Bias in the Science and Religion Dialogue? A Critique of “Nature of Evidence in Religion and Natural Science”
In their article “Nature of Evidence in Religion and Natural Science” (Theology & Science 2020), Petteri Nieminen and colleagues compare the use of evidence in religion and science. Their claim is that religious use of evidence is characterized by “experiential” thinking and confirmation bias, w...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Contributors: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Routledge
2021
|
| In: |
Theology and science
Year: 2021, Volume: 19, Issue: 3, Pages: 188-202 |
| IxTheo Classification: | CF Christianity and Science NBF Christology |
| Further subjects: | B
Fine Tuning
B Science and religion B Social epistemology B rationality of religious commitment B historicity of Jesus B Confirmation bias B cognitive science of religion |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | In their article “Nature of Evidence in Religion and Natural Science” (Theology & Science 2020), Petteri Nieminen and colleagues compare the use of evidence in religion and science. Their claim is that religious use of evidence is characterized by “experiential” thinking and confirmation bias, which makes integration with science difficult. I argue, however, that their methodology is unreliable and their theory of religious cognition is too simplistic. Further research should take the complexity of “science,” “religion” and “rationality” more sufficiently into account. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1474-6719 |
| Reference: | Kritik von "Nature of Evidence in Religion and Natural Science (2020)"
|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Theology and science
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2021.1944497 |