text:
Relationship between religion and science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The relationship between religion and science has been a subject of study since classical antiquity ( from around 700 BC ), addressed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others. Perspectives from different geographical regions, cultures and historical epochs are diverse, with some characterizing the relationship as one of conflict, others describing it as one of harmony, and others proposing little interaction.
Both science and religion are complex social and cultural endeavors that vary across cultures and have changed over time.[1] Most scientific and technical innovations prior to the scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Elements of the scientific method were pioneered by ancient pagan, Islamic, and Christian scholars. Roger Bacon, who is often credited with formalizing the scientific method, was a Franciscan friar.[2] Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world. Confucian thought has held different views of science over time. Most Buddhists today view science as complementary to their beliefs. While the classification of the material world by the ancient Indians and Greeks into air, earth, fire and water was more philosophical, medieval Middle Easterns used practical and experimental observation to classify materials.[3]
Events in Europe such as the Galileo affair, associated with the scientific revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, led scholars such as John William Draper to postulate a conflict thesis, holding that religion and science have been in conflict methodologically, factually and politically throughout history. This thesis is held by some contemporary scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg and Carl Sagan, and some creationists.[not verified in body] The conflict thesis has lost favor among most contemporary historians of science.[4][5][6]
Many scientists, philosophers, and theologians throughout history, such as Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins, have seen compatibility or independence between religion and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould, other scientists, and some contemporary theologians hold that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between science and religion, while others such as Ian Barbour believe there are even parallels.
Public acceptance of scientific facts may be influenced by religion; many in the United States reject evolution by natural selection, especially regarding human beings. Nevertheless, the American National Academy of Sciences has written that "the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith", a view officially endorsed by many religious denominations globally.[7]
Contents
[hide]
1 History of the concepts
1.1 Middle Ages and Renaissance
2 Perspectives
2.1 Incompatibility
2.1.1 Conflict thesis
2.2 Independence
2.2.1 Parallels in method
2.3 Dialogue
2.4 Integration
3 Bahá'í
4 Buddhism
5 Christianity
5.1 Perspectives on evolution
5.2 Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century
5.3 Roman Catholicism
5.4 Influence of a biblical world view on early modern science
6 Confucianism and traditional Chinese religion
7 Hinduism
8 Islam
8.1 Ahmadiyya
9 Jainism
10 Perspectives from the scientific community
10.1 History
10.2 Studies on scientists' beliefs
10.3 Overall summary
11 Public perceptions of science
12 See also
13 References
14 Notes
15 Further reading
16 External links
History of the concepts[edit]
This section cites its sources but its page references ranges are too broad. Page ranges should be limited to one or two pages when possible. You can help improve this article by introducing citations that are more precise. (October 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The concepts of "science" and "religion" are a recent invention: "religion" emerged in the 17th century in the midst of colonization and globalization and the Protestant Reformation,[8][9][10] "science" emerged in the 19th century in the midst of attempts to narrowly define those who studied nature,[8][11][12] and the phrase "religion and science" emerged in the 19th century due to the reification of both concepts.[8] It was in the 19th century that the terms "Buddhism", "Hinduism", "Taoism", and "Confucianism" first emerged.[8][10] In the ancient and medieval world, the etymological Latin roots of both science (scientia) and religion (religio) were understood as inner qualities of the individual or virtues, never as doctrines, practices, or actual sources of knowledge.[8]
It was in the 19th century that the concept of "science" received its modern shape with new titles emerging such as "biology" and "biologist", "physics" and "physicist" among other technical fields and titles; institutions and communities were founded, and unprecedented applications to and interactions with other aspects of society and culture occurred.[11] The term scientist was first coined by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell in 1834 and it was applied to those who sought knowledge and understanding of nature.[8][13] From the ancient world, starting with Aristotle, to the 19th century, the term "natural philosophy" was the common term used to describe the practice of studying nature.[11][14] Isaac Newton's book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), whose title translates to "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", reflects the then-current use of the words "natural philosophy", akin to "systematic study of nature". Even in the 19th century, a treatise by Lord Kelvin and Peter Guthrie Tait's, which helped define much of modern physics, was titled Treatise on Natural Philosophy (1867).
It was in the 17th century that the concept of "religion" received its modern shape despite the fact that ancient texts like the Bible, the Quran, and other sacred texts did not have a concept of religion in the original languages and neither did the people or the cultures in which these sacred texts were written.[9] In the 19th century, Max Müller noted that what is called ancient religion today, would have been called "law" in antiquity.[15] For example, there is no precise equivalent of "religion" in Hebrew, and Judaism does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities.[16] The Sanskrit word "dharma", sometimes translated as "religion", also means law or duty. Throughout classical South Asia, the study of law consisted of concepts such as penance through piety and ceremonial as well as practical traditions. Medieval Japan at first had a similar union between "imperial law" and universal or "Buddha law", but these later became independent sources of power.[17][18] Throughout its long history, Japan had no concept of "religion" since there was no corresponding Japanese word, nor anything close to its meaning, but when American warships appeared off the coast of Japan in 1853 and forced the Japanese government to sign treaties demanding, among other things, freedom of religion, the country had to contend with this Western idea.[10]
Middle Ages and Renaissance[edit]
The development of sciences (especially natural philosophy) in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, has considerable foundation in the works of the Arabs who translated Greek and Latin compositions.[19] The works of Aristotle played a major role in the institutionalization, systematization, and expansion of reason. Christianity accepted reason within the ambit of faith. In Christendom, reason was considered subordinate to revelation, which contained the ultimate truth and this truth could not be challenged. Even though the medieval Christian had the urge to use their reason, they had little on which to exercise it. In medieval universities, the faculty for natural philosophy and theology were separate, and discussions pertaining to theological issues were often not allowed to be undertaken by the faculty of philosophy.[20][page needed]
Natural philosophy, as taught in the arts faculties of the universities, was seen as an essential area of study in its own right and was considered necessary for almost every area of study. It was an independent field, separated from theology, which enjoyed a good deal of intellectual freedom as long as it was restricted to the natural world. In general, there was religious support for natural science by the late Middle Ages and a recognition that it was an important element of learning.[19]
The extent to which medieval science led directly to the new philosophy of the scientific revolution remains a subject for debate, but it certainly had a significant influence.[21]
The Middle Ages laid ground for the developments that took place in science, during the Renaissance which immediately succeeded it. With significant developments taking place in science, mathematics, medicine and philosophy, the relationship between science and religion became one of curiosity and questioning.[21][page needed] As humanism became more and more popular, people tried to understand the nature around them better, rather than turn to religious aspirations. Renaissance humanism looked to classical Greek and Roman texts to change contemporary thought, allowing for a new mindset after the Middle Ages. Renaissance readers understood these classical texts as focusing on human decisions, actions and creations, rather than blindly following the rules set forth by the Catholic Church as "God's plan." Though many Renaissance humanists remained religious, they believed God gave humans opportunities and it was humanity's duty to do the "best and most moral thing". Renaissance humanism was an "ethical theory and practice that emphasized reason, scientific inquiry and human fulfillment in the natural world," said Abernethy.[22] By 1630, ancient authority from classical literature and philosophy, as well as their necessity, started eroding, although scientists were still expected to be fluent in Latin, the international language of Europe's intellectuals. With the sheer success of science and the steady advance of rationalism, the individual scientist gained prestige.[21]
Along with the inventions of this period, especially the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg, allowed for the dissemination of the Bible in languages of the common people (languages other than Latin). This allowed more people to read and learn from the scripture, leading to the Evangelical movement. The people who spread this message, concentrated more on individual agency rather than the structures of the Church.[22]
Perspectives[edit]
Medieval artistic illustration of the spherical Earth in a 13th-century copy of L'Image du monde (c. 1246)
According to Richard Dawkins, "not only is science corrosive to religion; religion is corrosive to science. It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural non-explanations and blinds them to the wonderful real explanations that we have within our grasp. It teaches them to accept authority, revelation and faith instead of always insisting on evidence."[23]
The kinds of interactions that might arise between science and religion have been categorized, according to theologian, Anglican priest and physicist John Polkinghorne are: (1) conflict between the disciplines, (2) independence of the disciplines, (3) dialogue between the disciplines where they overlap and (4) integration of both into one field.[24]
This typology is similar to ones used by theologians Ian Barbour[25] and John Haught.[26] More typologies that categorize this relationship can be found among the works of other science and religion scholars such as theologian and biochemist Arthur Peacocke.[27]
Incompatibility[edit]
According to Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C and Avelina Espinosa, the historical conflict between evolution and religion is intrinsic to the incompatibility between scientific rationalism/empiricism and the belief in supernatural causation;[28] these authors have formally proposed the incompatibility hypothesis (IH) to explain the "everlasting-conflict-science-and-faith".[29] According to Jerry Coyne, views on evolution and levels of religiosity in some countries, along with the existence of books explaining reconciliation between evolution and religion, indicate that people have trouble in believing both at the same time, thus implying incompatibility.[30] According to Lawrence Krauss, compatibility or incompatibility is a theological concern, not a scientific concern.[30] In Lisa Randall's view, questions of incompatibility or otherwise are not answerable, since by accepting revelations one is abandoning rules of logic which are needed to identify if there are indeed contradictions between holding certain beliefs.[30] Daniel Dennett holds that incompatibility exists because religion is not problematic to a certain point before it collapses into a number of excuses for keeping certain beliefs, in light of evolutionary implications.[30]
According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, the central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing. Because of this both are incompatible as currently practiced and the debate of compatibility or incompatibility will be eternal.[31][32] Philosopher and physicist Victor J. Stenger's view is that science and religion are incompatible due to conflicts between approaches of knowing and the availability of alternative plausible natural explanations for phenomena that is usually explained in religious contexts.[33]
Richard Dawkins is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect".[34] He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.[35] According to Sean M. Carroll, since religion makes claims that are not compatible with science, such as supernatural events, therefore both are incompatible.[36]
Others such as Francis Collins, Kenneth R. Miller, George Coyne and Francisco J. Ayala argue for compatibility since they do not agree that science is incompatible with religion and vice versa. They argue that science provides many opportunities to look for and find God in nature and to reflect on their beliefs.[37] According to Kenneth Miller, he disagrees with Jerry Coyne's assessment and argues that since significant portions of scientists are religious and the proportion of Americans believing in evolution is much higher, it implies that both are indeed compatible.[30] Elsewhere, Miller has argued that when scientists make claims on science and theism or atheism, they are not arguing scientifically at all and are stepping beyond the scope of science into discourses of meaning and purpose. What he finds particularly odd and unjustified is in how atheists often come to invoke scientific authority on their non-scientific philosophical conclusions like there being no point or no meaning to the universe as the only viable option when the scientific method and science never have had any way of addressing questions of meaning or God in the first place. Furthermore, he notes that since evolution made the brain and since the brain can handle both religion and science, there is no natural incompatibility between the concepts at the biological level.[38]
Karl Giberson argues that when discussing compatibility, some scientific intellectuals often ignore the viewpoints of intellectual leaders in theology and instead argue against less informed masses, thereby, defining religion by non intellectuals and slanting the debate unjustly. He argues that leaders in science sometimes trump older scientific baggage and that leaders in theology do the same, so once theological intellectuals are taken into account, people who represent extreme positions like Ken Ham and Eugenie Scott will become irrelevant.[30] Cynthia Tolman notes that religion does not have a method per se partly because religions emerge through time from diverse cultures, but when it comes to Christian theology and ultimate truths, she notes that people often rely on scripture, tradition, reason, and experience to test and gauge what they experience and what they should believe.[39]
Conflict thesis[edit]
Main article: Conflict thesis
The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history, was popularized in the 19th century by John William Draper's and Andrew Dickson White's accounts. It was in the 19th century that relationship between science and religion became an actual formal topic of discourse, while before this no one had pitted science against religion or vice versa, though occasional complex interactions had been expressed before the 19th century.[40] Most contemporary historians of science now reject the conflict thesis in its original form and no longer support it.[41][42][43][4][5][6][44] Instead, it has been superseded by subsequent historical research which has resulted in a more nuanced understanding:[45][46] Historian of science, Gary Ferngren, has stated "Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule."[47]
Most historians today have moved away from a conflict model, which is based mainly on two historical episodes (Galileo and Darwin) for a "complexity" model, because religious figures were on both sides of each dispute and there was no overall aim by any party involved to discredit religion.[48]
An often cited example of conflict, that has been clarified by historical research in the 20th century, was the Galileo affair, whereby interpretations of the Bible were used to attack ideas by Copernicus on heliocentrism. By 1616 Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade Catholic Church authorities not to ban Copernicus' ideas. In the end, a decree of the Congregation of the Index was issued, declaring that the ideas that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved were "false" and "altogether contrary to Holy Scripture", and suspending Copernicus's De Revolutionibus until it could be corrected. Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[49] However, before all this, Pope Urban VIII had personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in a book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism as physically proven since the scientific consensus at the time was that the evidence for heliocentrism was very weak. The Church had merely sided with the scientific consensus of the time. Pope Urban VIII asked that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often portrayed as an unlearned fool who lacked mathematical training. Although the preface of his book claims that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton".[50] Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.[51] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the physical Copernican advocacy. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.[52]
The actual evidences that finally proved heliocentrism came centuries after Galileo: the stellar aberration of light by James Bradley in the 18th century, the orbital motions of binary stars by William Herschel in the 19th century, the accurate measurement of the stellar parallax in the 19th century, and Newtonian mechanics in the 17th century.[53][54] According to physicist Christopher Graney, Galileo's own observations did not actually support the Copernican view, but were more consistent with Tycho Brahe's hybrid model where that Earth did not move and everything else circled around it and the Sun.[55]
British philosopher A. C. Grayling, still believes there is competition between science and religions and point to the origin of the universe, the nature of human beings and the possibility of miracles[56]
Independence[edit]
A modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), is that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully.[57] While Gould spoke of independence from the perspective of science, W. T. Stace viewed independence from the perspective of the philosophy of religion. Stace felt that science and religion, when each is viewed in its own domain, are both consistent and complete.[58]
The USA's National Academy of Science supports the view that science and religion are independent.[59]
Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to put science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.[59]
According to Archbishop John Habgood, both science and religion represent distinct ways of approaching experience and these differences are sources of debate. He views science as descriptive and religion as prescriptive. He stated that if science and mathematics concentrate on what the world ought to be, in the way that religion does, it may lead to improperly ascribing properties to the natural world as happened among the followers of Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C.[60] In contrast, proponents of a normative moral science take issue with the idea that science has no way of guiding "oughts". Habgood also stated that he believed that the reverse situation, where religion attempts to be descriptive, can also lead to inappropriately assigning properties to the natural world. A notable example is the now defunct belief in the Ptolemaic (geocentric) planetary model that held sway until changes in scientific and religious thinking were brought about by Galileo and proponents of his views.[60]
Parallels in method[edit]
According to Ian Barbour, Thomas S. Kuhn asserted that science is made up of paradigms that arise from cultural traditions, which is similar to the secular perspective on religion.[61]
Michael Polanyi asserted that it is merely a commitment to universality that protects against subjectivity and has nothing at all to do with personal detachment as found in many conceptions of the scientific method. Polanyi further asserted that all knowledge is personal and therefore the scientist must be performing a very personal if not necessarily subjective role when doing science.[61] Polanyi added that the scientist often merely follows intuitions of "intellectual beauty, symmetry, and 'empirical agreement'".[61] Polanyi held that science requires moral commitments similar to those found in religion.[61]
