Reply to Is Atheism a religion without a church or temple ?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Is Atheism a religion without a church or temple ?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]^ how many of those are still alive? 
[/quote]

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

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.

[i]”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives” [/i] -Collins [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

No response? [/quote]

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 …

[/quote]

Did that not accurately capture points from his book?

Which part was inaccurate? [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics