with open minds and hearts. I also have family and good friends who are atheists/ agnostics but they tend to be open minded and non dogmatic about their beliefs. We respect each other and appreciate our different strengths as people.

Dogmatists for either religion or science are tedious and tend to close down conversations rather than invite new questions or different approaches to solving problems.

+1, except I question this one thought: " If anything their faith makes them better scientists as they approach their work with humility and diligence as well as with open minds and hearts."

Dp you think non-believing scientists do not approach their work the way that believers do, which makes them worse scientists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ how many of those are still alive?

Those are all listed as still living which is why I posted them and not historic scientists of faith.

Most of them are ancient. Back in the olden times it was easier to force kids into brainwashing.

Anyway, the science aspect of their life deals with facts and knowledge. The ”faith” side deals in beliefs and rituals to fill in uncertainty.

”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives” -Collins

The scientists of faith in real life whom I know vary from 20s through to 60s.

I stand by earlier point that you have a very narrow view of both science and religion.

They do not need to be seen as being in conflict.

I recommend reading the brilliant physicist/ theologian Ian Barbour’s work on better understanding the relationship between science and religion -: if you are willing to open your mind.

Barbour:
- The scientific discoveries made by Galileo and Newton began to describe and explain the natural and physical laws by which the earth operates. These discoveries drastically changed the way that man viewed the world and nature. This in turn caused shifts in theological thought.
- God filled the scientific gaps
- the objectivity of science versus the subjectivity of history. History is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement. Although throughout history certain patterns of human behavior emerge, these patterns are never entirely predictable or repeatable. Where in science, all events that are observed must be repeatable and produce the same results in order to uphold natural laws.
- Like history, religion is subjective due to the personal involvement required of religion.
- although physics can be used to explain human freedom to some extent, it will never produce an entirely satisfactory argument for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_Science_and_Religion

So he compartmentalizes. And uses religion to fill in unknown holes.

Once those holes are all filled in what is left of religion?

Weak.

No response?

I would be bothered if there a substantive response to his typology but PP clearly did not read Barbour - just a quick drive by through wiki …

Did that not accurately capture points from his book?

Which part was inaccurate?

[Anonymous]

A person can hold religious beliefs and still accept scientific evidence but it requires that the religious beliefs get modified every time they are disproved by science.

Every single time.

You move the religious belief into the allegorical category - even if it is scriptural. You accept that the religious texts are ancient and written by man and when science fills the gap literal belief in it must be abandoned.

It’s the only way for the two to co-exist. For everyone, including the long list of scientists posted prior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PPs who advocate that religion and science are always in conflict — (this is not a dig at atheists but simply
Addressing the shortcomings of that conflict typology for relationship between science and religion) ..


Scientific reasoning grew out of religious/ philosophical reasoning over hundreds of years. Further, science at high conceptual levels requires creativity and imagination. Science is not black and white, and neither is religion.

>>>>>>>>>>
Commentary: Thinking differently about science and religion
Tom McLeish
([e-mail]) University of York, Heslington, York, UK
Physics Today 71, 2, 10 (2018);

Maintaining the “alternative fact” that science and religion, and in particular Christianity, are in conflict is hurting science. Over the past year, three occasions have left me with strong visual memories and deep impressions that point towards a better approach …

Common across the three occasions is the theme of surprisingly deep and constructive mutual engagement of science and religious belief. The conference on shale-gas recovery was between academic Earth scientists and a few dozen senior church leaders, including bishops of the Church of England. The author of the impressive New Testament scholarship was Isaac Newton. And the play that so impressed me, staged by the Riding Lights Theatre Company in the elegant renaissance church of St Michael le Belfrey in York, featured a 20th-century Job as a research physicist.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3831


>>>>>>>>>>
Science and Religion
The great courses
Lawrence M. Principe, Ph.D.
InstitutionJohns Hopkins University
Alma materHistory of Science, Johns Hopkins University

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


>>>>>>>>
Faith Reason and Science
Philosophy Talk
Does faith obscure reason? Does reason obscure faith? Or perhaps their subject matters are different. Faith might address one area of our lives and reason and science another. Faith may allow us to see meaning, values, and God, while reason sees everything else, whatever that may be. Or perhaps faith and reason are fundamentally intertwined. Is faith void of reason? Is it irrational to be faithful? Are science and rationality void of faith? John and Ken welcome Nancey Murphy, author of Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will, to explore the meaning of faith and the place of faith and reason in religion, scientific practice, and our knowledge of ourselves and the world around us

https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/faith-reason-and-science

>>>>>
If science and religion are properly understood, they cannot be in contradiction because they concern different matters. Science and religion are like two different windows for looking at the world. The two windows look at the same world, but they show different aspects of that world.
https://www.ineos.com/inch-magazine/articles/issue-7/debate/

You could say the same for sorcery, or Tarot cards or anything that takes alternatives to science seriously.

If you like religion - fine. Enjoy it. Believe it. teach it to your children. Just don't equate with science and don't expect other people to believe as you do.

And if you want to live in a dogmatic ahistorical echo chamber please go ahead. Apparently you already are …
Someone with many family members and friends who are both scientists and people of faith …

Notice how religious pp is insulting and previous pp is not. This kind of response is common among some religious people - they feel they have the right to insult people who do not believe the way that they do.

No I noticed atheist PP was patronizing and intellectually close minded … while claiming to have a superior grasp on truth without evidence he/ she claims to be beholden to …

Religious pp is being insulting again and making spurious claims. They just can't help it. Thankfully , not all religious people are like this. I'm not sure this behavior is even related to religion. It may be more of a personality defect exacerbated by extreme religious beliefs and discomfort with people who do not share them.

The martyr hood complex is absolutely related to religion. Can’t have an in-group without an out group of evil people attacking them. It’s classic cult behavior.

Look at all the fundamentalists wondering why everyone hates them? All they want to do is shove their nonsense into other people’s bodies. What could be wrong with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PPs who advocate that religion and science are always in conflict — (this is not a dig at atheists but simply
Addressing the shortcomings of that conflict typology for relationship between science and religion) ..


Scientific reasoning grew out of religious/ philosophical reasoning over hundreds of years. Further, science at high conceptual levels requires creativity and imagination. Science is not black and white, and neither is religion.

>>>>>>>>>>
Commentary: Thinking differently about science and religion
Tom McLeish
([e-mail]) University of York, Heslington, York, UK
Physics Today 71, 2, 10 (2018);

Maintaining the “alternative fact” that science and religion, and in particular Christianity, are in conflict is hurting science. Over the past year, three occasions have left me with strong visual memories and deep impressions that point towards a better approach …

Common across the three occasions is the theme of surprisingly deep and constructive mutual engagement of science and religious belief. The conference on shale-gas recovery was between academic Earth scientists and a few dozen senior church leaders, including bishops of the Church of England. The author of the impressive New Testament scholarship was Isaac Newton. And the play that so impressed me, staged by the Riding Lights Theatre Company in the elegant renaissance church of St Michael le Belfrey in York, featured a 20th-century Job as a research physicist.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3831


>>>>>>>>>>
Science and Religion
The great courses
Lawrence M. Principe, Ph.D.
InstitutionJohns Hopkins University
Alma materHistory of Science, Johns Hopkins University

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


>>>>>>>>
Faith Reason and Science
Philosophy Talk
Does faith obscure reason? Does reason obscure faith? Or perhaps their subject matters are different. Faith might address one area of our lives and reason and science another. Faith may allow us to see meaning, values, and God, while reason sees everything else, whatever that may be. Or perhaps faith and reason are fundamentally intertwined. Is faith void of reason? Is it irrational to be faithful? Are science and rationality void of faith? John and Ken welcome Nancey Murphy, author of Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will, to explore the meaning of faith and the place of faith and reason in religion, scientific practice, and our knowledge of ourselves and the world around us

https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/faith-reason-and-science

>>>>>
If science and religion are properly understood, they cannot be in contradiction because they concern different matters. Science and religion are like two different windows for looking at the world. The two windows look at the same world, but they show different aspects of that world.
https://www.ineos.com/inch-magazine/articles/issue-7/debate/

You could say the same for sorcery, or Tarot cards or anything that takes alternatives to science seriously.

If you like religion - fine. Enjoy it. Believe it. teach it to your children. Just don't equate with science and don't expect other people to believe as you do.