Two physicists, Charles A. Coulson and Harold K. Schilling, both claimed that "the methods of science and religion have much in common."[61] Schilling asserted that both fields—science and religion—have "a threefold structure—of experience, theoretical interpretation, and practical application."[61] Coulson asserted that science, like religion, "advances by creative imagination" and not by "mere collecting of facts," while stating that religion should and does "involve critical reflection on experience not unlike that which goes on in science."[61] Religious language and scientific language also show parallels (cf. rhetoric of science).
Dialogue[edit]
Clerks studying astronomy and geometry (France, early 15th century).
The religion and science community consists of those scholars who involve themselves with what has been called the "religion-and-science dialogue" or the "religion-and-science field."[62][63] The community belongs to neither the scientific nor the religious community, but is said to be a third overlapping community of interested and involved scientists, priests, clergymen, theologians and engaged non-professionals.[63][not in citation given] Institutions interested in the intersection between science and religion include the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, the Ian Ramsey Centre,[64] and the Faraday Institute. Journals addressing the relationship between science and religion include Theology and Science and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science. Eugenie Scott has written that the "science and religion" movement is, overall, composed mainly of theists who have a healthy respect for science and may be beneficial to the public understanding of science. She contends that the "Christian scholarship" movement is not a problem for science, but that the "Theistic science" movement, which proposes abandoning methodological materialism, does cause problems in understanding of the nature of science.[65]
The modern dialogue between religion and science is rooted in Ian Barbour's 1966 book Issues in Science and Religion.[66] Since that time it has grown into a serious academic field, with academic chairs in the subject area, and two dedicated academic journals, Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science and Theology and Science.[66] Articles are also sometimes found in mainstream science journals such as American Journal of Physics[67] and Science.[68][69]
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued that there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion, and that there is deep conflict between science and naturalism.[70] Plantinga, in his book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, heavily contests the linkage of naturalism with science, as conceived by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and like-minded thinkers; while Daniel Dennett thinks that Plantinga stretches science to an unacceptable extent.[71] Philosopher Maarten Boudry, in reviewing the book, has commented that he resorts to creationism and fails to "stave off the conflict between theism and evolution."[72] Cognitive scientist Justin L. Barrett, by contrast, reviews the same book and writes that "those most needing to hear Plantinga's message may fail to give it a fair hearing for rhetorical rather than analytical reasons."[73]
Integration[edit]
As a general view, this holds that while interactions are complex between influences of science, theology, politics, social, and economic concerns, the productive engagements between science and religion throughout history should be duly stressed as the norm.
Scientific and theological perspectives often coexist peacefully. Christians and some non-Christian religions have historically integrated well with scientific ideas, as in the ancient Egyptian technological mastery applied to monotheistic ends, the flourishing of logic and mathematics under Hinduism and Buddhism, and the scientific advances made by Muslim scholars during the Ottoman empire. Even many 19th-century Christian communities welcomed scientists who claimed that science was not at all concerned with discovering the ultimate nature of reality.[60] According to Lawrence M. Principe, the Johns Hopkins University Drew Professor of the Humanities, from a historical perspective this points out that much of the current-day clashes occur between limited extremists—both religious and scientistic fundamentalists—over a very few topics, and that the movement of ideas back and forth between scientific and theological thought has been more usual.[74] To Principe, this perspective would point to the fundamentally common respect for written learning in religious traditions of rabbinical literature, Christian theology, and the Islamic Golden Age, including a Transmission of the Classics from Greek to Islamic to Christian traditions which helped spark the Renaissance. Religions have also given key participation in development of modern universities and libraries; centers of learning & scholarship were coincident with religious institutions – whether pagan, Muslim, or Christian.[75]
Bahá'í[edit]
Main article: Bahá'í Faith and science
A fundamental principle of the Bahá'í Faith is the harmony of religion and science. Bahá'í scripture asserts that true science and true religion can never be in conflict. `Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, stated that religion without science is superstition and that science without religion is materialism. He also admonished that true religion must conform to the conclusions of science.[76][77][78]
Buddhism[edit]
Main article: Buddhism and science
Buddhism and science have been regarded as compatible by numerous authors.[79] Some philosophic and psychological teachings found in Buddhism share points in common with modern Western scientific and philosophic thought. For example, Buddhism encourages the impartial investigation of nature (an activity referred to as Dhamma-Vicaya in the Pali Canon)—the principal object of study being oneself. Buddhism and science both show a strong emphasis on causality. However, Buddhism doesn't focus on materialism.[80]
Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, maintains that empirical scientific evidence supersedes the traditional teachings of Buddhism when the two are in conflict. In his book The Universe in a Single Atom he wrote, "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science, so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation." and "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false," he says, "then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."[81][82][page needed]
Christianity[edit]
Main article: Christianity and science
Science and Religion are portrayed to be in harmony in the Tiffany window Education (1890).
Most sources of knowledge available to early Christians were connected to pagan world-views.[citation needed] There were various opinions on how Christianity should regard pagan learning, which included its ideas about nature.[citation needed] For instance, among early Christian teachers, Tertullian (c. 160–220) held a generally negative opinion of Greek philosophy, while Origen (c. 185–254) regarded it much more favorably and required his students to read nearly every work available to them.[83]
Earlier attempts at reconciliation of Christianity with Newtonian mechanics appear quite different from later attempts at reconciliation with the newer scientific ideas of evolution or relativity.[60] Many early interpretations of evolution polarized themselves around a struggle for existence. These ideas were significantly countered by later findings of universal patterns of biological cooperation. According to John Habgood, all man really knows here is that the universe seems to be a mix of good and evil, beauty and pain, and that suffering may somehow be part of the process of creation. Habgood holds that Christians should not be surprised that suffering may be used creatively by God, given their faith in the symbol of the Cross.[60] Robert John Russell has examined consonance and dissonance between modern physics, evolutionary biology, and Christian theology.[84][85]
Christian philosophers Augustine of Hippo (354–30) and Thomas Aquinas[86] held that scriptures can have multiple interpretations on certain areas where the matters were far beyond their reach, therefore one should leave room for future findings to shed light on the meanings. The "Handmaiden" tradition, which saw secular studies of the universe as a very important and helpful part of arriving at a better understanding of scripture, was adopted throughout Christian history from early on.[87] Also the sense that God created the world as a self operating system is what motivated many Christians throughout the Middle Ages to investigate nature.[88]
Modern historians of science such as J.L. Heilbron,[89] Alistair Cameron Crombie, David Lindberg,[90] Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein,[91] and Ted Davis have reviewed the popular notion that medieval Christianity was a negative influence in the development of civilization and science. In their views, not only did the monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions, but the medieval church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of many universities which, under its leadership, grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's "model theologian", not only argued that reason is in harmony with faith, he even recognized that reason can contribute to understanding revelation, and so encouraged intellectual development. He was not unlike other medieval theologians who sought out reason in the effort to defend his faith.[92] Some of today's scholars, such as Stanley Jaki, have claimed that Christianity with its particular worldview, was a crucial factor for the emergence of modern science.[93]
David C. Lindberg states that the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a time of ignorance and superstition due to the Christian church is a "caricature". According to Lindberg, while there are some portions of the classical tradition which suggest this view, these were exceptional cases. It was common to tolerate and encourage critical thinking about the nature of the world. The relation between Christianity and science is complex and cannot be simplified to either harmony or conflict, according to Lindberg.[94] Lindberg reports that "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led. There was no warfare between science and the church."[95] Ted Peters in Encyclopedia of Religion writes that although there is some truth in the "Galileo's condemnation" story but through exaggerations, it has now become "a modern myth perpetuated by those wishing to see warfare between science and religion who were allegedly persecuted by an atavistic and dogma-bound ecclesiastical authority".[96] In 1992, the Catholic Church's seeming vindication of Galileo attracted much comment in the media.
A degree of concord between science and religion can be seen in religious belief and empirical science. The belief that God created the world and therefore humans, can lead to the view that he arranged for humans to know the world. This is underwritten by the doctrine of imago dei. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, "Since human beings are said to be in the image of God in virtue of their having a nature that includes an intellect, such a nature is most in the image of God in virtue of being most able to imitate God".[97]
During the Enlightenment, a period "characterized by dramatic revolutions in science" and the rise of Protestant challenges to the authority of the Catholic Church via individual liberty, the authority of Christian scriptures became strongly challenged. As science advanced, acceptance of a literal version of the Bible became "increasingly untenable" and some in that period presented ways of interpreting scripture according to its spirit on its authority and truth.[98]
Perspectives on evolution[edit]
In recent history, the theory of evolution has been at the center of some controversy between Christianity and science.[99] Christians who accept a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation find incompatibility between Darwinian evolution and their interpretation of the Christian faith.[100] Creation science or scientific creationism[101] is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and attempts to disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.[102][103] It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and falsify the scientific evidence for evolution.[104] It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide.[105] In 1925, The State of Tennessee passed the Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in all schools in the state. Later that year, a similar law was passed in Mississippi, and likewise, Arkansas in 1927. In 1968, these "anti-monkey" laws were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States as unconstitutional, "because they established a religious doctrine violating both the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.[106]
Most scientists have rejected creation science for several reasons, including that its claims do not refer to natural causes and cannot be tested. In 1987, the United States Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms.[107]
Theistic evolution attempts to reconcile Christian beliefs and science by accepting the scientific understanding of the age of the Earth and the process of evolution. It includes a range of beliefs, including views described as evolutionary creationism, which accepts some findings of modern science but also upholds classical religious teachings about God and creation in Christian context.[108]
Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century[edit]
In Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain, historian of biology Peter J. Bowler argues that in contrast to the conflicts between science and religion in the U.S. in the 1920s (most famously the Scopes Trial), during this period Great Britain experienced a concerted effort at reconciliation, championed by intellectually conservative scientists, supported by liberal theologians but opposed by younger scientists and secularists and conservative Christians. These attempts at reconciliation fell apart in the 1930s due to increased social tensions, moves towards neo-orthodox theology and the acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis.[109]
In the 20th century, several ecumenical organizations promoting a harmony between science and Christianity were founded, most notably the American Scientific Affiliation, The Biologos Foundation, Christians in Science, The Society of Ordained Scientists, and The Veritas Forum.[110]
Roman Catholicism[edit]
See also: Catholic Church and evolution and Catholic Church and science
While refined and clarified over the centuries, the Roman Catholic position on the relationship between science and religion is one of harmony, and has maintained the teaching of natural law as set forth by Thomas Aquinas. For example, regarding scientific study such as that of evolution, the church's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. Catholic schools have included all manners of scientific study in their curriculum for many centuries.[111]
Galileo once stated "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[112] In 1981 John Paul II, then pope of the Roman Catholic Church, spoke of the relationship this way: "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer".[113]
Influence of a biblical world view on early modern science[edit]
According to Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom from the 19th century, a biblical world view affected negatively the progress of science through time. Dickinson also argues that immediately following the Reformation matters were even worse. The interpretations of Scripture by Luther and Calvin became as sacred to their followers as the Scripture itself. For instance, when Georg Calixtus ventured, in interpreting the Psalms, to question the accepted belief that "the waters above the heavens" were contained in a vast receptacle upheld by a solid vault, he was bitterly denounced as heretical.[114] Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was originally based is considered to be inaccurate. For instance, the claim that early Christians rejected scientific findings by the Greco-Romans is false, since the "handmaiden" view of secular studies was seen to shed light on theology. This view was widely adapted throughout the early medieval period and afterwards by theologians (such as Augustine) and ultimately resulted in fostering interest in knowledge about nature through time.[115] Also, the claim that people of the Middle Ages widely believed that the Earth was flat was first propagated in the same period that originated the conflict thesis[116] and is still very common in popular culture. Modern scholars regard this claim as mistaken, as the contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."[116][117] From the fall of Rome to the time of Columbus, all major scholars and many vernacular writers interested in the physical shape of the earth held a spherical view with the exception of Lactantius and Cosmas.[118]
H. Floris Cohen argued for a biblical Protestant, but not excluding Catholicism, influence on the early development of modern science.[119] He presented Dutch historian R. Hooykaas' argument that a biblical world-view holds all the necessary antidotes for the hubris of Greek rationalism: a respect for manual labour, leading to more experimentation and empiricism, and a supreme God that left nature open to emulation and manipulation.[119] It supports the idea early modern science rose due to a combination of Greek and biblical thought.[120][121]
Oxford historian Peter Harrison is another who has argued that a biblical worldview was significant for the development of modern science. Harrison contends that Protestant approaches to the book of scripture had significant, if largely unintended, consequences for the interpretation of the book of nature.[122][page needed] Harrison has also suggested that literal readings of the Genesis narratives of the Creation and Fall motivated and legitimated scientific activity in seventeenth-century England. For many of its seventeenth-century practitioners, science was imagined to be a means of restoring a human dominion over nature that had been lost as a consequence of the Fall.[123][page needed]
Historian and professor of religion Eugene M. Klaaren holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher Michael Foster has published analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences.[124] Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have argued for a linkage between seventeenth century Anglican intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton).[125] John Dillenberger and Christopher B. Kaiser have written theological surveys, which also cover additional interactions occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.[126][127] Philosopher of Religion, Richard Jones, has written a philosophical critique of the "dependency thesis" which assumes that modern science emerged from Christian sources and doctrines. Though he acknowledges that modern science emerged in a religious framework, that Christianity greatly elevated the importance of science by sanctioning and religiously legitimizing it in the medieval period, and that Christianity created a favorable social context for it to grow; he argues that direct Christian beliefs or doctrines were not primary sources of scientific pursuits by natural philosophers, nor was Christianity, in and of itself, exclusively or directly necessary in developing or practicing modern science.[48]
Oxford University historian and theologian John Hedley Brooke wrote that "when natural philosophers referred to laws of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."[128] Historian Ronald L. Numbers stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead's Science and the Modern World (1925). Numbers has also argued, "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves."[129] The sociologist Rodney Stark of Baylor University, argued in contrast that "Christian theology was essential for the rise of science."[130]
Protestantism had an important influence on science. According to the Merton Thesis there was a positive correlation between the rise of Puritanism and Protestant Pietism on the one hand and early experimental science on the other.[131] The Merton Thesis has two separate parts: Firstly, it presents a theory that science changes due to an accumulation of observations and improvement in experimental techniques and methodology; secondly, it puts forward the argument that the popularity of science in 17th-century England and the religious demography of the Royal Society (English scientists of that time were predominantly Puritans or other Protestants) can be explained by a correlation between Protestantism and the scientific values.[132] In his theory, Robert K. Merton focused on English Puritanism and German Pietism as having been responsible for the development of the scientific revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries. Merton explained that the connection between religious affiliation and interest in science was the result of a significant synergy between the ascetic Protestant values and those of modern science.[133] Protestant values encouraged scientific research by allowing science to study God's influence on the world and thus providing a religious justification for scientific research.[131]
Confucianism and traditional Chinese religion[edit]
The historical process of Confucianism has largely been antipathic towards scientific discovery. However the religio-philosophical system itself is more neutral on the subject than such an analysis might suggest. In his writings On Heaven, Xunzi espoused a proto-scientific world view.[134] However, during the Han Synthesis the more anti-empirical Mencius was favored and combined with Daoist skepticism regarding the nature of reality. Likewise, during the Medieval period, Zhu Xi argued against technical investigation and specialization proposed by Chen Liang.[135] After contact with the West, scholars such as Wang Fuzhi would rely on Buddhist/Daoist skepticism to denounce all science as a subjective pursuit limited by humanity's fundamental ignorance of the true nature of the world.[136] After the May Fourth Movement, attempts to modernize Confucianism and reconcile it with scientific understanding were attempted by many scholars including Feng Youlan and Xiong Shili. Given the close relationship that Confucianism shares with Buddhism, many of the same arguments used to reconcile Buddhism with science also readily translate to Confucianism. However, modern scholars have also attempted to define the relationship between science and Confucianism on Confucianism's own terms and the results have usually led to the conclusion that Confucianism and science are fundamentally compatible.[137]
Hinduism[edit]
See also: Hindu views on evolution, List of numbers in Hindu scriptures, Hindu cosmology, Hindu units of time, Indian astronomy, Hindu calendar, Indian mathematics, and List of Indian inventions and discoveries
Saraswati is regarded as goddess of knowledge, music, arts and science.
In Hinduism, the dividing line between objective sciences and spiritual knowledge (adhyatma vidya) is a linguistic paradox.[138] Hindu scholastic activities and ancient Indian scientific advancements were so interconnected that many Hindu scriptures are also ancient scientific manuals and vice versa. In 1835, English was made the primary language for teaching in higher education in India, exposing Hindu scholars to Western secular ideas; this started a renaissance regarding religious and philosophical thought.[139] Hindu sages maintained that logical argument and rational proof using Nyaya is the way to obtain correct knowledge.[138] The scientific level of understanding focuses on how things work and from where they originate, while Hinduism strives to understand the ultimate purposes for the existence of living things.[139] To obtain and broaden the knowledge of the world for spiritual perfection, many refer to the Bhāgavata for guidance because it draws upon a scientific and theological dialogue.[140] Hinduism offers methods to correct and transform itself in course of time. For instance, Hindu views on the development of life include a range of viewpoints in regards to evolution, creationism, and the origin of life within the traditions of Hinduism. For instance, it has been suggested that Wallace-Darwininan evolutionary thought was a part of Hindu thought centuries before modern times.[141] The Shankara and the Sāmkhya did not have a problem with the theory of evolution, but instead, argued about the existence of God and what happened after death. These two distinct groups argued among each other's philosophies because of their sacred texts, not the idea of evolution.[142] With the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, many Hindus were eager to connect their scriptures to Darwinism, finding similarities between Brahma's creation, Vishnu's incarnations, and evolution theories.[139]
Samkhya, the oldest school of Hindu philosophy prescribes a particular method to analyze knowledge. According to Samkhya, all knowledge is possible through three means of valid knowledge[143][144] –
Pratyakṣa or Dṛṣṭam – direct sense perception,
Anumāna – logical inference and
Śabda or Āptavacana – verbal testimony.
Nyaya, the Hindu school of logic, accepts all these 3 means and in addition accepts one more – Upamāna (comparison).
The accounts of the emergence of life within the universe vary in description, but classically the deity called Brahma, from a Trimurti of three deities also including Vishnu and Shiva, is described as performing the act of 'creation', or more specifically of 'propagating life within the universe' with the other two deities being responsible for 'preservation' and 'destruction' (of the universe) respectively.[145] In this respect some Hindu schools do not treat the scriptural creation myth literally and often the creation stories themselves do not go into specific detail, thus leaving open the possibility of incorporating at least some theories in support of evolution. Some Hindus find support for, or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in scriptures, namely the Vedas.[146]
The incarnations of Vishnu (Dashavatara) is almost identical to the scientific explanation of the sequence of biological evolution of man and animals.[147][148][149][150][self-published source] The sequence of avatars starts from an aquatic organism (Matsya), to an amphibian (Kurma), to a land-animal (Varaha), to a humanoid (Narasimha), to a dwarf human (Vamana), to 5 forms of well developed human beings (Parashurama, Rama, Balarama/Buddha, Krishna, Kalki) who showcase an increasing form of complexity (Axe-man, King, Plougher/Sage, wise Statesman, mighty Warrior).[147][150] In fact, many Hindu gods are represented with features of animals as well as those of humans, leading many Hindus to easily accept evolutionary links between animals and humans.[139] In India, the home country of Hindus, educated Hindus widely accept the theory of biological evolution. In a survey of 909 people, 77% of respondents in India agreed with Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and 85 per cent of God-believing people said they believe in evolution as well.[151][152]
As per Vedas, another explanation for the creation is based on the five elements: earth, water, fire, air and aether. The Hindu religion traces its beginnings to the sacred Vedas. Everything that is established in the Hindu faith such as the gods and goddesses, doctrines, chants, spiritual insights, etc. flow from the poetry of Vedic hymns. The Vedas offer an honor to the sun and moon, water and wind, and to the order in Nature that is universal. This naturalism is the beginning of what further becomes the connection between Hinduism and science.[153]
Islam[edit]
Main article: Islam and science
See also: Science in the medieval Islamic world
From an Islamic standpoint, science, the study of nature, is considered to be linked to the concept of Tawhid (the Oneness of God), as are all other branches of knowledge.[154] In Islam, nature is not seen as a separate entity, but rather as an integral part of Islam's holistic outlook on God, humanity, and the world. The Islamic view of science and nature is continuous with that of religion and God. This link implies a sacred aspect to the pursuit of scientific knowledge by Muslims, as nature itself is viewed in the Qur'an as a compilation of signs pointing to the Divine.[155] It was with this understanding that science was studied and understood in Islamic civilizations, specifically during the eighth to sixteenth centuries, prior to the colonization of the Muslim world.[156] Robert Briffault, in The Making of Humanity, asserts that the very existence of science, as it is understood in the modern sense, is rooted in the scientific thought and knowledge that emerged in Islamic civilizations during this time.[157] Ibn al-Haytham, an Arab[158] Muslim,[159][160][161] was an early proponent of the concept that a hypothesis must be proved by experiments based on confirmable procedures or mathematical evidence—hence understanding the scientific method 200 years before Renaissance scientists.[162][163][164][165][166] Ibn al-Haytham described his theology:
I constantly sought knowledge and truth, and it became my belief that for gaining access to the effulgence and closeness to God, there is no better way than that of searching for truth and knowledge.[167]
With the decline of Islamic Civilizations in the late Middle Ages and the rise of Europe, the Islamic scientific tradition shifted into a new period. Institutions that had existed for centuries in the Muslim world looked to the new scientific institutions of European powers.[citation needed] This changed the practice of science in the Muslim world, as Islamic scientists had to confront the western approach to scientific learning, which was based on a different philosophy of nature.[154] From the time of this initial upheaval of the Islamic scientific tradition to the present day, Muslim scientists and scholars have developed a spectrum of viewpoints on the place of scientific learning within the context of Islam, none of which are universally accepted or practiced.[168] However, most maintain the view that the acquisition of knowledge and scientific pursuit in general is not in disaccord with Islamic thought and religious belief.[154][168]
Ahmadiyya[edit]
Further information: Ahmadiyya views on evolution
The Ahmadiyya movement emphasize that there is no contradiction between Islam and science.[citation needed] For example, Ahmadi Muslims universally accept in principle the process of evolution, albeit divinely guided, and actively promote it. Over the course of several decades the movement has issued various publications in support of the scientific concepts behind the process of evolution, and frequently engages in promoting how religious scriptures, such as the Qur'an, supports the concept.[169] For general purposes, the second Khalifa of the community, Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad says:
The Holy Quran directs attention towards science, time and again, rather than evoking prejudice against it. The Quran has never advised against studying science, lest the reader should become a non-believer; because it has no such fear or concern. The Holy Quran is not worried that if people will learn the laws of nature its spell will break. The Quran has not prevented people from science, rather it states, "Say, 'Reflect on what is happening in the heavens and the earth.'" (Al Younus)[170]
Jainism[edit]
Main article: Jainism and non-creationism
Jainism does not support belief in a creator deity. According to Jain doctrine, the universe and its constituents – soul, matter, space, time, and principles of motion have always existed (a static universe similar to that of Epicureanism and steady state cosmological model). All the constituents and actions are governed by universal natural laws. It is not possible to create matter out of nothing and hence the sum total of matter in the universe remains the same (similar to law of conservation of mass). Similarly, the soul of each living being is unique and uncreated and has existed since beginningless time.[a][171]
The Jain theory of causation holds that a cause and its effect are always identical in nature and hence a conscious and immaterial entity like God cannot create a material entity like the universe. Furthermore, according to the Jain concept of divinity, any soul who destroys its karmas and desires, achieves liberation. A soul who destroys all its passions and desires has no desire to interfere in the working of the universe. Moral rewards and sufferings are not the work of a divine being, but a result of an innate moral order in the cosmos; a self-regulating mechanism whereby the individual reaps the fruits of his own actions through the workings of the karmas.
Through the ages, Jain philosophers have adamantly rejected and opposed the concept of creator and omnipotent God and this has resulted in Jainism being labeled as nastika darsana or atheist philosophy by the rival religious philosophies. The theme of non-creationism and absence of omnipotent God and divine grace runs strongly in all the philosophical dimensions of Jainism, including its cosmology, karma, moksa and its moral code of conduct. Jainism asserts a religious and virtuous life is possible without the idea of a creator god.[172]
Perspectives from the scientific community[edit]
History[edit]
Further information: List of Jewish scientists and philosophers, List of Christian thinkers in science, List of Muslim scientists, and List of atheists (science and technology)
In the 17th century, founders of the Royal Society largely held conventional and orthodox religious views, and a number of them were prominent Churchmen.[173] While theological issues that had the potential to be divisive were typically excluded from formal discussions of the early Society, many of its fellows nonetheless believed that their scientific activities provided support for traditional religious belief.[174] Clerical involvement in the Royal Society remained high until the mid-nineteenth century, when science became more professionalised.[175]
Albert Einstein supported the compatibility of some interpretations of religion with science. In "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium" published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York in 1941, Einstein stated:
Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.[176]
Einstein thus expresses views of ethical non-naturalism (contrasted to ethical naturalism).
Prominent modern scientists who are atheists include evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and Nobel Prize–winning physicist Stephen Weinberg. Prominent scientists advocating religious belief include Nobel Prize–winning physicist and United Church of Christ member Charles Townes, evangelical Christian and past head of the Human Genome Project Francis Collins, and climatologist John T. Houghton.[68]
Studies on scientists' beliefs[edit]
Distribution of Nobel Prizes by religion between 1901–2000.[177]
In 1916, 1,000 leading American scientists were randomly chosen from American Men of Science and 42% believed God existed, 42% disbelieved, and 17% had doubts/did not know; however when the study was replicated 80 years later using American Men and Women of Science in 1996, results were very much the same with 39% believing God exists, 45% disbelieved, and 15% had doubts/did not know.[68][178] In the same 1996 survey, scientists in the fields of biology, mathematics, and physics/astronomy, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" was most popular among mathematicians (about 45%) and least popular among physicists (about 22%). In total, in terms of belief toward a personal god and personal immortality, about 60% of United States scientists in these fields expressed either disbelief or agnosticism and about 40% expressed belief.[178] This compared with 62.9% in 1914 and 33% in 1933.[179]
A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York of 1,646 natural and social science professors at 21 US research universities found that, in terms of belief in God or a higher power, more than 60% expressed either disbelief or agnosticism and more than 30% expressed belief. More specifically, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answered "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out."[180] In the same study, 28% said they believed in God and 8% believed in a higher power that was not God.[181] Ecklund stated that scientists were often able to consider themselves spiritual without religion or belief in god.[182] Ecklund and Scheitle concluded, from their study, that the individuals from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately had self-selected into scientific professions and that the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable since the study did not strongly support the idea that scientists had dropped religious identities due to their scientific training.[183] Instead, factors such as upbringing, age, and family size were significant influences on religious identification since those who had religious upbringing were more likely to be religious and those who had a non-religious upbringing were more likely to not be religious.[180][183][184] The authors also found little difference in religiosity between social and natural scientists.[184]
Since 1901–2013, 22% of all Nobel prizes have been awarded to Jews despite them being less than 1% of the world population.[185]
Between 1901 and 2000, 654 Laureates belonged to 28 different religions. Most (65%) have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference. Specifically on the science related prizes, Christians have won a total of 73% of all the Chemistry, 65% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, and 54% in all Economics awards.[177] Jews have won 17% of the prizes in Chemistry, 26% in Medicine, and 23% in Physics.[177] Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers have won 7% of the prizes in Chemistry, 9% in Medicine, and 5% in Physics.[177] Muslims have won 13 prizes (three were in scientific category).
Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than are the rest of the population. Precise definitions and statistics vary, with some studies concluding that about 1⁄3 of scientists in the U.S. 1⁄3 are atheists, 1⁄3 agnostic, and 1⁄3 have some belief in God (although some might be deistic, for example).[68][178][186] This is in contrast to the more than roughly 3⁄4 of the general population that believe in some God in the United States. Other studies on scientific organizations like the AAAS show that 51% of their scientists believe in either God or a higher power and 48% having no religion.[187] Belief also varies slightly by field. Two surveys on physicists, geoscientists, biologists, mathematicians, and chemists have noted that, from those specializing in these fields, physicists had lowest percentage of belief in God (29%) while chemists had highest (41%).[178][188] Other studies show that among members of the National Academy of Sciences, concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer, 7% expressed belief, 72% expressed disbelief, and 21% were agnostic,[189] however Eugenie Scott argued that there are methodological issues in the study, including ambiguity in the questions. A study with simplified wording to include impersonal or non-interventionist ideas of God concluded that 40% of leading scientists in the US scientists believe in a god.[190]
In terms of perceptions, most social and natural scientists from 21 American universities did not perceive conflict between science and religion, while 37% did. However, in the study, scientists who had experienced limited exposure to religion tended to perceive conflict.[42] In the same study they found that nearly one in five atheist scientists who are parents (17%) are part of religious congregations and have attended a religious service more than once in the past year. Some of the reasons for doing so are their scientific identity (wishing to expose their children to all sources of knowledge so they can make up their own minds), spousal influence, and desire for community.[191]
A 2009 report by the Pew Research Center found that members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) were "much less religious than the general public," with 51% believing in some form of deity or higher power. Specifically, 33% of those polled believe in God, 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power, and 41% did not believe in either God or a higher power.[192] 48% say they have a religious affiliation, equal to the number who say they are not affiliated with any religious tradition. 17% were atheists, 11% were agnostics, 20% were nothing in particular, 8% were Jewish, 10% were Catholic, 16% were Protestant, 4% were Evangelical, 10% were other religion. The survey also found younger scientists to be "substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God". Among the surveyed fields, chemists were the most likely to say they believe in God.[188]
Elaine Ecklund conducted a study from 2011 to 2014 involving the general US population, including rank and file scientists, in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The study noted that 76% of the scientists identified with a religious tradition. 85% of evangelical scientists had no doubts about the existence of God, compared to 35% of the whole scientific population. In terms of religion and science, 85% of evangelical scientists saw no conflict (73% collaboration, 12% independence), while 75% of the whole scientific population saw no conflict (40% collaboration, 35% independence).[193]
Religious beliefs of US professors were examined using a nationally representative sample of more than 1,400 professors. They found that in the social sciences: 23% did not believe in God, 16% did not know if God existed, 43% believed God existed, and 16% believed in a higher power. Out of the natural sciences: 20% did not believe in God, 33% did not know if God existed, 44% believed God existed, and 4% believed in a higher power. Overall, out of the whole study: 10% were atheists, 13% were agnostic, 19% believe in a higher power, 4% believe in God some of the time, 17% had doubts but believed in God, 35% believed in God and had no doubts.[194]
Farr Curlin, a University of Chicago Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, noted in a study that doctors tend to be science-minded religious people. He helped author a study that "found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife." and "90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults." He reasoned, "The responsibility to care for those who are suffering and the rewards of helping those in need resonate throughout most religious traditions."[195]
Physicians in the United States, by contrast, are much more religious than scientists, with 76% stating a belief in God.[195]
