Beyond Barbour or Back to Basics? The Future of Science-and-Religion and the Quest for Unity

Abstract. Reflecting on the future of the field of science-and-religion, I focus on three aspects. First, I describe the history of the religion-and-science dialogue and argue that the emergence of the field was largely contingent on social-cultural factors in Western theology, especially in the Uni...

Полное описание

Сохранить в:  
Библиографические подробности
Главный автор: Smedes, Taede Anne 1973- (Автор)
Формат: Электронный ресурс Статья
Язык:Английский
Проверить наличие: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Загрузка...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Опубликовано: Wiley-Blackwell 2008
В: Zygon
Год: 2008, Том: 43, Выпуск: 1, Страницы: 235-258
Другие ключевые слова:B Scientism
B Logical Positivism
B Science and religion
B Divine Action
B Ian Barbour
Online-ссылка: Presumably Free Access
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Описание
Итог:Abstract. Reflecting on the future of the field of science-and-religion, I focus on three aspects. First, I describe the history of the religion-and-science dialogue and argue that the emergence of the field was largely contingent on social-cultural factors in Western theology, especially in the United States. Next, I focus on the enormous influence of science on Western society and on what I call cultural scientism, which influences discussions in science-and-religion, especially how theological notions are taken up. I illustrate by sketching the way divine action has been studied in science-and-religion. The divine-action debates may seem irrelevant to theologians because the way divine action is dealt with in science-and-religion is theologically problematic. Finally, I analyze the quest for integration and unity of science and religion that underlies much of the contemporary field of science-and-religion and was stimulated particularly by the efforts of Ian Barbour. I argue that his quest echoes the logical positivist vision of unification and has a strong bias toward science as the sole source of rationality, which does not take theology fully seriously.
ISSN:1467-9744
Второстепенные работы:Enthalten in: Zygon
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00910.x