And if you want to live in a dogmatic ahistorical echo chamber please go ahead. Apparently you already are …
Someone with many family members and friends who are both scientists and people of faith …

Notice how religious pp is insulting and previous pp is not. This kind of response is common among some religious people - they feel they have the right to insult people who do not believe the way that they do.

No I noticed atheist PP was patronizing and intellectually close minded … while claiming to have a superior grasp on truth without evidence he/ she claims to be beholden to …

Religious pp is being insulting again and making spurious claims. They just can't help it. Thankfully , not all religious people are like this. I'm not sure this behavior is even related to religion. It may be more of a personality defect exacerbated by extreme religious beliefs and discomfort with people who do not share them.

The martyr hood complex is absolutely related to religion. Can’t have an in-group without an out group of evil people attacking them. It’s classic cult behavior.

Look at all the fundamentalists wondering why everyone hates them? All they want to do is shove their nonsense into other people’s bodies. What could be wrong with that?

Good points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ how many of those are still alive?

Those are all listed as still living which is why I posted them and not historic scientists of faith.

Most of them are ancient. Back in the olden times it was easier to force kids into brainwashing.

Anyway, the science aspect of their life deals with facts and knowledge. The ”faith” side deals in beliefs and rituals to fill in uncertainty.

”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives” -Collins

The scientists of faith in real life whom I know vary from 20s through to 60s.

I stand by earlier point that you have a very narrow view of both science and religion.

They do not need to be seen as being in conflict.

I recommend reading the brilliant physicist/ theologian Ian Barbour’s work on better understanding the relationship between science and religion -: if you are willing to open your mind.

Barbour:
- The scientific discoveries made by Galileo and Newton began to describe and explain the natural and physical laws by which the earth operates. These discoveries drastically changed the way that man viewed the world and nature. This in turn caused shifts in theological thought.
- God filled the scientific gaps
- the objectivity of science versus the subjectivity of history. History is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement. Although throughout history certain patterns of human behavior emerge, these patterns are never entirely predictable or repeatable. Where in science, all events that are observed must be repeatable and produce the same results in order to uphold natural laws.
- Like history, religion is subjective due to the personal involvement required of religion.
- although physics can be used to explain human freedom to some extent, it will never produce an entirely satisfactory argument for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_Science_and_Religion

So he compartmentalizes. And uses religion to fill in unknown holes.

Once those holes are all filled in what is left of religion?

Weak.

No response?

I would be bothered if there a substantive response to his typology but PP clearly did not read Barbour - just a quick drive by through wiki …

Did that not accurately capture points from his book?

Which part was inaccurate?

Right. It was an inconveniently accurate account of his book.

He compartmentalizes. And uses religion to fill in unknown holes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PPs who advocate that religion and science are always in conflict — (this is not a dig at atheists but simply
Addressing the shortcomings of that conflict typology for relationship between science and religion) ..


Scientific reasoning grew out of religious/ philosophical reasoning over hundreds of years. Further, science at high conceptual levels requires creativity and imagination. Science is not black and white, and neither is religion.

>>>>>>>>>>
Commentary: Thinking differently about science and religion
Tom McLeish
([e-mail]) University of York, Heslington, York, UK
Physics Today 71, 2, 10 (2018);

Maintaining the “alternative fact” that science and religion, and in particular Christianity, are in conflict is hurting science. Over the past year, three occasions have left me with strong visual memories and deep impressions that point towards a better approach …

Common across the three occasions is the theme of surprisingly deep and constructive mutual engagement of science and religious belief. The conference on shale-gas recovery was between academic Earth scientists and a few dozen senior church leaders, including bishops of the Church of England. The author of the impressive New Testament scholarship was Isaac Newton. And the play that so impressed me, staged by the Riding Lights Theatre Company in the elegant renaissance church of St Michael le Belfrey in York, featured a 20th-century Job as a research physicist.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3831


>>>>>>>>>>
Science and Religion
The great courses
Lawrence M. Principe, Ph.D.
InstitutionJohns Hopkins University
Alma materHistory of Science, Johns Hopkins University