According to the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture's report on 1,100 scientists in India: 66% are Hindu, 14% did not report a religion, 10% are atheist/no religion, 3% are Muslim, 3% are Christian, 4% are Buddhist, Sikh or other.[196] 39% have a belief in a god, 6% have belief in a god sometimes, 30% do not believe in a god but believe in a higher power, 13% do not know if there is a god, and 12% do not believe in a god.[196] 49% believe in the efficacy of prayer, 90% strongly agree or somewhat agree with approving degrees in Ayurvedic medicine. Furthermore, the term "secularism" is understood to have diverse and simultaneous meanings among Indian scientists: 93% believe it to be tolerance of religions and philosophies, 83% see it as involving separation of church and state, 53% see it as not identifying with religious traditions, 40% see it as absence of religious beliefs, and 20% see it as atheism. Accordingly, 75% of Indian scientists had a "secular" outlook in terms of being tolerant of other religions.[196]
According to the Religion Among Scientists in International Context (RASIC) study on 1,581 scientists from the United Kingdom and 1,763 scientists from India, along with 200 interviews: 65% of U.K. scientists identified as nonreligious and only 6% of Indian scientists identify as nonreligious, 12% of scientists in the U.K. attend religious services on a regular basis and 32% of scientists in India do.[197] In terms of the Indian scientists, 73% of scientists responded that there are basic truths in many religions, 27% said they believe in God and 38% expressed belief in a higher power of some kind.[197] In terms of perceptions of conflict between science and religion, less than half of both U.K. scientists (38%) and Indian scientists (18%) perceived conflict between religion and science.[197]
According to Renny Thomas' study on Indian scientists, atheistic scientists in India called themselves atheists even while accepting that their lifestyle is very much a part of tradition and religion. Thus, they differ from Western atheists in that for them following the lifestyle of a religion is not antithetical to atheism.[198]
Overall summary[edit]
Further information: Conflict thesis § Modern views
Over time, scientists and historians have moved away from the conflict thesis and toward compatibility theses (either the integration thesis or non-overlapping magisteria). Many experts have now adopted a "complexity thesis" that combines several other models,[199] further at the expense of the conflict thesis.
Public perceptions of science[edit]
See also: Religiosity and education
Global studies which have pooled data on religion and science from 1981–2001, have noted that countries with high religiosity also have stronger faith in science, while less religious countries have more skepticism of the impact of science and technology.[200] The United States is noted there as distinctive because of greater faith in both God and scientific progress. Other research cites the National Science Foundation's finding that America has more favorable public attitudes towards science than Europe, Russia, and Japan despite differences in levels of religiosity in these cultures.[201]
A study conducted on adolescents from Christian schools in Northern Ireland, noted a positive relationship between attitudes towards Christianity and science once attitudes towards scientism and creationism were accounted for.[202]
A study on people from Sweden concludes that though the Swedes are among the most non-religious, paranormal beliefs are prevalent among both the young and adult populations. This is likely due to a loss of confidence in institutions such as the Church and Science.[203]
Concerning specific topics like creationism, it is not an exclusively American phenomenon. A poll on adult Europeans revealed that 40% believed in naturalistic evolution, 21% in theistic evolution, 20% in special creation, and 19% are undecided; with the highest concentrations of young earth creationists in Switzerland (21%), Austria (20%), Germany (18%).[204] Other countries such as Netherlands, Britain, and Australia have experienced growth in such views as well.[204]
According to a 2015 Pew Research Center Study on the public perceptions on science, people's perceptions on conflict with science have more to do with their perceptions of other people's beliefs than their own personal beliefs. For instance, the majority of people with a religious affiliation (68%) saw no conflict between their own personal religious beliefs and science while the majority of those without a religious affiliation (76%) perceived science and religion to be in conflict.[205] The study noted that people who are not affiliated with any religion, also known as "religiously unaffiliated", often have supernatural beliefs and spiritual practices despite them not being affiliated with any religion[205][206][207] and also that "just one-in-six religiously unaffiliated adults (16%) say their own religious beliefs conflict with science."[205] Furthermore, the study observed, "The share of all adults who perceive a conflict between science and their own religious beliefs has declined somewhat in recent years, from 36% in 2009 to 30% in 2014. Among those who are affiliated with a religion, the share of people who say there is a conflict between science and their personal religious beliefs dropped from 41% to 34% during this period."[205]
The 2013 MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins examined the views of religious people in America on origins science topics like evolution, the Big Bang, and perceptions of conflicts between science and religion. It found that a large majority of religious people see no conflict between science and religion and only 11% of religious people belong to religions openly rejecting evolution. The fact that the gap between personal and official beliefs of their religions is so large suggests that part of the problem, might be defused by people learning more about their own religious doctrine and the science it endorses, thereby bridging this belief gap. The study concluded that "mainstream religion and mainstream science are neither attacking one another nor perceiving a conflict." Furthermore, they note that this conciliatory view is shared by most leading science organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).[208]
A study collecting data from 2011 to 2014 on the general public, with focus on evangelicals and evangelical scientists was done in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Even though evangelicals only make up 26% of the US population, the found that nearly 70 percent of all evangelical Christians do not view science and religion as being in conflict with each other (48% saw them as complementary and 21% saw them as independent) while 73% of the general US population saw no conflict as well.[193][209]
Other lines of research on perceptions of science among the American public conclude that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science and they have no differences with nonreligious groups in the propensity of seeking out scientific knowledge, although there may be subtle epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.[210][211] Findings from the Pew Center note similar findings and also note that the majority of Americans (80–90%) show strong support for scientific research, agree that science makes society and individual's lives better, and 8 in 10 Americans would be happy if their children were to become scientists.[212] Even strict creationists tend to have very favorable views on science.[201]
According to a 2007 poll by the Pew Forum, "while large majorities of Americans respect science and scientists, they are not always willing to accept scientific findings that squarely contradict their religious beliefs."[213] The Pew Forum states that specific factual disagreements are "not common today", though 40% to 50% of Americans do not accept the evolution of humans and other living things, with the "strongest opposition" coming from evangelical Christians at 65% saying life did not evolve.[213] 51% of the population believes humans and other living things evolved: 26% through natural selection only, 21% somehow guided, 4% don't know.[213] In the U.S., biological evolution is the only concrete example of conflict where a significant portion of the American public denies scientific consensus for religious reasons.[201][213] In terms of advanced industrialized nations, the United States is the most religious.[213]
A 2009 study from the Pew Research Center on Americans perceptions of science, showed a broad consensus that most Americans, including most religious Americans, hold scientific research and scientists themselves in high regard. The study showed that 84% of Americans say they view science as having a mostly positive impact on society. Among those who attend religious services at least once a week, the number is roughly the same at 80%. Furthermore, 70% of U.S. adults think scientists contribute "a lot" to society.[214]
A 2011 study on a national sample of US college students examined whether these students viewed the science / religion relationship as reflecting primarily conflict, collaboration, or independence. The study concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move away from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than towards a conflict view.[215]
In the US, people who had no religious affiliation were no more likely than the religious population to have New Age beliefs and practices.[216]
See also[edit]
Conflict thesis
Continuity thesis
Deep ecology
Demarcation problem
Faith and rationality
Issues in Science and Religion
List of scholars on the relationship between religion and science
Merton thesis
Natural theology
Philosophy of science
Politicization of science
Religious skepticism
Psychology of religion
Scientific method and religion
Theistic evolution
By tradition:
Bahá'í Faith and science
Buddhism and science
Catholic Church and science & Catholic Church and evolution
Islam and science
List of Catholic scientists
List of Christians in science and technology
Parson-naturalist
Quakers in science
In the US:
American Scientific Affiliation
Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences
Creation–evolution controversy
Intelligent design
John Templeton Foundation
Science portal
Religion portal
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Stenmark, Mikael (2004). How to Relate Science and Religion: A Multidimensional Model. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. p. 45. ISBN 0-8028-2823-X. Recognizing that science and religion are essentially social practices always performed by people living in certain cultural and historical situations should alert us to the fact that religion and science change over time.
Jump up ^ Clegg, Brian. "The First Scientist: A Life of Roger Bacon". Carroll and Graf Publishers, NY, 2003
Jump up ^ Science and Islam, Jim Al-Khalili. BBC, 2009
^ Jump up to: a b Russel, C.A. (2002). Ferngren, G.B., ed. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science
^ Jump up to: a b Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press. p. 195. In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the 'warfare between science and religion' and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science.
^ Jump up to: a b Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited.
Jump up ^ Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2008). Science, Evolution and Creationism. National Academy of Sciences.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-18448-X.
^ Jump up to: a b Nongbri, Brent (2013). Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-15416-X.
^ Jump up to: a b c Josephson, Jason Ananda (2012). The Invention of Religion in Japan. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-41234-2.
^ Jump up to: a b c Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-08928-2.
Jump up ^ Numbers, Ronald; Lindberg, David, eds. (2003). When Science and Christianity Meet. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-48214-6.
Jump up ^ The Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the word "scientist" to 1834.
Jump up ^ Grant, Edward (2007). A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-68957-0.
Jump up ^ Max Müller. Introduction to the science of religion. p. 28.
Jump up ^ Hershel Edelheit, Abraham J. Edelheit, History of Zionism: A Handbook and Dictionary, p. 3, citing Solomon Zeitlin, The Jews. Race, Nation, or Religion? ( Philadelphia: Dropsie College Press, 1936).
Jump up ^ Kuroda, Toshio and Jacqueline I. Stone, translator. ""The Imperial Law and the Buddhist Law"" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 23, 2003. Retrieved 2010-05-28. . Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23.3–4 (1996)
Jump up ^ Neil McMullin. Buddhism and the State in Sixteenth-Century Japan. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1984.
^ Jump up to: a b Grant, E. (1990, December 12). Science and Religion in the Middle Ages. Speech presented at "Science and Religion in the Middle Ages," in Harvard University, Cambridge
Jump up ^ Grant, Edward (2001). God and Reason in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-511-03262-5.
^ Jump up to: a b c Hall, Marie Boas (1994) [1962]. The Scientific Renaissance, 1450-1630. New York: Dover publications.
^ Jump up to: a b Szalay, Jessie (June 29, 2016). "The Renaissance: The 'Rebirth' of Science & Culture". www.livescience.com. Retrieved 3 November 2017.
Jump up ^ Richard Dawkins on militant atheism (transcript), TED talk, 2007 (page visited on 21 January 2015).
Jump up ^ John Polkinghorne Science and Theology SPCK/Fortress Press, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3153-6 pp. 20–22, following Ian Barbour
Jump up ^ Nature, Human Nature, and God, Ian G. Barbour, Fortress Press, 2002, ISBN 0-8006-3477-2
Jump up ^ Haught, John F. (1995). Science and Religion : From Conflict to Conversation. Paulist Prees. p. 9. ISBN 0-8091-3606-6. Throughout these pages we shall observe that there are at least four distinct ways in which science and religion can be related to each other: 1) Conflict – the conviction that science and religion are fundamentally irreconcilable; 2) Contrast – the claim that there can be no genuine conflict since religion and science are each responding to radically different questions; 3) Contact – an approach that looks for both dialogue and interaction, and possible "consonance" between science and religion, and especially for ways in which science shapes religious and theological understanding. 4) Confirmation – a somewhat quieter but extremely important perspective that highlights the ways in which, at a very deep level, religion supports and nourishes the entire scientific enterprise.
Jump up ^ The Sciences and theology in the twentieth century, Arthur R. Peacocke (ed), University of Notre Dame press, 1981 ISBN 0-268-01704-2, pp. xiii–xv
Jump up ^ Paz-y-Miño-C G. & Espinosa A. (2014). "The Incompatibility Hypothesis: Evolution versus Supernatural Causation" (PDF). In Why Does Evolution Matter? The Importance of Understanding Evolution, edited by Gabriel Trueba. Newcastle UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 3–16. The Incompatibility Hypothesis (IH) is an ultimate-level hypothesis. IH explains the cause of the controversy science-versus-religion, its fundamental reason. IH addresses directly the inquiry: what elicits the controversy science versus religion? And it offers an educated answer: their intrinsic and opposing approaches to assess reality, i.e. science by means of testing hypotheses, falsifying and/or testing predictions and replication of experiments; religion, in contrast, via belief in supernatural causality. Belief disrupts, distorts, delays or stops (3Ds + S) the comprehension and acceptance of scientific evidence. The authors consider the 3Ds + S to be cognitive effects of illusory thinking.
Jump up ^ Paz-y-Miño-C G. & Espinosa A. (2013.pages=73–98). "The Everlasting Conflict Evolution-and-science versus Religiosity" (PDF). In Religion and Ethics, edited by Gloria Simpson and Spencer Payne, New York, NY: NOVA Publishers. Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Jerry Coyne. "Does The Empirical Nature Of Science Contradict The Revelatory Nature Of Faith?". Edge. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
Jump up ^ Neil deGrasse Tyson. "Holy Wars". Haydenplanetarium.org. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
Jump up ^ Neil deGrasse Tyson From Natural History Magazine, October 1999
Jump up ^ Stenger, Victor J. God and the folly of faith : the incompatibility of science and religion. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. pp. 290–96. ISBN 1-61614-599-4.
Jump up ^ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Bantam Press, 2006, pp. 282–86.
Jump up ^ Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Free Press, 2010, pp. 5–6.
Jump up ^ Carroll, Sean (June 23, 2009). "Science and Religion are Not Compatible". Sean Carroll Blog.
Jump up ^ "Excerpts of Statements by Scientists Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science". National Academy of Sciences.
Jump up ^ Miller, Kenneth R. (1999). Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. New York: Harper Perennial. pp. 284–85. ISBN 978-0-06-093049-3.
Jump up ^ Tolman, Cynthia. "Methods in Religion". Malboro College. Archived from the original on 2015-09-04.
Jump up ^ Ronald Numbers, ed. (2009). Galileo Goes To Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-674-05741-8.
Jump up ^ Ferngren, G.B. (2002). Ferngren, G.B., ed. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. ... while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind.
^ Jump up to: a b Ecklund, Elaine Howard; Park, Jerry Z. (2009). "Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists?". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 48 (2): 276–92. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01447.x.
Jump up ^ Harrison, Peter (2015), "That religion has typically impeded the progress of science", in Numbers, Ronald L.; Kampourakis, Kostas, Newton's Apple and Other Myths about Science, Harvard University Press, pp. 195–201
Jump up ^ Ferngren, G.B. (2002). Ferngren, G.B., ed. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. ix, x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. " ; "... while [John Hedley] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind.
Jump up ^ Quotation from Ferngren's introduction at "Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0."
"...while [John Hedley] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind." (p. x)
Jump up ^ Quotation from Colin A. Russell in "The Conflict Thesis" the first essay of "Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0."
"The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science." (p. 7, followed by a list of the basic reasons why the conflict thesis is wrong).
Jump up ^ Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
^ Jump up to: a b Jones, Richard H. (2011). For the Glory of God : The Role of Christianity in the Rise and Development of Modern Science Volume 1. University Press of America. pp. 19–22, 139. ISBN 978-0-7618-5566-8.
Jump up ^ Fantoli (2005, p. 139), Finocchiaro (1989, pp. 288–93).
Jump up ^ Finocchiaro (1997), p. 82; Moss & Wallace (2003), p. 11
Jump up ^ See Langford (1966, pp. 133–34), and Seeger (1966, p. 30), for example. Drake (1978, p. 355) asserts that Simplicio's character is modelled on the Aristotelian philosophers, Lodovico delle Colombe and Cesare Cremonini, rather than Urban. He also considers that the demand for Galileo to include the Pope's argument in the Dialogue left him with no option but to put it in the mouth of Simplicio (Drake, 1953, p. 491). Even Arthur Koestler, who is generally quite harsh on Galileo in The Sleepwalkers (1959), after noting that Urban suspected Galileo of having intended Simplicio to be a caricature of him, says "this of course is untrue" (1959, p. 483).
Jump up ^ Lindberg, David. "Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science".
Jump up ^ Biékowska, Barbara, ed. (2013). Scientific World of Copernicus: On the Occasion of the 500th Anniversary of his Birth 1473–1973. Springer. pp. 63–65. ISBN 9401026181.
Jump up ^ "Did Galileo have Proof of the Earth's Movement?". Tel-Aviv University.
Jump up ^ Sanderson, Katharine (5 March 2010). "Galileo backed Copernicus despite data: Stars viewed through early telescopes suggested that Earth stood still". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2010.105.
Jump up ^ Grayling 2014, p. 55:"In fact religion and science are competitors for the truth about quite a number of things, including the origins of the universe, the nature of human beings, and the belief that the laws of nature can be locally and temporarily suspended- thus allowing for miracle"
Jump up ^ Stephen Jay Gould. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. Ballantine Books, 1999.
Jump up ^ W. T. Stace, Time and Eternity: an Essay in the Philosophy of Religion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1952.
^ Jump up to: a b "Evolution Resources: Compatibility of Science and Religion". Science, Evolution, and Creationism. National Academies of the United States. 2008.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Religion and Science, John Habgood, Mills & Brown, 1964, pp. 11, 14–16, 48–55, 68–69, 87, 90–91.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Barbour, Ian G. (1968). "Science and Religion Today". In Ian G. Barbour (ed.). Science and Religion: New Perspectives on the Dialogue (1st ed.). New York, Evanston and London: Harper & Row. pp. 3–29. CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list (link)
Jump up ^ Religion-and-Science Philip Hefner, pp. 562–76 in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science Philip Clayton(ed.), Zachary Simpson(associate-ed.). Hardcover 2006, paperback July 2008. Oxford University Press, 1023 pages
^ Jump up to: a b Hefner, Philip (2008). "Editorial: Religion-and-Science, the Third Community". Zygon. 43 (1): 3–7. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00893.x.
Jump up ^ "Ian Ramsey Centre". Users.ox.ac.uk. 2013-06-04. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
Jump up ^ Scott, Eugenie (1998). ""Science and Religion", "Christian Scholarship", and "Theistic Science"". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. National Center for Science Education. 18 (2). Retrieved 7 January 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b Smedes, Taede A. (2008). "Beyond Barbour or Back to Basics? The Future of Science-and-Religion and the Quest for Unity". Zygon. 43 (1): 235–58. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00910.x.
Jump up ^ Theerman, Paul "James Clerk Maxwell and religion", American Journal of Physics, 54 (4), April 1986, pp. 312–17 doi:10.1119/1.14636
What is truth? A course in science and religion Peter J. Brancazio, Am. J. Phys. 62, 893 (1994) doi:10.1119/1.17735
The stifling grip of religion Romard Barthel
Am. J. Phys. 68, 785 (2000) doi:10.1119/1.1303729
Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology, Max Jammer Author Jeremy Bernstein and Reviewer, Am. J. Phys. 68, 676 (2000), doi:10.1119/1.19513
Science, religion, and skepticism, Dwight E. Neuenschwander, Am. J. Phys. 66, 273 (1998), doi:10.1119/1.19024
Copernicus and Martin Luther: An encounter between science and religion
Donald H. Kobe, Am. J. Phys. 66, 190 (1998), doi:10.1119/1.18844
Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation
John F. Haught and Eugene E. Selk, Am. J. Phys. 64, 1532 (1996), doi:10.1119/1.18441
Science and Religion – A Comment
M. A. Vandyck, Am. J. Phys. 64, 110 (1996), doi:10.1119/1.18125
Religion versus science?
Eduardo Segre, Am. J. Phys. 62, 296 (1994), doi:10.1119/1.17567
Does religion contradict science?
Mehmet Pakdemirli, Am. J. Phys. 61, 201 (1993), doi:10.1119/1.17287
Religion versus science?
Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., Am. J. Phys. 60, 871 (1992), doi:10.1119/1.17004 •A response to Religion vs. Science?, by Jay Orear Allen C. Dotson, Am. J. Phys. 60, 778 (1992), doi:10.1119/1.17057
Religion vs. science?
Jay Orear, Am. J. Phys. 60, 394 (1992), doi:10.1119/1.16889
Religion in an Age of Science
Ian G. Barbour and Eugene E. Selk, Am. J. Phys. 59, 1152 (1991), doi:10.1119/1.16630
Making sense of experience: Common ground in science and religion
Harry D. Powell, Am. J. Phys. 59, 679 (1991), doi:10.1119/1.16767
Guest Comment: Preserving and cherishing the Earth—An appeal for joint commitment in science and religion
Carl Sagan, Am. J. Phys. 58, 615 (1990), doi:10.1119/1.16418
James Clerk Maxwell and religion. Paul Theerman, Am. J. Phys. 54, 312 (1986), doi:10.1119/1.14636
^ Jump up to: a b c d Science 15 August 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5328, pp. 890–93; "Scientific Community: Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Gregg Easterbrook doi:10.1126/science.277.5328.890
Jump up ^ •Science 12 September 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5332, pp. 1589–1591; "Letters: Science and Religion" doi:10.1126/science.277.5332.1589a
Science 13 December 1957: Vol. 126. no. 3285, pp. 1225–29; "Science and the Citizen" Warren Weaver doi:10.1126/science.126.3285.1225
Science 25 April 1958: Vol. 127. no. 3304, pp. 1004, 1006; "Letters: Science and Religion"
Science, 6 June 1958, 127(3310), pp. 1324–27; "A Human Enterprise: Science as lived by its practitioners bears but little resemblance to science as described in print." doi:10.1126/science.127.3310.1324
Science 23 February 2001: Vol. 291. no. 5508, pp. 1472–74; "PAPAL SCIENCE: Science and Religion Advance Together at Pontifical Academy" Charles Seife doi:10.1126/science.291.5508.1472
Jump up ^ Science and Religion, by Alvin Plantinga, 2007, 2010.
Jump up ^ Schuessler, Jennifer (13 December 2011). "Philosopher sticks up for God". The New York Times. Retrieved 7 January 2013.
Jump up ^ Boudry, Maarten (September 2012). "Review of Alvin Plantinga (2011), Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism". International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Group. Plantinga's effort to stave off the conflict between theism and evolution is a failure... if the bar for rational belief is lowered to mere logical possibility, and the demand for positive evidence dropped, then no holds are barred.
Jump up ^ "Themelios | Review: Where The Conflict Really Lies Science Religion And Naturalism". The Gospel Coalition. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
Jump up ^ Principe (2006). Science and Religion. The Teaching Company.
Jump up ^ Principe. History of Science from Antiquity to 1700. The Teaching Company.
Jump up ^ Hatcher, William (September 1979). "Science and the Bahá'í Faith". Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science. 14 (3): 229–53. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1979.tb00359.x.
Jump up ^ Smith, P. (1999). A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications. pp. 306–07. ISBN 1-85168-184-1.
Jump up ^ Mehanian, Courosh; Friberg, Stephen R. (2003). "Religion and Evolution Reconciled: 'Abdu'l-Bahá's Comments on Evolution". The Journal of Bahá'í studies. 13 (1–4): 55–93.
Jump up ^ Yong, Amos. (2005) Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground (review) Buddhist-Christian Studies – Volume 25, 2005, pp. 176–80
Jump up ^ Wallace, B. Alan. (2003). Buddhism & science: breaking new ground. Columbia University Press, p. 328
Jump up ^ Hamilton, Jon. (2005) "The Links Between the Dalai Lama and Neuroscience" www.NPR.org, November 11, 2005 [1]
Jump up ^ Dalai Lama. (2005) "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality" Broadway.
Jump up ^ Davis, Edward B. (2003). "Christianity, History Of Science And Religion". In Van Huyssteen, Wentzel. Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. Macmillan Reference. pp. 123–27. ISBN 978-0-02-865704-2
Jump up ^ Russell, Robert John (2008). Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. p. 344. ISBN 978-0-8006-6273-8.
Jump up ^ Knight, Christopher C. (2008). "God's Action in Nature's World: Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell". Science & Christian Belief. 20 (2): 214–15. (Subscription required (help)).
Jump up ^ Grant, Edward (2006). Science and Religion, 400 BC to AD 1550 : from Aristotle to Copernicus (Johns Hopkins Paperbacks ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 222. ISBN 0-8018-8401-2.
Jump up ^ Grant 2006, pp. 111–14
Jump up ^ Grant 2006, pp. 105–06
Jump up ^ "What Time Is It in the Transept?". D. Graham Burnett book review of J.L.Heilbron's work, The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories. The New York Times. October 24, 1999. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
Jump up ^ Lindberg, David; Numbers, Ronald L (October 2003). When Science and Christianity Meet. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-48214-6.
Jump up ^ Goldstein, Thomas (April 1995). Dawn of Modern Science: From the Ancient Greeks to the Renaissance. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-80637-1.
Jump up ^ Pope John Paul II (September 1998). "Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), IV". Retrieved 2006-09-15.
Jump up ^ Jaki, Stanley L. The Savior of Science, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (July 2000), ISBN 0-8028-4772-2.
Jump up ^ David C. Lindberg, "The Medieval Church Encounters the Classical Tradition: Saint Augustine, Roger Bacon, and the Handmaiden Metaphor", in David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, ed. When Science & Christianity Meet, (Chicago: University of Chicago Pr., 2003).
Jump up ^ quoted in: Peters, Ted. "Science and Religion". Encyclopedia of Religion p. 8182
Jump up ^ quoted in Ted Peters, Science and Religion, Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 8182
Jump up ^ "Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
Jump up ^ "Enlightenement". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Jump up ^ Schloss, Jeffrey P. (2006), "Evolutionary theory and religious belief", in Clayton, Philip; Simpson, Zachary, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 187–206
Jump up ^ "Religion and Science". stanford.edu.
Jump up ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 268–285
Jump up ^ Plavcan, J. Michael (2007). "The Invisible Bible: The Logic of Creation Science". In Petto, Andrew J.; Godfrey, Laurie R. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York, London: Norton. p. 361. ISBN 978-0-393-33073-1. Most creationists are simply people who choose to believe that God created the world-either as described in Scripture or through evolution. Creation scientists, by contrast, strive to use legitimate scientific means both to argue against evolutionary theory and to prove the creation account as described in Scripture.
Jump up ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 271–274
Jump up ^ Larson, Edward J. (2004). Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. Modern Library. ISBN 978-0-679-64288-6.
Jump up ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 399–431
Jump up ^ The Origin of Rights, Roger E. Salhany, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver: Carswell pp. 32–34
Jump up ^ " The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. " Edwards v. Aguillard
Jump up ^ Collins, Francis S. (2007). The Language of God : A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press. ISBN 1-4165-4274-4.
Jump up ^ Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain, Peter J. Bowler, 2001, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-06858-7. Front dustcover flap material
Jump up ^ James C. Peterson (2001). Genetic Turning Points: The Ethics of Human Genetic Intervention. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. As to specifically Christian theists, an example of continue presence would be the American Scientific Affiliation. It currently has about two thousand members, all of whom affirm the Apostles' Creed as part of joining the association, and most of whom hold Ph.D.s in the natural sciences. Their active journal is Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Across the Atlantic, the Society of Ordained Scientists and Christians in Science are similar affiliation in Great Britain.
Jump up ^ "Catholic Encyclopedia". New Advent. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
Jump up ^ Machamer, Peter (1998). The Cambridge Companion to Galileo. Cambridge University Press. p. 306. ISBN 0-521-58841-3.
Jump up ^ Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics"
Jump up ^ Andrew Dickson White. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (Kindle Locations 1970–2132)
Jump up ^ Lindberg, David (2009). "Myth 1: That the Rise of Christianity was Responsible for the Demise of Ancient Science". In Ronald Numbers. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. Harvard University Press. pp. 15–18. ISBN 978-0-674-05741-8.
^ Jump up to: a b Jeffrey Russell. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback; New Edition (January 30, 1997). ISBN 0-275-95904-X; ISBN 978-0-275-95904-3.
Jump up ^ Quotation from David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers in "Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science". Studies in the History of Science and Christianity.
Jump up ^ Cormack, Leslie (2009). "Myth 3: That Medieval Christians Taught that the Earth was Flat". In Ronald Numbers. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. Harvard University Press. pp. 28–34. ISBN 978-0-674-05741-8.
^ Jump up to: a b The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry, H. Floris Cohen, University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-226-11280-2, pp. 308–21
Jump up ^ "Finally, and most importantly, Hooykaas does not of course claim that the Scientific Revolution was exclusively the work of Protestant scholars." Cohen (1994) p. 313
Jump up ^ Cohen (1994) p. 313. Hooykaas puts it more poetically: "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been Greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical."
Jump up ^ Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge, 1998).
Jump up ^ Peter Harrison, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (Cambridge, 2007); see also Charles Webster, The Great Instauration (London: Duckworth, 1975)
Jump up ^ "God and Nature". google.com.
Jump up ^ The Anglican Origins of Modern Science, Isis, Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251–67; this is also noted on p. 366 of Science and Religion, John Hedley Brooke, 1991, Cambridge University Press
Jump up ^ John Dillenberger, Protestant Thought and Natural Science (Doubleday, 1960).
Jump up ^ Christopher B. Kaiser, Creation and the History of Science (Eerdmans, 1991).
Jump up ^ John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, 1991, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-23961-3, p. 19. See also Peter Harrison, "Newtonian Science, Miracles, and the Laws of Nature", Journal of the History of Ideas 56 (1995), 531–53.
Jump up ^ Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew, Oxford University Press, 2007, Ronald L. Numbers, pp. 4, 138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of Michael B. Foster, Reijer Hooykaas, Eugene M. Klaaren, and Stanley L. Jaki
Jump up ^ Rodney Stark, For the glory of God: how monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery, 2003, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-11436-6, p. 123
^ Jump up to: a b Sztompka, Piotr (2003), "Robert King Merton", in Ritzer, George, The Blackwell Companion to Major Contemporary Social Theorists. Malden, Massachusetts; Oxford: Blackwell, p. 13, ISBN 978-1-4051-0595-8.
Jump up ^ Gregory, Andrew (1998), Handout for course 'The Scientific Revolution' at The Scientific Revolution
Jump up ^ Becker, George (1992), The Merton Thesis: Oetinger and German Pietism, a significant negative case, Sociological Forum (Springer) 7 (4), pp. 642–60
Jump up ^ Cua, Antonio S. "The Quasi-Empirical Aspect of Hsün-tzu's Philosophy of Human Nature." PEW 28 (1978), 3–19.
Jump up ^ Tillman, Hoyt Cleveland. "Utilitarian Confucianism : Chʻen Liang challenge to Chu Hsi" Cambridge, Mass.: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University: Distributed by Harvard University Press, 1982.
Jump up ^ Black, Alison Harley. "Man and Nature in the Philosophical Thought of Wang Fu-Chih." Publications on Asia of the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, no. 41. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1989
Jump up ^ Mary Evelyn Tucker "Confucianism and Ecology: The Interrelation of Heaven, Earth, and Humans (Religions of the World and Ecology)" Center for the Study of World Religions (August 15, 1998)
^ Jump up to: a b Carl Mitcham (2005). Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Macmillan Reference. p. 917. ISBN 0-02-865831-0.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Gosling, David L. (2011). "Darwin and the Hindu Tradition: "Does What Goes Around Come Around?"". Zygon. 46 (2): 345–69. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01177.x.
Jump up ^ Gosling, David (September 2012). "Science and the Hindu Tradition: Compatibility or Conflict?". Hinduism and Science: Contemporary Considerations. 47 (3): 576–77. Retrieved 2014-09-26.
Jump up ^ Sehgal, Sunil (1999). Encyclopedia of Hinduism (Volume 3). Sarup & Sons. p. 688. The Hindus were Spinozaites more than two thousand years before the existence of Spinoza; and Darwinians many centuries before our time, and before any word like 'evolution' existed in any language of the world.
Jump up ^ Gosling, David (September 2012). "Science and the Hindu Tradition: Compatibility or Conflict?". Hinduism and Science: Contemporary Considerations. 47 (3): 577. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Jump up ^ Sarma, Deepak (2011) "Classical Indian Philosophy: A Reader" p. 167 Columbia University Press
Jump up ^ Samkhya Karika, śloka4
Jump up ^ "Religion & Ethics-Hinduism". BBC. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
Jump up ^ Moorty, J.S.R.L.Narayana (May 18–21, 1995). "Science and spirituality: Any Points of Contact? The Teachings of U.G.Krishnamurti: A Case Study". Krishnamurti Centennial Conference. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
^ Jump up to: a b Rastogi, V.B. (1988). Organic Evolution. Kedar Nath Ram Nath, New Delhi.
Jump up ^ Cvancara, A.M. (1995). A field manual for the amateur geologist. John Wiley & sons, Inc. New York.
Jump up ^ Similarities in concept of evolution of life on earth in Dashavatar and modern Geology. Dr. Nitish Priyadarshi, American Chronicle
^ Jump up to: a b Kutty (2009). Adam's Gene and the Mitochondrial Eve. Xlibris Corporation. p. 136. ISBN 978-1-4415-0729-7.
Jump up ^ "Opinions on evolution from ten countries". NCSE. 2009-06-30. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
Jump up ^ Hamilton, Fiona. "One in seven Britons believe in creationism over evolution". The Times. London.
Jump up ^ Raman, Varadaraja (2012). "Hinduism and science : some reflections". ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials.
^ Jump up to: a b c Muzaffar Iqbal (2007). Science & Islam. Greenwood Press.
Jump up ^ 2. Toshihiko Izutsu (1964). God and Man in the Koran. Weltansckauung. Tokyo.
Jump up ^ 3. Situating Arabic Science: Locality versus Essence (A.I. Sabra)
Jump up ^ Robert Briffault (1928). The Making of Humanity, pp. 190–202. G. Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Jump up ^ Vernet 1996, p. 788: "IBN AL-HAYXHAM, B. AL-HAYTHAM AL-BASRI, AL-MisRl, was identified towards the end of the 19th century with the ALHAZEN, AVENNATHAN and AVENETAN of mediaeval Latin texts. He is one of the principal Arab mathematicians and, without any doubt, the best physicist."
Jump up ^ Sardar 1998.
Jump up ^ Topdemir 2007b, pp. 8–9.
Jump up ^ Rashed 2007, p. 11.
Jump up ^ Ackerman 1991.
Jump up ^ Haq, Syed (2009). "Science in Islam". Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages. ISSN 1703-7603. Retrieved 2014-10-22.
Jump up ^ "International Year of Light - Ibn Al-Haytham and the Legacy of Arabic Optics".
Jump up ^ Al-Khalili, Jim (4 January 2009). "The 'first true scientist'". BBC News. Retrieved 24 September 2013.
Jump up ^ Gorini, Rosanna (October 2003). "Al-Haytham the man of experience. First steps in the science of vision" (PDF). Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine. 2 (4): 53–55. Retrieved 2008-09-25.
Jump up ^ Plott 2000, Pt. II, p. 465
^ Jump up to: a b Seyyid Hossein Nasr. "Islam and Modern Science"
Jump up ^ "Jesus and the Indian Messiah – 13. Every Wind of Doctrine". Archived from the original on 2010-05-09.
Jump up ^ "Islam in Science". Al Islam.
Jump up ^ Nayanar (2005b), p. 190, Gāthā 10.310
Jump up ^ Soni, Jayandra (1998). E. Craig, ed. "Jain Philosophy". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Archived from the original on 2008-07-05. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
Jump up ^ Peter Harrison, 'Religion, the Royal Society, and the Rise of Science', Theology and Science, 6 (2008), 255–71.
Jump up ^ Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal Society (London, 1667)
Jump up ^ Frank Turner, 'The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension', Isis, 49 (1978) 356–76.
Jump up ^ "Albert Einstein:Religion and Science". Sacred-texts.com. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Shalev, Baruch (2005). 100 Years of Nobel Prizes. p. 59
^ Jump up to: a b c d Larson, E. J.; Witham, L. (1997). "Scientists are still keeping the faith". Nature. 386 (6624): 435–36. Bibcode:1997Natur.386..435L. doi:10.1038/386435a0.
Jump up ^ Larson, Edward J.; Witham, Larry (23 July 1998). "Leading scientists still reject God". Nature. pp. 313–313. doi:10.1038/28478. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b Ecklund, Elaine. "Religion and Spirituality among University Scientists" (PDF). Social Science Research Council.
Jump up ^ Ecklund, Elaine Howard (2010). Science vs. Religion : What Scientists Really Think. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-19-539298-2.
Jump up ^ "Natural scientists are less likely to believe in God than are social scientists" (PDF). Physorg.com. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."
^ Jump up to: a b Donovan, Patricia. "Scientists May Not Be Very Religious, but Science May Not Be to Blame". University at Buffalo New York.
^ Jump up to: a b Ecklund, Elaine Howard; Scheitle, Christopher P. (May 2007). "Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics". Social Problems. 54 (2): 289–307. doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289.
Jump up ^ "Jewish Biographies: Nobel Prize Laureates". Jewish Virtual Library.
Jump up ^ Wuthnow, Robert (2005-05-21). "Essay Forum on the Religious Engagements of American Undergraduates". Religion.ssrc.org. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
Jump up ^ "Scientists and Belief". Pew Research Center. November 5, 2009.
^ Jump up to: a b Pew Research Center: "Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media", Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion. July 9, 2009.
Jump up ^ Larson and Witham, 1998 "Leading Scientists Still Reject God" Archived 2014-03-01 at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ Scott, Eugenie. "Do Scientists Really Reject God?: New Poll Contradicts Earlier Ones". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. National Center for Science Education.
Jump up ^ Ecklund, Elaine Howard. "Some Atheist Scientists With Children Embrace Religious Traditions". Huffington Post.
Jump up ^ "Scientists and Belief". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2011-04-08. A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
^ Jump up to: a b Ecklund, Elaine (February 16, 2014). "Religious Communities, Science, Scientists, and Perceptions: A Comprehensive Survey" (PDF). Elaine Ecklund Blog. Rice University.
Jump up ^ Neil Gross and Solon Simmons (2009). The religiosity of American college and university professors. Sociology of Religion, 70(2):101–29. doi:10.1093/socrel/srp026
^ Jump up to: a b Easton, John. Survey on physicians' religious beliefs shows majority faithful Medical Center Public Affairs, U of C Chronicle. July 14, 2005.
^ Jump up to: a b c Keysar, Ariela; Kosmin, Barry (2008). Worldviews and Opinions of Scientists: India 2007-2008. Trinity College: Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (ISSSC).