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


>>>>>>>>
Faith Reason and Science
Philosophy Talk
Does faith obscure reason? Does reason obscure faith? Or perhaps their subject matters are different. Faith might address one area of our lives and reason and science another. Faith may allow us to see meaning, values, and God, while reason sees everything else, whatever that may be. Or perhaps faith and reason are fundamentally intertwined. Is faith void of reason? Is it irrational to be faithful? Are science and rationality void of faith? John and Ken welcome Nancey Murphy, author of Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will, to explore the meaning of faith and the place of faith and reason in religion, scientific practice, and our knowledge of ourselves and the world around us

https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/faith-reason-and-science

>>>>>
If science and religion are properly understood, they cannot be in contradiction because they concern different matters. Science and religion are like two different windows for looking at the world. The two windows look at the same world, but they show different aspects of that world.
https://www.ineos.com/inch-magazine/articles/issue-7/debate/

You could say the same for sorcery, or Tarot cards or anything that takes alternatives to science seriously.

If you like religion - fine. Enjoy it. Believe it. teach it to your children. Just don't equate with science and don't expect other people to believe as you do.

And if you want to live in a dogmatic ahistorical echo chamber please go ahead. Apparently you already are …
Someone with many family members and friends who are both scientists and people of faith …

Notice how religious pp is insulting and previous pp is not. This kind of response is common among some religious people - they feel they have the right to insult people who do not believe the way that they do.

No I noticed atheist PP was patronizing and intellectually close minded … while claiming to have a superior grasp on truth without evidence he/ she claims to be beholden to …

Religious pp is being insulting again and making spurious claims. They just can't help it. Thankfully , not all religious people are like this. I'm not sure this behavior is even related to religion. It may be more of a personality defect exacerbated by extreme religious beliefs and discomfort with people who do not share them.

So you don't think it's related to religion, but it's related to religion? Interesting premise. You are one of the most illogical posters in the religion forums, and that's really saying something.

More insults. Good bye

If you feel insulted when people point out your logical flaws, that's on you.

I think I am the previous PP whom you were responding to - that religion and science do not seem to be in conflict but offer differ windows into truth.

I was not insulted and did not say goodbye. I just was not convinced by the certitude with which you believe science and religion to be in perpetual conflict.

As noted, in order to speak to PP’s point that no one would agree with me, I have many family and friends with advanced science degrees from top universities in US and other countries who also enjoy rich lives of faith. If anything their faith makes them better scientists as they approach their work with humility and diligence as well as with open minds and hearts. I also have family and good friends who are atheists/ agnostics but they tend to be open minded and non dogmatic about their beliefs. We respect each other and appreciate our different strengths as people.

Dogmatists for either religion or science are tedious and tend to close down conversations rather than invite new questions or different approaches to solving problems.

+1, except I question this one thought: " If anything their faith makes them better scientists as they approach their work with humility and diligence as well as with open minds and hearts."

Dp you think non-believing scientists do not approach their work the way that believers do, which makes them worse scientists?

No not at all - scientific education and practice requires grueling and often repetitive attention to detail. Humility and diligence to faithfully carry out work which may or may not follow predicted outcomes (and is often counter intuitive) can be aided by an attitude of faith in a larger unseen reality/ mystery at work - but is absolutely not dependent on it. Also theoretical science requires creativity and imagination which can be aided by faith in terms of being open to parts of reality we don’t yet understand.

I just don’t see religion and science as always in conflict although obviously sometimes they are when fundamentalists reject science as we saw during the pandemic.

Thank you for your thoughtful question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ how many of those are still alive?

Those are all listed as still living which is why I posted them and not historic scientists of faith.

Most of them are ancient. Back in the olden times it was easier to force kids into brainwashing.

Anyway, the science aspect of their life deals with facts and knowledge. The ”faith” side deals in beliefs and rituals to fill in uncertainty.

”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives” -Collins

The scientists of faith in real life whom I know vary from 20s through to 60s.

I stand by earlier point that you have a very narrow view of both science and religion.

They do not need to be seen as being in conflict.

I recommend reading the brilliant physicist/ theologian Ian Barbour’s work on better understanding the relationship between science and religion -: if you are willing to open your mind.