^ Jump up to: a b c McCaig, Amy (September 24, 2014). "Indian scientists significantly more religious than UK scientists". Rice University News. Rice University.
Jump up ^ Thomas, Renny (27 December 2016). "Atheism and Unbelief among Indian Scientists: Towards an Anthropology of Atheism(s)". Society and Culture in South Asia. 3 (1): 45–67. doi:10.1177/2393861716674292.
Jump up ^ Jones, Richard H. (2011). For the Glory of God : The Role of Christianity in the Rise and Development of Modern Science. University Press of America. Pg. 139. ISBN 9780761855668.
Jump up ^ Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart (2011). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–68. ISBN 978-1-107-64837-1. Instead, as is clearly shown in Figure 3.3, societies with greater faith in science also often have stronger religious beliefs." and "Indeed, the secular postindustrial societies, exemplified by the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, prove most skeptical toward the impact of science and technology, and this is in accordance with the countries where the strongest public disquiet has been expressed about certain contemporary scientific developments such as the use of genetically modified organisms, biotechnological cloning, and nuclear power. Interestingly, again the United States displays distinctive attitudes compared with similar European nations, showing greater faith in both God and scientific progress.
^ Jump up to: a b c Keeter, Scott; Smith, Gregory; Masci, David (2011). "Religious Belief and Attitudes about Science in the United States". The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. New York: Routledge. pp. 336, 345–47. ISBN 978-0-415-87369-7. The United States is perhaps the most religious out of the advanced industrial democracies." ; "In fact, large majorities of the traditionally religious American nevertheless hold very positive views of science and scientists. Even people who accept a strict creationist view, regarding the origins of life are mostly favorable towards science." ; "Our review of three important issues on the public policy agenda in the United States suggest that although there is a potential for broad religiously based conflict over science, the scope of this conflict is limited. Only on one issue does a significant portion of the public deny strong consensus for religious reasons: evolution. The significance of this disagreement should not be understated, but it is decidedly unrepresentative of the broader set of scientific controversies and issues. As already noted, it is difficult to find any other major policy issues on which there are strong religious objections to scientific research. Religious concerns do arise in connection with a number of areas of life sciences research, such as the effort to develop medical therapies from embryonic stem cells. But these are not rooted in disputes about the truth of scientific research, and can be found across the spectrum of religious sentiment." ; "According to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes about science are more favorable in the United States than in Europe, Russia, and Japan, despite great differences across these cultures in level of religiosity (National Science Foundation, 2008).
Jump up ^ Francis, Leslie J.; Greer, John E. (1 May 2001). "Shaping Adolescents' Attitudes towards Science and Religion in Northern Ireland: The role of scientism, creationism and denominational schools". Research in Science & Technological Education. 19 (1): 39–53. Bibcode:2001RSTEd..19...39J. doi:10.1080/02635140120046213.
Jump up ^ Sjodin, Ulf (2002). "The Swedes and the Paranormal". Journal of Contemporary Religion. 17 (1).
^ Jump up to: a b Numbers, Ronald (2009). "Myth 24: That Creationism is a Uniquely American Phenomenon". In Ronald Numbers. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. Harvard University Press. pp. 215–23. ISBN 978-0-674-05741-8.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Funk, Cary; Alper, Becka (22 October 2015). "Religion and Science: Highly Religious Americans are less likely than others to see Conflict between Faith and Science". Pew Research Center. Pew.
Jump up ^ "Religion and the Unaffiliated". "Nones" on the Rise. Pew Research Center: Religion & Public Life. October 9, 2012.
Jump up ^ "Most of the Religiously Unaffiliated Still Keep Belief in God". Pew Research Center. November 15, 2012.
Jump up ^ Tegmark, Max; Lee, Eugena (February 11, 2013). "The MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins: the Belief Gap". Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Jump up ^ McCaig, Amy (March 13, 2015). "Nearly 70 percent of evengelicals do not view religion and science as being in conflict". Unconventional Wisdom. Rice University.
Jump up ^ Evans, John (2011). "Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 50 (4): 707–27. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01603.x.
Jump up ^ Baker, Joseph O. (2012). "Public Perceptions of Incompatibility Between "Science and Religion"". Public Understanding of Science. 21 (3): 340–53. doi:10.1177/0963662511434908.
Jump up ^ Scott Keeter; Gregory Smith; David Masci. "Religious Belief and Public Attitudes About Science in the US" (PDF). Pew Research Center. pp. 1–2, 13. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-06-19.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Science in America: Religious Belief and Public Attitudes". The Pew Forum. 18 December 2007. Retrieved 16 January 2012.
Jump up ^ "Public Opinion on Religion and Science in the United States". Pew Research Center. November 5, 2009.
Jump up ^ Christopher P. Scheitle (2011). "U.S. College students' perception of religion and science: Conflict, collaboration, or independence? A research note". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Blackwell. 50 (1): 175–86. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x. ISSN 1468-5906.
Jump up ^ "Nones on the Rise" (PDF). Pew Research Center. p. 24.
Notes[edit]
Barbour, Ian. When Science Meets Religion. SanFrancisco: Harper, 2000.
Barbour, Ian. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. SanFrancisco: Harper, 1997. ISBN 0-06-060938-9
Chu, Dominique (2013), The Science Myth – God, society, the self and what we will never know, ISBN 1-78279-047-0
Drummond, Henry. Natural Law in the Spiritual World. London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, 29th Edition, 1890 [2]
Haught, John F. Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation. Paulist Press, 1995. ISBN 0-8091-3606-6
Jones, Richard H. For the Glory of God: The Role of Christianity in the Rise and Development of Modern Science. 2 Volumes. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2011 and 2012.
Larson, Edward J. and Larry Witham. "Scientists are still keeping the faith" Nature Vol. 386, pp. 435–36 (3 April 1997)
Larson, Edward J. and Larry Witham. "Leading scientists still reject God," Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691 (1998), p. 313. online version
Einstein on Religion and Science from Ideas and Opinions (1954), Crown Publishers, ISBN 0-517-00393-7
The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science Philip Clayton(ed.), Zachary Simpson (associate-ed.) Hardcover 2006, paperback July 2008. Oxford University Press, 1023 pages
Grayling, A.C. (2014). The God Argument. Great Britain: Blommsbury. ISBN 9781408837436.
Further reading[edit]
Barr, Stephen M. The Believing Scientist: Essays on Science and Religion, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2016 ISBN 978-0-8028-7370-5
Brooke, John H., Margaret Osler, and Jitse M. van der Meer, editors. "Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions," Osiris, 2nd ser., vol. 16(2001), ISBN 0-226-07565-6.
Brooke, John H., Science And Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991, ISBN 0-521-23961-3
Bunge, Mario, Chasing Reality: Strife over Realism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Cavanaugh, William T. and James K. A. Smith, editors, Evolution and the Fall, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2017 ISBN 978-0-8028-7379-8
Cook, Melvin Alonzo, and Melvin Garfield Cook. Science and Mormonism: Correlations, Conflicts, and Conciliations. [Salt Lake City, Utah]: Deseret News Press, 1967.
Crisp, Thomas. M., Steven L. Porter, and Gregg A. Ten Elshof, eds, Neuroscience and the Soul: The Human Person in Philosophy, Science, and Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2016 ISBN 978-0-8028-7450-4
Haisch, Bernard. The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What's Behind It All, Red Wheel/Weiser, 2006, ISBN 1-57863-374-5
Harper, Sharon M.P. (ed.) (2000). The Lab, the Temple, and the Market: Reflections at the Intersection of Science, Religion, and Development. International Development Research Centre. ISBN 0-88936-920-8.
Harrison, Peter, The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (Cambridge, 2010).
Huxley, Thomas Henry, Science and Hebrew Tradition: Essays, D. Appleton and Company, 1897, 372 pages
Johnston, Howard Agnew. Scientific Faith. [London]: Hodder & Stoughton; New York: G. H. Doran Co., 1904.
Lenaers, Roger. Nebuchadnezzar's Dream or The End of a Medieval Catholic Church. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007. ISBN 978-1-59333-583-0.
Nelson, Thomas L. Scientific Aspects of Mormonism: or, Religion in Terms of Life. Chicago, Ill.: Press of Hillison & Etten Co., 1904, t.p. 1918.
Oord, Thomas Jay, ed., Divine Grace and Emerging Creation: Wesleyan Forays in Science and Theology of Creation, Pickwick Publications, 2009, ISBN 1-60608-287-6
Oord, Thomas Jay, Science of Love: The Wisdom of Well-Being, Templeton, 2003, ISBN 1-932031-70-7
Restivo, Sal, The Social Relations of Physics, Mysticism, and Mathematics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1983.
Richardson, Mark – Wesley Wildman (ed.), Religion & Science: History, Method, Dialogue, Routledge, 1996. ISBN 0-415-91667-4
Ruse, Michael. Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? The Relationship Between Science and Religion. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2000. ISBN 0-521-63716-3
Ruse, Michael. Science and Spirituality: Making Room for Faith in the Age of Science. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-521-75594-8
Stump, J.B., and Alan G. Padgett (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell (2012).
Van Huyssteen, J. Wentzel (editor), Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, MacMillan, 2003, ISBN 0-02-865704-7
Walsh, James J., The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time, Kessinger Publishing, 1908, reprinted 2003. ISBN 0-7661-3646-9 from WorldCat [3] Review excerpts:
Waters, F. W. The Way in and the Way out: Science and Religion Reconciled. Toronto: Oxford University Press, Canadian Branch, 1967. x, [2], 269 p.
Wilber, Ken, The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion, Broadway; Reprint edition, 1999, ISBN 0-7679-0343-9
External links[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Relationship between religion and science
The BioLogos Forum: Science and Faith in Dialogue
Test of Faith – From the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion
Counterbalance.org: Science and Religion Project
"Faith and Reason" – website about the historical relations between science and religion, PBS
Religion and Science in Historical Perspective by Ted Davis
Is Science Killing the Soul? – Discussion with atheists Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker on Edge Foundation.
Meaning of Life A collection of video interviews with prominent scientists about topics relating science and religion (requires WMV or RealMedia software)
Clash in Cambridge: Science and religion seem as antagonistic as ever – by John Horgan, Scientific American, September 2005
How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science, David Masci, Pew Research Center
Robert M. Young (1985). "Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's Place in Victorian Culture". Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 2007-08-31.
Zygon Journal of Religion and Science
Science and Religion by Archbishop Luke of Crimea, an Eastern Orthodox perspective
Victorian Science and Religion The Victorian Web: Literature, History, and Culture in the Age of Victoria
SCIENCE and RELIGION: DIALOG OF PHYSICISTS AND THEOLOGIANS SCIENCE and RELIGION: DIALOG OF PHYSICISTS AND THEOLOGIANS
The Metaphysical Foundations of Buddhism and Sciences
INTERS – Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science – collection of documents (including the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science) that seeks to help scientists frame their work within a philosophical and humanistic context, edited at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross (Rome, Italy)
(in Italian) DISF – Dizionario Interdisciplinare di Scienza e Fede (online version of the dictionary edited in Rome by Urbaniana University Press and Città Nuova Editrice)
"Science and Religion", BBC Radio 4 discussion with Steven Jay Gould, John Haldane and Hilary Rose (In Our Time, Jan. 25, 2001)
[show]
Articles Related to the Relationship Between Religion and Science
[hide]
v
t
e
Religion
[show]
Major religious groups and religious denominations
Abrahamic
Judaism
Orthodox
Haredi
Hasidic
Modern
Conservative
Reform
Karaite
Reconstructionist
Renewal
Humanistic
Haymanot
Christianity
Catholicism
Eastern Catholic Churches
Eastern Christianity
Church of the East
Assyrian Church of the East
Eastern Orthodoxy
Oriental Orthodoxy
Ethiopian Orthodoxy
Independent Catholicism
Old Catholicism
Protestantism
Adventism
Anabaptism
Anglicanism
Baptists
Calvinism
Presbyterianism
Congregationalism
Continental Reformed
Lutheranism
Methodism
Pentecostalism
Evangelicalism
Nontrinitarianism
Jehovah's Witnesses
Mormonism
Jesuism
Nondenominational
Islam
Sunni
Hanafi
Maliki
Hanbali
Shafi'i
Shia
Twelver
Isma'ilism
Zaidiyyah
Ahmadi
Ibadi
Non-denominational
Quranism
Zahirism
Salafism
Wahhabism
Ahl al-Hadith
Mahdavia
European Islam
Nation of Islam
Others
Bábism
Azáli Bábism
Bahá'í Faith
Druze
Mandaeism
Rastafari
Samaritanism
Dharmic
Hinduism
Vaishnavism
Shaktism
Shaivism
Ayyavazhi
Smartism
Balinese
Buddhism
Mahayana
Chan
Zen
Thiền
Seon
Pure Land
Nichiren
Madhyamaka
Tiantai
Theravada
Vajrayana
Tibetan
Shingon
Newar
Bon
Navayana
Others
Dravidian
Jainism
Digambara
Śvētāmbara
Sikhism
Gurung shamanism
Bon Lamaism
Kirant Mundhum
Persian
Manichaeism
Yazdânism
Yazidism
Ishikism
Ali-Illahism
Yarsanism
Zoroastrianism
European
Armenian
Baltic
Dievturība
Druwi
Romuva
Caucasian
Celtic
Druidry
Germanic
Hellenism
Italo-Roman
Romanian
Slavic
Uralic
Finnish
Hungarian
Uralic
Mari
Mordvin
Udmurt
Central and
Northern Asian
Burkhanism
Chuvash
Manchu
Mongolian
Siberian
Tengrism
East Asian
Benzhuism
Bimoism
Bon
Cheondoism
Confucianism
Dongbaism
Faism
Hmongism
Jeungsanism
Luoism
Meishanism
Mileism
Muism
Neo-Confucianism
Ryukyuan religion
Shenism
Shigongism
Shinto
Taoism
Tenrikyo
Wuism
Yiguandao
Southeast Asian
Burmese
Satsana Phi
Malaysian
Indonesian
Marapu
Kaharingan
Kebatinan
Philippine
Vietnamese
Caodaism
Đạo Mẫu
Hoahaoism
African
Traditional
Akan
Akamba
Baluba
Bantu
Berber
Bushongo
Cushitic
Dinka
Efik
Fon and Ewe
Guanche
Igbo
Isoko
Lotuko
Lozi
Lugbara
Maasai
Mbuti
San
Serer
Tumbuka
Waaq
Yoruba
Zulu
Diasporic
Candomblé
Kumina
Obeah
Quimbanda
Palo
Santería
Umbanda
Vodou
Voodoo
Winti
Other groups
Bathouism
Bongthingism
Donyi-Polo
Kiratism
Sanamahism
Sarnaism
Aboriginal Australian
Native American
Mesoamerican
Hawaiian
Polynesian
Recent
Discordianism
Eckankar
Jediism
New Age
New Thought
Pastafarianism
Raëlism
Satanism
Scientology
Thelema
Unitarian Universalism
Wicca
[show]
Historical religions
Prehistoric
Paleolithic
Near East
Arabian
Egyptian
Mesopotamian
Semitic
Canaanite
Yahwism
Indo-European
Asia
Proto-Indo-Iranian
Armenian
Ossetian
Vedic
Zoroastrianism
Mithraism
Zurvanism
Gnosticism
Manichaeism
Europe
Celtic
Germanic
Anglo-Saxon
Continental
Norse
Greek
Gnosticism
Neoplatonism
Manichaeism
Balkan
Roman
Slavic
[show]
Topics
Aspects
Apostasy / Disaffiliation
Behaviour
Beliefs
Clergy
Conversion
Deities
Entheogens
Ethnic religion
Denomination
Faith
Fire
Folk religion
God
Meditation
Monasticism
monk
nun
Mysticism
Mythology
Nature
Ordination
Orthodoxy
Orthopraxy
Prayer
Prophesy
Religious experience
Ritual
liturgy
sacrifice
Spirituality
Supernatural
Symbols
Truth
Water
Worship
Theism
Animism
Deism
Dualism
Henotheism
Monotheism
Nontheism
Panentheism
Pantheism
Polytheism
Transtheism
Religious studies
Anthropology
Cognitive science
Comparative
Development
Evolutionary origin
Evolutionary psychology
History
Philosophy
Neurotheology
Psychology
Sociology
Theology
Theories
Women
Religion and
society
Agriculture
Business
Clergy
monasticism
ordination
Conversion
evangelism
missionary
proselytism
Education
Fanaticism
Freedom
pluralism
syncretism
toleration
universalism
Fundamentalism
Growth
Happiness
Homosexuality
Minorities
National church
National religiosity levels
Religiocentrism
Political science
Populations
Schism
Science
State
Theocracy
Vegetarianism
Video games
Violence
persecution
terrorism
war
Wealth
Secularism and
irreligion
Antireligion
Deism
Agnosticism
Atheism
Criticism
LaVeyan Satanism
Deconstruction
Humanistic Judaism
Irreligion by country
Objectivism
Secular humanism
Secular theology
Secularization
Separation of church and state
Unaffiliated
Overviews
and lists
Index
Outline
Timeline
Abrahamic prophets
Deification
Deities
Founders
Mass gatherings
New religious movements
Organizations
Religions and spiritual traditions
Scholars
Category
Portal
[show]
v
t
e
Philosophy of science
Concepts
Analysis
Analytic–synthetic distinction
A priori and a posteriori
Causality
Commensurability
Consilience
Construct
Creative synthesis
Demarcation problem
Empirical evidence
Explanatory power
Fact
Falsifiability
Feminist method
Ignoramus et ignorabimus
Inductive reasoning
Intertheoretic reduction
Inquiry
Nature
Objectivity
Observation
Paradigm
Problem of induction
Scientific law
Scientific method
Scientific revolution
Scientific theory
Testability
Theory choice
Theory-ladenness
Underdetermination
Unity of science
Metatheory
of science
Coherentism
Confirmation holism
Constructive empiricism
Constructive realism
Constructivist epistemology
Contextualism
Conventionalism
Deductive-nomological model
Hypothetico-deductive model
Inductionism
Epistemological anarchism
Evolutionism
Fallibilism
Foundationalism
Instrumentalism
Pragmatism
Model-dependent realism
Naturalism
Physicalism
Positivism / Reductionism / Determinism
Rationalism / Empiricism
Received view / Semantic view of theories
Scientific realism / Anti-realism
Scientific essentialism
Scientific formalism
Scientific skepticism
Scientism
Structuralism
Uniformitarianism
Vitalism
Philosophy of
Physics
thermal and statistical
Motion
Chemistry
Biology
Environment
Geography
Social science
Technology
Engineering
Artificial intelligence
Computer science
Information
Mind
Psychiatry
Psychology
Perception
Space and time
Related topics
Alchemy
Criticism of science
Epistemology
Faith and rationality
History and philosophy of science
History of science
History of evolutionary thought
Logic
Metaphysics
Pseudoscience
Relationship between religion and science
Rhetoric of science
Sociology of scientific knowledge
Sociology of scientific ignorance
[show]
Philosophers of science by era
Ancient
Plato
Aristotle
Stoicism
Epicureans
Medieval
Averroes
Avicenna
Roger Bacon
William of Ockham
Hugh of Saint Victor
Dominicus Gundissalinus
Robert Kilwardby
Early modern
Francis Bacon
Thomas Hobbes
René Descartes
Galileo Galilei
Pierre Gassendi
Isaac Newton
David Hume
Classical modern
Immanuel Kant
Friedrich Schelling
William Whewell
Auguste Comte
John Stuart Mill
Herbert Spencer
Wilhelm Wundt
Charles Sanders Peirce
Wilhelm Windelband
Henri Poincaré
Pierre Duhem
Rudolf Steiner
Karl Pearson
Late modern
Alfred North Whitehead
Bertrand Russell
Albert Einstein
Otto Neurath
C. D. Broad
Michael Polanyi
Hans Reichenbach
Rudolf Carnap
Karl Popper
Carl Gustav Hempel
W. V. O. Quine
Thomas Kuhn
Imre Lakatos
Paul Feyerabend
Jürgen Habermas
Ian Hacking
Bas van Fraassen
Larry Laudan
Daniel Dennett
Portal
Category
[show]
v
t
e
Philosophy of religion
Concepts in religion
Afterlife
Euthyphro dilemma
Faith
Intelligent design
Miracle
Problem of evil
Religious belief
Soul
Spirit
Theodicy
Theological veto
Conceptions of God
Aristotelian view
Brahman
Demiurge
Divine simplicity
Egoism
Holy Spirit
Misotheism
Pandeism
Personal god
Process theology
Supreme Being
Unmoved mover
God in
Abrahamic religions
Buddhism
Christianity
Hinduism
Islam
Jainism
Judaism
Mormonism
Sikhism
Bahá'í Faith
Wicca
Existence of God
For
Beauty
Christological
Consciousness
Cosmological
Kalam
Contingency
Degree
Desire
Experience
Fine-tuning of the Universe
Love
Miracles
Morality
Necessary existent
Ontological
Pascal's Wager
Proper basis
Reason
Teleological
Natural law
Watchmaker analogy
Transcendental
Against
747 gambit
Atheist's Wager
Evil
Free will
Hell
Inconsistent revelations
Nonbelief
Noncognitivism
Occam's razor
Omnipotence
Poor design
Russell's teapot
Theology
Acosmism
Agnosticism
Animism
Antireligion
Atheism
Creationism
Dharmism
Deism
Demonology
Divine command theory
Dualism
Esotericism
Exclusivism
Existentialism
Christian
Agnostic
Atheistic
Feminist theology
Thealogy
Womanist theology
Fideism
Fundamentalism
Gnosticism
Henotheism
Humanism
Religious
Secular
Christian
Inclusivism
Theories about religions
Monism
Monotheism
Mysticism
Naturalism
Metaphysical
Religious
Humanistic
New Age
Nondualism
Nontheism
Pandeism
Panentheism
Pantheism
Perennialism
Polytheism
Possibilianism
Process theology
Religious skepticism
Spiritualism
Shamanism
Taoic
Theism
Transcendentalism
more...
Religious language
Eschatological verification
Language-game
Logical positivism
Apophatic theology
Verificationism
Problem of evil
Augustinian theodicy
Best of all possible worlds
Euthyphro dilemma
Inconsistent triad
Irenaean theodicy
Natural evil
Theodicy
Philosophers
of religion

(by date active)
Ancient
and
Medieval
Anselm of Canterbury
Augustine of Hippo
Avicenna
Averroes
Boethius
Erasmus
Gaunilo of Marmoutiers
Pico della Mirandola
Heraclitus
King James VI and I
Marcion of Sinope
Thomas Aquinas
Maimonides
Enlightenment
Augustin Calmet
René Descartes
Blaise Pascal
Baruch Spinoza
Nicolas Malebranche
Gottfried W Leibniz
William Wollaston
Thomas Chubb
David Hume
Baron d'Holbach
Immanuel Kant
Johann G Herder
1800
1850
Friedrich Schleiermacher
Karl C F Krause
Georg W F Hegel
William Whewell
Ludwig Feuerbach
Søren Kierkegaard
Karl Marx
Albrecht Ritschl
Afrikan Spir
1880
1900
Ernst Haeckel
W. K. Clifford
Friedrich Nietzsche
Harald Høffding
William James
Vladimir Solovyov
Ernst Troeltsch
Rudolf Otto
Lev Shestov
Sergei Bulgakov
Pavel Florensky
Ernst Cassirer
Joseph Maréchal
1920
postwar
George Santayana
Bertrand Russell
Martin Buber
René Guénon
Paul Tillich
Karl Barth
Emil Brunner
Rudolf Bultmann
Gabriel Marcel
Reinhold Niebuhr
Charles Hartshorne
Mircea Eliade
Frithjof Schuon
J L Mackie
Walter Kaufmann
Martin Lings
Peter Geach
George I Mavrodes
William Alston
Antony Flew
1970
1990
2010
William L Rowe
Dewi Z Phillips
Alvin Plantinga
Anthony Kenny
Nicholas Wolterstorff
Richard Swinburne
Robert Merrihew Adams
Peter van Inwagen
Daniel Dennett
Loyal Rue
Jean-Luc Marion
William Lane Craig
Ali Akbar Rashad
Alexander Pruss
Related topics
Criticism of religion
Ethics in religion
Exegesis
History of religions
Religion
Religious language
Religious philosophy
Relationship between religion and science
Political science of religion
Faith and rationality
more...
Portal
Category
[show]
v
t
e
Philosophy
[show]
Branches
Traditional
Metaphysics
Ontology
Epistemology
Logic
Ethics
Aesthetics
Philosophy of
Action
Art
Culture
Design
Music
Film
Business
Color
Cosmos
Dialogue
Education
Environment
Futility
Happiness
Healthcare
History
Human nature
Humor
Feminism
Language
Life
Literature
Mathematics
Mind
Pain
Psychology
Philosophy of psychiatry
Philosophy of perception
Philosophy
Religion
Science
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Geography
Sexuality
Social science
Culture
Economics
Justice
Law
Politics
Society
Space and time
Sport
Technology
Artificial intelligence
Computer science
Engineering
Information
War
[show]
Schools of thought
By era
Ancient
Western
Medieval
Renaissance
Early modern
Modern
Contemporary
Ancient
Chinese
Agriculturalism
Confucianism
Legalism
Logicians
Mohism
Chinese naturalism
Neotaoism
Taoism
Yangism
Zen
Greco-Roman
Aristotelianism
Atomism
Cynicism
Cyrenaics
Eleatics
Eretrian school
Epicureanism
Hermeneutics
Ionian
Ephesian
Milesian
Megarian school
Neoplatonism
Peripatetic
Platonism
Pluralism
Presocratic
Pyrrhonism
Pythagoreanism
Neopythagoreanism
Sophistic
Stoicism
Indian
Samkhya
Nyaya
Vaisheshika
Yoga
Mīmāṃsā
Ājīvika
Ajñana
Cārvāka
Jain
Anekantavada
Syādvāda
Buddhist
Śūnyatā
Madhyamaka
Yogacara
Sautrāntika
Svatantrika
Persian
Mazdakism
Zoroastrianism
Zurvanism
Medieval
European
Christian philosophy
Scholasticism
Thomism
Renaissance humanism
East Asian
Korean Confucianism
Edo Neo-Confucianism
Neo-Confucianism
Indian
Vedanta
Acintya bheda abheda
Advaita
Bhedabheda
Dvaita
Dvaitadvaita
Shuddhadvaita
Vishishtadvaita
Navya-Nyāya
Islamic
Averroism
Avicennism
Illuminationism
ʿIlm al-Kalām
Sufi
Jewish
Judeo-Islamic
Modern
People
Cartesianism
Kantianism
Neo-Kantianism
Hegelianism
Marxism
Spinozism
0
Anarchism
Classical Realism
Liberalism
Collectivism
Conservatism
Determinism
Dualism
Empiricism
Existentialism
Foundationalism
Historicism
Holism
Humanism
Idealism
Absolute
British
German
Objective
Subjective
Transcendental
Individualism
Kokugaku
Materialism
Modernism
Monism
Naturalism
Natural law
Nihilism
New Confucianism
Neo-scholasticism
Pragmatism
Phenomenology
Positivism
Reductionism
Rationalism
Social contract
Socialism
Transcendentalism
Utilitarianism
Contemporary
Analytic
Applied ethics
Analytic feminism
Analytical Marxism
Communitarianism
Consequentialism
Critical rationalism
Experimental philosophy
Falsificationism
Foundationalism / Coherentism
Generative linguistics
Internalism and Externalism
Logical positivism
Legal positivism
Normative ethics
Meta-ethics
Moral realism
Neo-Aristotelian
Quinean naturalism
Ordinary language philosophy
Postanalytic philosophy
Quietism
Rawlsian
Reformed epistemology
Systemics
Scientism
Scientific realism
Scientific skepticism
Contemporary utilitarianism
Vienna Circle
Wittgensteinian
Continental
Critical theory
Deconstruction
Existentialism
Feminist
Frankfurt School
New Historicism
Hermeneutics
Neo-Marxism
Phenomenology
Postmodernism
Post-structuralism
Social constructionism
Structuralism
Western Marxism
Other
Kyoto School
Objectivism
Russian cosmism
more...
[show]
Positions
Aesthetics
Formalism
Institutionalism
Aesthetic response
Ethics
Consequentialism
Deontology
Virtue
Free will
Compatibilism
Determinism
Libertarianism
Metaphysics
Atomism
Dualism
Monism
Naturalism
Epistemology
Constructivism
Empiricism
Idealism
Particularism
Fideism
Rationalism / Reasonism
Skepticism
Solipsism
Mind
Behaviorism
Emergentism
Eliminativism
Epiphenomenalism
Functionalism
Objectivism
Subjectivism
Normativity
Absolutism
Particularism
Relativism
Nihilism
Skepticism
Universalism
Ontology
Action
Event
Process
Reality
Anti-realism
Conceptualism
Idealism
Materialism
Naturalism
Nominalism
Physicalism
Realism
[show]
Philosophy by region
Philosophy-related lists
Miscellaneous
By region
African
Ethiopian
Aztec
Native America
Eastern
Chinese
Egyptian
Czech
Indian
Indonesian
Iranian
Japanese
Korean
Vietnam
Pakistani
Western
American
Australian
British
Danish
French
German
Greek
Italian
Polish
Romanian
Russian
Slovene
Spanish
Turkish
Lists
Outline
Index
Years
Problems
Schools
Glossary
Philosophers
Movements
Publications
Miscellaneous
Women in philosophy
Sage (philosophy)
Portal
Category
Book
[show]
v
t
e
Positivism
Perspectives
Antihumanism
Empiricism
Rationalism
Scientism
Declinations
Legal positivism
Logical positivism / analytic philosophy
Positivist school
Postpositivism
Sociological positivism
Machian positivism (empiriocriticism)
Rankean historical positivism
Polish positivism
Russian positivism (empiriomonism)
Principal concepts
Consilience
Demarcation
Evidence
Induction
Justificationism
Pseudoscience
Critique of metaphysics
Unity of science
Verificationism
Antitheses
Antipositivism
Confirmation holism
Critical theory
Falsifiability
Geisteswissenschaft
Hermeneutics
Historicism
Historism
Human science
Humanities
Problem of induction
Reflectivism
Related paradigm shifts
in the history of science
Non-Euclidean geometry (1830s)
Heisenberg uncertainty principle (1927)
Related topics
Behavioralism
Critical rationalism
Criticism of science
Epistemological idealism
Epistemology
Holism in anthropology
Instrumentalism
Modernism
Naturalism in literature
Nomothetic–idiographic distinction
Objectivity in science
Operationalism
Phenomenalism
Philosophy of science
Deductive-nomological model
Ramsey sentence
Sense-data theory
Qualitative research
Relationship between religion and science
Sociology
Social science (Philosophy)
Structural functionalism
Structuralism
Structuration theory
[show]
Positivist-related debate
Method
1890s Methodenstreit (economics)
1909–1959 Werturteilsstreit
1960s Positivismusstreit
1980s Fourth Great Debate in international relations
1990s Science Wars
Contributions
1830 The Course in Positive Philosophy
1848 A General View of Positivism
1869 Critical History of Philosophy
1879 Idealism and Positivism
1886 The Analysis of Sensations
1927 The Logic of Modern Physics
1936 Language, Truth, and Logic
1959 The Two Cultures
2001 The Universe in a Nutshell
Proponents
Richard Avenarius
A. J. Ayer
Auguste Comte
Eugen Dühring
Émile Durkheim
Ernst Laas
Ernst Mach
Berlin Circle
Vienna Circle
Criticism
1909 Materialism and Empirio-criticism
1923 History and Class Consciousness
1934 The Logic of Scientific Discovery
1936 The Poverty of Historicism
1942 World Hypotheses
1951 Two Dogmas of Empiricism
1960 Truth and Method
1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
1963 Conjectures and Refutations
1964 One-Dimensional Man
1968 Knowledge and Human Interests
1978 The Poverty of Theory
1980 The Scientific Image
1986 The Rhetoric of Economics
Critics
Theodor W. Adorno
Gaston Bachelard
Mario Bunge
Wilhelm Dilthey
Paul Feyerabend
Hans-Georg Gadamer
Thomas Kuhn
György Lukács
Karl Popper
Willard Van Orman Quine
Max Weber
Concepts in contention
Knowledge
Phronesis
Truth
Verstehen
Category
Authority control
LCCN: sh85112579
NDL: 00572419
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relationship_between_religion_and_science&oldid=836352237"
Categories:
Religion and science
Philosophy of religion
Philosophy of science
History of science
History of religion
Hidden categories:
CS1 errors: dates
CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list
Articles with inconsistent citation formats
Pages containing links to subscription-only content
Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL
Webarchive template wayback links
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from December 2017
Articles lacking page references from October 2017
Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from November 2017
All articles with failed verification
Articles with failed verification from December 2010
Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from May 2015
Articles with unsourced statements from May 2016
Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from July 2013
All articles with self-published sources
Articles with self-published sources from December 2017
Articles with unsourced statements from March 2012
Articles with unsourced statements from March 2017
Articles with Italian-language external links
Wikipedia articles with LCCN identifiers
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Wikiquote
Languages
العربية
Català
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
한국어
हिन्दी
Italiano
עברית
Македонски
日本語
Português
Română
Русский
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
中文
12 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 14 April 2018, at 07:32.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: p