Barbour:
- The scientific discoveries made by Galileo and Newton began to describe and explain the natural and physical laws by which the earth operates. These discoveries drastically changed the way that man viewed the world and nature. This in turn caused shifts in theological thought.
- God filled the scientific gaps
- the objectivity of science versus the subjectivity of history. History is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement. Although throughout history certain patterns of human behavior emerge, these patterns are never entirely predictable or repeatable. Where in science, all events that are observed must be repeatable and produce the same results in order to uphold natural laws.
- Like history, religion is subjective due to the personal involvement required of religion.
- although physics can be used to explain human freedom to some extent, it will never produce an entirely satisfactory argument for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_Science_and_Religion

So he compartmentalizes. And uses religion to fill in unknown holes.

Once those holes are all filled in what is left of religion?

Weak.

No response?

I would be bothered if there a substantive response to his typology but PP clearly did not read Barbour - just a quick drive by through wiki …

Did that not accurately capture points from his book?

Which part was inaccurate?

I was hoping to discuss his four-category typology of the ways we may think science and religion relate to one another:
conflict,
independence,
dialogue, and
integration.

Ian Barbour was a physicist and theologian who worked on reconciling science and religion, and who favored the dialogue model which I agree is the most helpful.

Western Science and religion grew up together over many hundreds of years (scientific reasoning grew out of religious and philosophical reasoning) -/ but neither cannot replace each other in terms of the parts of reality they illuminate and the epistemology of the types of knowledge they create.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ how many of those are still alive?

Those are all listed as still living which is why I posted them and not historic scientists of faith.

Most of them are ancient. Back in the olden times it was easier to force kids into brainwashing.

Anyway, the science aspect of their life deals with facts and knowledge. The ”faith” side deals in beliefs and rituals to fill in uncertainty.

”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives” -Collins

The scientists of faith in real life whom I know vary from 20s through to 60s.

I stand by earlier point that you have a very narrow view of both science and religion.

They do not need to be seen as being in conflict.

I recommend reading the brilliant physicist/ theologian Ian Barbour’s work on better understanding the relationship between science and religion -: if you are willing to open your mind.

Barbour:
- The scientific discoveries made by Galileo and Newton began to describe and explain the natural and physical laws by which the earth operates. These discoveries drastically changed the way that man viewed the world and nature. This in turn caused shifts in theological thought.
- God filled the scientific gaps
- the objectivity of science versus the subjectivity of history. History is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement. Although throughout history certain patterns of human behavior emerge, these patterns are never entirely predictable or repeatable. Where in science, all events that are observed must be repeatable and produce the same results in order to uphold natural laws.
- Like history, religion is subjective due to the personal involvement required of religion.
- although physics can be used to explain human freedom to some extent, it will never produce an entirely satisfactory argument for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_Science_and_Religion

So he compartmentalizes. And uses religion to fill in unknown holes.

Once those holes are all filled in what is left of religion?

Weak.

No response?

I would be bothered if there a substantive response to his typology but PP clearly did not read Barbour - just a quick drive by through wiki …

Did that not accurately capture points from his book?

Which part was inaccurate?

I was hoping to discuss his four-category typology of the ways we may think science and religion relate to one another:
conflict,
independence,
dialogue, and
integration.

Ian Barbour was a physicist and theologian who worked on reconciling science and religion, and who favored the dialogue model which I agree is the most helpful.

Western Science and religion grew up together over many hundreds of years (scientific reasoning grew out of religious and philosophical reasoning) -/ but neither cannot replace each other in terms of the parts of reality they illuminate and the epistemology of the types of knowledge they create.

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.

IOW - religion matters! Not too shocking, coming from a theologian (or anyone wanting to believe in the importance of religion)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ how many of those are still alive?

Those are all listed as still living which is why I posted them and not historic scientists of faith.

Most of them are ancient. Back in the olden times it was easier to force kids into brainwashing.

Anyway, the science aspect of their life deals with facts and knowledge. The ”faith” side deals in beliefs and rituals to fill in uncertainty.

”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives” -Collins

The scientists of faith in real life whom I know vary from 20s through to 60s.

I stand by earlier point that you have a very narrow view of both science and religion.

They do not need to be seen as being in conflict.

I recommend reading the brilliant physicist/ theologian Ian Barbour’s work on better understanding the relationship between science and religion -: if you are willing to open your mind.

Barbour:
- The scientific discoveries made by Galileo and Newton began to describe and explain the natural and physical laws by which the earth operates. These discoveries drastically changed the way that man viewed the world and nature. This in turn caused shifts in theological thought.
- God filled the scientific gaps
- the objectivity of science versus the subjectivity of history. History is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement. Although throughout history certain patterns of human behavior emerge, these patterns are never entirely predictable or repeatable. Where in science, all events that are observed must be repeatable and produce the same results in order to uphold natural laws.
- Like history, religion is subjective due to the personal involvement required of religion.
- although physics can be used to explain human freedom to some extent, it will never produce an entirely satisfactory argument for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_Science_and_Religion

So he compartmentalizes. And uses religion to fill in unknown holes.

Once those holes are all filled in what is left of religion?

Weak.

No response?

I would be bothered if there a substantive response to his typology but PP clearly did not read Barbour - just a quick drive by through wiki …

Did that not accurately capture points from his book?

Which part was inaccurate?

I was hoping to discuss his four-category typology of the ways we may think science and religion relate to one another:
conflict,
independence,
dialogue, and
integration.

Ian Barbour was a physicist and theologian who worked on reconciling science and religion, and who favored the dialogue model which I agree is the most helpful.

Western Science and religion grew up together over many hundreds of years (scientific reasoning grew out of religious and philosophical reasoning) -/ but neither cannot replace each other in terms of the parts of reality they illuminate and the epistemology of the types of knowledge they create.

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.

IOW - religion matters! Not too shocking, coming from a theologian (or anyone wanting to believe in the importance of religion)

It is more than that - it is about dialogue and cooperation in certain important areas. For example, reducing extreme poverty benefits from religious imperatives to help raise up the poor and scientific approaches to the most efficient ways to achieve that (eg carrying out the UN MDG goals often require cooperation between scientific community and religious leaders to reach target vulnerable people needing help).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ how many of those are still alive?

Those are all listed as still living which is why I posted them and not historic scientists of faith.

Most of them are ancient. Back in the olden times it was easier to force kids into brainwashing.

Anyway, the science aspect of their life deals with facts and knowledge. The ”faith” side deals in beliefs and rituals to fill in uncertainty.

”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives” -Collins

The scientists of faith in real life whom I know vary from 20s through to 60s.

I stand by earlier point that you have a very narrow view of both science and religion.

They do not need to be seen as being in conflict.

I recommend reading the brilliant physicist/ theologian Ian Barbour’s work on better understanding the relationship between science and religion -: if you are willing to open your mind.

Barbour:
- The scientific discoveries made by Galileo and Newton began to describe and explain the natural and physical laws by which the earth operates. These discoveries drastically changed the way that man viewed the world and nature. This in turn caused shifts in theological thought.
- God filled the scientific gaps
- the objectivity of science versus the subjectivity of history. History is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement. Although throughout history certain patterns of human behavior emerge, these patterns are never entirely predictable or repeatable. Where in science, all events that are observed must be repeatable and produce the same results in order to uphold natural laws.
- Like history, religion is subjective due to the personal involvement required of religion.
- although physics can be used to explain human freedom to some extent, it will never produce an entirely satisfactory argument for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_Science_and_Religion

So he compartmentalizes. And uses religion to fill in unknown holes.

Once those holes are all filled in what is left of religion?

Weak.

No response?

I would be bothered if there a substantive response to his typology but PP clearly did not read Barbour - just a quick drive by through wiki …

Did that not accurately capture points from his book?

Which part was inaccurate?

I was hoping to discuss his four-category typology of the ways we may think science and religion relate to one another:
conflict,
independence,
dialogue, and
integration.

Ian Barbour was a physicist and theologian who worked on reconciling science and religion, and who favored the dialogue model which I agree is the most helpful.

Western Science and religion grew up together over many hundreds of years (scientific reasoning grew out of religious and philosophical reasoning) -/ but neither cannot replace each other in terms of the parts of reality they illuminate and the epistemology of the types of knowledge they create.

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.

IOW - religion matters! Not too shocking, coming from a theologian (or anyone wanting to believe in the importance of religion)

It is more than that - it is about dialogue and cooperation in certain important areas. For example, reducing extreme poverty benefits from religious imperatives to help raise up the poor and scientific approaches to the most efficient ways to achieve that (eg carrying out the UN MDG goals often require cooperation between scientific community and religious leaders to reach target vulnerable people needing help).