value: sup

attrs: href class title

values:
/wiki/Scientific_revolution
mw-redirect
Scientific revolution

values:
/wiki/Classical_elements
mw-redirect
Classical elements

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources in the body of the article. (December 2017)

values: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check

values:
plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-style
presentation

values: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica

values:
/wiki/Lord_Kelvin
mw-redirect
Lord Kelvin

values: Edit section: Middle Ages and Renaissance

values: This citation requires a reference to the specific page or range of pages in which the material appears. (November 2017)

attrs: alt src width height class data-file-width data-file-height

values:
/wiki/John_Haught
mw-redirect
John Haught

values:
/wiki/Lawrence_Krauss
mw-redirect
Lawrence Krauss

values:
/wiki/De_Revolutionibus
mw-redirect
De Revolutionibus

values:
/wiki/W._T._Stace
mw-redirect
W. T. Stace

values:
/wiki/National_Academy_of_Science
mw-redirect
National Academy of Science

values:
/wiki/John_Habgood,_Baron_Habgood
mw-redirect
John Habgood, Baron Habgood

values:
/wiki/Positive_science
mw-redirect
Positive science

values:
/wiki/Thomas_S._Kuhn
mw-redirect
Thomas S. Kuhn

values:
/wiki/Charles_A._Coulson
mw-redirect
Charles A. Coulson

values:
/wiki/Clerk_(position)
mw-redirect
Clerk (position)

values: The material near this tag failed verification of its source citation(s). (December 2010)

values: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences

values: Institute on Religion in an Age of Science

values:
/wiki/Faraday_Institute
mw-redirect
Faraday Institute

values:
/wiki/Ottoman_empire
mw-redirect
Ottoman empire

values:
/wiki/Rabbinical_literature
mw-redirect
Rabbinical literature

values:
/wiki/Transmission_of_the_Classics
mw-redirect
Transmission of the Classics

values:
/wiki/Enlightenment_(philosophy)
mw-redirect
Enlightenment (philosophy)

values:
/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso
mw-redirect
Tenzin Gyatso

values: This citation requires a reference to the specific page or range of pages in which the material appears. (May 2015)

values:
/wiki/Christianity_and_science
mw-redirect
Christianity and science

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (May 2016)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values:
/wiki/Greek_philosophy
mw-redirect
Greek philosophy

values:
/wiki/Newtonian_mechanics
mw-redirect
Newtonian mechanics

values:
/wiki/J.L._Heilbron
mw-redirect
J.L. Heilbron

values:
/wiki/David_C_Lindberg
mw-redirect
David C Lindberg

values:
/wiki/Biblical_creation
mw-redirect
Biblical creation

values:
/wiki/Darwinian_evolution
mw-redirect
Darwinian evolution

values:
/wiki/Scientific_creationism
mw-redirect
Scientific creationism

values:
/wiki/Scientific_fact
mw-redirect
Scientific fact

values:
/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity
mw-redirect
Fundamentalist Christianity

values:
/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution
mw-redirect
Evidence for evolution

values: First Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States
mw-redirect
Constitution of the United States

values:
/wiki/Public_school_(government_funded)
mw-redirect
Public school (government funded)

values:
/wiki/Old_earth_creationism
mw-redirect
Old earth creationism

values: Edit section: Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century

values:
/wiki/Biologos_Foundation
mw-redirect
Biologos Foundation

values:
/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
mw-redirect
Catholic Church and evolution

values:
/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
mw-redirect
Catholic Church and science

values:
/wiki/Roman_Catholic
mw-redirect
Roman Catholic

values:
/wiki/John_Paul_II
mw-redirect
John Paul II

values:
/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church
mw-redirect
Roman Catholic Church

values: Edit section: Influence of a biblical world view on early modern science

values:
/wiki/Protestant_Reformation
mw-redirect
Protestant Reformation

values:
/wiki/Ronald_L._Numbers
mw-redirect
Ronald L. Numbers

values:
/wiki/H._Floris_Cohen
mw-redirect
H. Floris Cohen

values: This citation requires a reference to the specific page or range of pages in which the material appears. (July 2013)

values:
/wiki/Oxford_University
mw-redirect
Oxford University

values:
/wiki/Merton_Thesis
mw-redirect
Merton Thesis

values:
/wiki/Experimental_science
mw-redirect
Experimental science

values:
/wiki/Religious_affiliation
mw-redirect
Religious affiliation

values: Edit section: Confucianism and traditional Chinese religion

values: List of Indian inventions and discoveries

values:
/wiki/Hindu_scriptures
mw-redirect
Hindu scriptures

values:
/wiki/Hindu_Renaissance
mw-redirect
Hindu Renaissance

values:
/wiki/Origin_of_life
mw-redirect
Origin of life

values:
/wiki/Biological_evolution
mw-redirect
Biological evolution

values: The material near this tag may rely on a self-published source. (December 2017)

values:
/wiki/Vedic_hymns
mw-redirect
Vedic hymns

values:
/wiki/Islam_and_science
mw-redirect
Islam and science

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (March 2012)

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (March 2017)

values:
/wiki/Khalifatul_Masih
mw-redirect
Khalifatul Masih

values:
/wiki/Universal_Law
mw-redirect
Universal Law

values:
/wiki/Natural_laws
mw-redirect
Natural laws

values:
/wiki/Jain_Philosophy#Jain_philosophers
mw-redirect
Jain Philosophy

values:
/wiki/Moksa_(Jainism)
mw-redirect
Moksa (Jainism)

values: Edit section: Perspectives from the scientific community

values: List of Jewish scientists and philosophers

values: List of atheists (science and technology)

values:
/wiki/Stephen_Weinberg
mw-redirect
Stephen Weinberg

values:
/wiki/Charles_Townes
mw-redirect
Charles Townes

values: Edit section: Studies on scientists' beliefs

values: University at Buffalo, The State University of New York

values:
/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Economics
mw-redirect
Nobel Prize in Economics

values: United States National Academy of Sciences

values: American Association for the Advancement of Science

values: MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics

values: Edit section: Public perceptions of science

values:
/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists
mw-redirect
List of Catholic scientists

values: List of Christians in science and technology

values: display:table-cell;padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em;vertical-align:middle

values: margin:0.5em 0 0.5em 1em;border:solid #aaa 1px

values: border-collapse: collapse; padding: 0; border: 0; background:transparent; width:100%;

values:
/wiki/Science_and_Islam_(documentary)
mw-redirect
Science and Islam (documentary)

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11876.html

values:
/wiki/Ian_G._Barbour
mw-redirect
Ian G. Barbour

values:
/wiki/Fortress_Press
mw-redirect
Fortress Press

values: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

values: The Sleepwalkers (Koestler non-fiction book)

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1038%2Fnews.2010.105

values: Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life

values: Time and Eternity: an Essay in the Philosophy of Religion

values:
/wiki/Harper_%26_Row
mw-redirect
Harper & Row

values: Category:CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.14636

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.17735

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.1303729

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.19513

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.19024

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.18844

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.18441

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.18125

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.17567

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.17287

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.17004

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.17057

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.16889

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.16630

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.16767

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.16418

values: The site requires a paid subscription to access this page.

values:
/wiki/Edward_Larson
mw-redirect
Edward Larson

values:
/wiki/Wm._B._Eerdmans_Publishing
mw-redirect
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

values: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

values:
/wiki/Michael_B._Foster
mw-redirect
Michael B. Foster

values:
/wiki/Eugene_M._Klaaren
mw-redirect
Eugene M. Klaaren

values:
/wiki/Stanley_L._Jaki
mw-redirect
Stanley L. Jaki

values:
/wiki/Xlibris_Corporation
mw-redirect
Xlibris Corporation

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.ishim.net/ishimj/4/10.pdf

values:
nofollow
external text
http://itl-usa.org/ahmadi/ahmadi13.html

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1038%2F386435a0

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1038%2F28478

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.physorg.com/pdf5785.pdf

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1525%2Fsp.2007.54.2.289

values:
nofollow
external text
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=275

values: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/1468-5906

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
/wiki/John_H._Brooke
mw-redirect
John H. Brooke

values: International Development Research Centre

values:
/wiki/D._Appleton_and_Company
mw-redirect
D. Appleton and Company

values: The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity

values: q:Special:Search/Relationship between religion and science

values:
nofollow
http://biologos.org/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://www.testoffaith.com/
external text

values: Faraday Institute for Science and Religion

values:
nofollow
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/
external text

values:
/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Service
mw-redirect
Public Broadcasting Service

values:
nofollow
http://meaningoflife.tv/
external text

values:
/wiki/John_Horgan_(American_journalist)
mw-redirect
John Horgan (American journalist)

values:
nofollow
external text
http://human-nature.com/dm/dar.html

values:
nofollow
http://www.zygonjournal.org/
external text

values:
/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox
mw-redirect
Eastern Orthodox

values:
nofollow
http://inters.org/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
http://disf.org/dizionario

values:
/wiki/Independent_Catholic_churches
mw-redirect
Independent Catholic churches

values:
/wiki/Smarta_Tradition
mw-redirect
Smarta Tradition

values:
/wiki/Kirant_Mundhum
mw-redirect
Kirant Mundhum

values:
/wiki/Armenian_neopaganism
mw-redirect
Armenian neopaganism

values:
/wiki/Italo-Roman_neopaganism
mw-redirect
Italo-Roman neopaganism

values:
/wiki/Hungarian_neopaganism
mw-redirect
Hungarian neopaganism

values:
/wiki/Aliran_kepercayaan
mw-redirect
Aliran kepercayaan

values:
/wiki/Isoko_people
mw-redirect
Isoko people

values:
/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_mythology
mw-redirect
Australian Aboriginal mythology

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-subgroup

values:
/wiki/Norse_religion
mw-redirect
Norse religion

values:
/wiki/Slavic_mythology
mw-redirect
Slavic mythology

values:
/wiki/Religious_belief
mw-redirect
Religious belief

values:
/wiki/Religious_symbolism
mw-redirect
Religious symbolism

values:
/wiki/Development_of_religion
mw-redirect
Development of religion

values:
/wiki/Religion_and_happiness
mw-redirect
Religion and happiness

values: Deconstruction and religion (page does not exist)

values: List of religions and spiritual traditions

values: Table of prophets of Abrahamic religions

values: List of people who have been considered deities

values: List of founders of religious traditions

values: List of largest peaceful gatherings in history

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible expanded navbox-inner

values: Commensurability (philosophy of science)

values:
/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
mw-redirect
Scientific skepticism

values: Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Transcendental argument for the existence of God

values:
/wiki/Language-game_(philosophy)
mw-redirect
Language-game (philosophy)

values: Index of philosophy of religion articles

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
row
navbox-group
width:6.6em;font-weight: normal;

values: List of important publications in philosophy

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values: navigation navbox Philosophy padding:3px

values:
/wiki/Sociological_positivism
mw-redirect
Sociological positivism

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-subgroup

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values: navigation navbox Positivism padding:3px

values: Category:Articles with inconsistent citation formats

values: Category:Pages containing links to subscription-only content

values: Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2017

values: Category:Articles lacking page references from October 2017

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from November 2017

values: Category:All articles with failed verification

values: Category:Articles with failed verification from December 2010

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from May 2015

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from May 2016

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from July 2013

values: Category:All articles with self-published sources

values: Category:Articles with self-published sources from December 2017

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from March 2012

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from March 2017

values: Category:Articles with Italian-language external links

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with LCCN identifiers

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values: العلاقة بين الدين والعلم – Arabic

values: Relació entre ciència i religió – Catalan

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ca
display: none;

values: Σχέση θρησκείας και επιστήμης – Greek

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-el
display: none;

values: Relación entre ciencia y religión – Spanish

values: Rilatoj inter scienco kaj religio – Esperanto

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-eo
display: none;

values: رابطه علم و دین – Persian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fa
display: none;

values: Relation entre science et religion – French

values: 과학과 종교의 관계 – Korean

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ko
display: none;

values: अध्यात्म एवं विज्ञान – Hindi

values: Rapporto fra religione e scienza – Italian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-it
display: none;

values: דת ומדע – Hebrew

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-he
display: none;

values: Религија и наука – Macedonian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-mk
display: none;

values: Relação entre religião e ciência – Portuguese

values: Relația dintre religie și știință – Romanian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ro
display: none;

values: Религия и общество – Russian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sh
display: none;

values: Tieteen ja uskonnon välinen suhde – Finnish

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fi
display: none;

values: Förhållandet mellan vetenskap och religion – Swedish

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sv
display: none;

values: All languages (initial selection from common choices by you and others)

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Relationship_between_religion_and_science rootpage-Relationship_between_religion_and_science skin-vector action-view