It seems more like religion trying to seem relevant when it's really not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ how many of those are still alive?

Those are all listed as still living which is why I posted them and not historic scientists of faith.

Most of them are ancient. Back in the olden times it was easier to force kids into brainwashing.

Anyway, the science aspect of their life deals with facts and knowledge. The ”faith” side deals in beliefs and rituals to fill in uncertainty.

”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives” -Collins

The scientists of faith in real life whom I know vary from 20s through to 60s.

I stand by earlier point that you have a very narrow view of both science and religion.

They do not need to be seen as being in conflict.

I recommend reading the brilliant physicist/ theologian Ian Barbour’s work on better understanding the relationship between science and religion -: if you are willing to open your mind.

Barbour:
- The scientific discoveries made by Galileo and Newton began to describe and explain the natural and physical laws by which the earth operates. These discoveries drastically changed the way that man viewed the world and nature. This in turn caused shifts in theological thought.
- God filled the scientific gaps
- the objectivity of science versus the subjectivity of history. History is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement. Although throughout history certain patterns of human behavior emerge, these patterns are never entirely predictable or repeatable. Where in science, all events that are observed must be repeatable and produce the same results in order to uphold natural laws.
- Like history, religion is subjective due to the personal involvement required of religion.
- although physics can be used to explain human freedom to some extent, it will never produce an entirely satisfactory argument for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_Science_and_Religion

So he compartmentalizes. And uses religion to fill in unknown holes.

Once those holes are all filled in what is left of religion?

Weak.

No response?

I would be bothered if there a substantive response to his typology but PP clearly did not read Barbour - just a quick drive by through wiki …

Did that not accurately capture points from his book?

Which part was inaccurate?

I was hoping to discuss his four-category typology of the ways we may think science and religion relate to one another:
conflict,
independence,
dialogue, and
integration.

Ian Barbour was a physicist and theologian who worked on reconciling science and religion, and who favored the dialogue model which I agree is the most helpful.

Western Science and religion grew up together over many hundreds of years (scientific reasoning grew out of religious and philosophical reasoning) -/ but neither cannot replace each other in terms of the parts of reality they illuminate and the epistemology of the types of knowledge they create.

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.

IOW - religion matters! Not too shocking, coming from a theologian (or anyone wanting to believe in the importance of religion)

It is more than that - it is about dialogue and cooperation in certain important areas. For example, reducing extreme poverty benefits from religious imperatives to help raise up the poor and scientific approaches to the most efficient ways to achieve that (eg carrying out the UN MDG goals often require cooperation between scientific community and religious leaders to reach target vulnerable people needing help).

It seems more like religion trying to seem relevant when it's really not.

You clearly have not lived in developing countries where religious leaders are held in high regard - especially in rural areas - and their support and cooperation is needed for poverty alleviation projects to succeed ,..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ how many of those are still alive?

Those are all listed as still living which is why I posted them and not historic scientists of faith.

Most of them are ancient. Back in the olden times it was easier to force kids into brainwashing.

Anyway, the science aspect of their life deals with facts and knowledge. The ”faith” side deals in beliefs and rituals to fill in uncertainty.

”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives” -Collins

The scientists of faith in real life whom I know vary from 20s through to 60s.

I stand by earlier point that you have a very narrow view of both science and religion.

They do not need to be seen as being in conflict.

I recommend reading the brilliant physicist/ theologian Ian Barbour’s work on better understanding the relationship between science and religion -: if you are willing to open your mind.

Barbour:
- The scientific discoveries made by Galileo and Newton began to describe and explain the natural and physical laws by which the earth operates. These discoveries drastically changed the way that man viewed the world and nature. This in turn caused shifts in theological thought.
- God filled the scientific gaps
- the objectivity of science versus the subjectivity of history. History is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement. Although throughout history certain patterns of human behavior emerge, these patterns are never entirely predictable or repeatable. Where in science, all events that are observed must be repeatable and produce the same results in order to uphold natural laws.
- Like history, religion is subjective due to the personal involvement required of religion.
- although physics can be used to explain human freedom to some extent, it will never produce an entirely satisfactory argument for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_Science_and_Religion

So he compartmentalizes. And uses religion to fill in unknown holes.

Once those holes are all filled in what is left of religion?

Weak.

No response?

I would be bothered if there a substantive response to his typology but PP clearly did not read Barbour - just a quick drive by through wiki …

Did that not accurately capture points from his book?

Which part was inaccurate?

I was hoping to discuss his four-category typology of the ways we may think science and religion relate to one another:
conflict,
independence,
dialogue, and
integration.

Ian Barbour was a physicist and theologian who worked on reconciling science and religion, and who favored the dialogue model which I agree is the most helpful.

Western Science and religion grew up together over many hundreds of years (scientific reasoning grew out of religious and philosophical reasoning) -/ but neither cannot replace each other in terms of the parts of reality they illuminate and the epistemology of the types of knowledge they create.

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.

IOW - religion matters! Not too shocking, coming from a theologian (or anyone wanting to believe in the importance of religion)

It is more than that - it is about dialogue and cooperation in certain important areas. For example, reducing extreme poverty benefits from religious imperatives to help raise up the poor and scientific approaches to the most efficient ways to achieve that (eg carrying out the UN MDG goals often require cooperation between scientific community and religious leaders to reach target vulnerable people needing help).

It seems more like religion trying to seem relevant when it's really not.

You clearly have not lived in developing countries where religious leaders are held in high regard - especially in rural areas - and their support and cooperation is needed for poverty alleviation projects to succeed ,..

In many poor countries the only Schools and hospitals that are serving the poor are run by faith based charities and religious orders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ how many of those are still alive?

Those are all listed as still living which is why I posted them and not historic scientists of faith.

Most of them are ancient. Back in the olden times it was easier to force kids into brainwashing.

Anyway, the science aspect of their life deals with facts and knowledge. The ”faith” side deals in beliefs and rituals to fill in uncertainty.

”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives” -Collins

The scientists of faith in real life whom I know vary from 20s through to 60s.

I stand by earlier point that you have a very narrow view of both science and religion.

They do not need to be seen as being in conflict.

I recommend reading the brilliant physicist/ theologian Ian Barbour’s work on better understanding the relationship between science and religion -: if you are willing to open your mind.

Barbour:
- The scientific discoveries made by Galileo and Newton began to describe and explain the natural and physical laws by which the earth operates. These discoveries drastically changed the way that man viewed the world and nature. This in turn caused shifts in theological thought.
- God filled the scientific gaps
- the objectivity of science versus the subjectivity of history. History is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement. Although throughout history certain patterns of human behavior emerge, these patterns are never entirely predictable or repeatable. Where in science, all events that are observed must be repeatable and produce the same results in order to uphold natural laws.
- Like history, religion is subjective due to the personal involvement required of religion.
- although physics can be used to explain human freedom to some extent, it will never produce an entirely satisfactory argument for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_Science_and_Religion

So he compartmentalizes. And uses religion to fill in unknown holes.

Once those holes are all filled in what is left of religion?

Weak.

No response?

I would be bothered if there a substantive response to his typology but PP clearly did not read Barbour - just a quick drive by through wiki …

Did that not accurately capture points from his book?

Which part was inaccurate?

I was hoping to discuss his four-category typology of the ways we may think science and religion relate to one another:
conflict,
independence,
dialogue, and
integration.

Ian Barbour was a physicist and theologian who worked on reconciling science and religion, and who favored the dialogue model which I agree is the most helpful.

Western Science and religion grew up together over many hundreds of years (scientific reasoning grew out of religious and philosophical reasoning) -/ but neither cannot replace each other in terms of the parts of reality they illuminate and the epistemology of the types of knowledge they create.

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.

Conflict: Perhaps only in conflict with fundamentalist beliefs. Are there many fundamentalist scientists?

Independence: This was my point earlier about compartmentalizing and using religion to fill the diminishing gaps in our scientific understanding.

Dialogue: Different perspectives could be useful, but probably not possible unless the groups can agree on those "truths".

Integration: This seems like an internal debate for scientists to rationalize their religious beliefs. Science gains nothing here. And, even more deeply, agreeing on "truths" would be a big barrier.

So, to me, "independence" is the most realistic mindset for a scientist to reconcile their religious beliefs.

And that sentiment is supported by Collins:
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”