Religious tolerance is the
willingness to accept and permit religious beliefs and practices which disagree
with one's own.
For individuals, religious
tolerance generally means acceptance of other people's religions. It does not
mean believing that other religions are equally true, but that others have the
right to hold and practise their beliefs. Within a nation or ethnic group, it
is acceptance of the right to hold beliefs that differ from the dominant
religion, worship freely according to these beliefs and attempt to peacefully
convince others to convert to that faith. Answer Included in any definition of
religious tolerance are the relevant actions that many would see as a
reasonable accompaniment of such tolerance. Such things as not attacking,
harassing, insulting, abusing, or putting down those of other beliefs would
normally be included in such a practical working definition. Deliberately
misquoting the beliefs of another faith in order to subject them to criticism
is something that would fall outside of the definition of tolerance, while
attempting to be sensitive and learn the true facts of the situation from
adherents would demonstrate tolerance. Answer A historic teaching held by the
early Baptist congregations of America was "Individual Soul Liberty and
Responsibility." This greatly influenced our Constitution's framers to
include religious liberty for our rights. Religious tolerance thus was
established as law in the newly formed nation.
Simply stated, Individual Soul
Liberty means that the individual, whether a believer in Christ or not, has the
right to choose what he believes is right in the religious realm, including
variants of Christian doctrine or otherwise. No state church was to be formed,
as it was in England and many other countries, which would force citizens and
residents to conform to its doctrines and practices.
Although this is widely
accepted as our right today. much controversy exists over religious freedom,
that endangers that right. While some insist on having religious tolerance to
non-historic positions, the problem exists today of hypocritical intolerance to
common beliefs, which were accepted from the days of our founding fathers. This
historical basis of common national faith is not an individual church or
denominational teaching, but that which is firmly ensconced in our laws and
founding documents.
Religious tolerance makes
sense. If you force another to believe and practice what you believe, then it
isn't truly accepted in their hearts. Even Christ, in instructing His disciples
said, "Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you
depart out of that house or city, shake the dust off your feet." Matthew
10:14 It is not that the disciples did not have the right message, nor that
there was no responsibility of the hearers to respond to the truth, but there
was to be no forcing of the message on anyone. People have the right to choose,
yet they also have responsibility to what is true.
Belligerent preaching or
forcibly imposing ones beliefs on the beliefs of another, is intolerance. In a
free society such as ours there should be tolerance of other beliefs, as long
as these others are not harming another's rights by their practice. To insist
that other's be tolerant of your beliefs, while not allowing others freedom of
their beliefs, indeed is not religious tolerance.
We currently stand in a vortex
of a belief system that chooses to spread their beliefs by the sword. Americans
should not tolerate this nor any other encroachment upon our religious freedom.
Religious tolerance requires even-handedness, else it is hypocrisy.
Answer
To my understanding, the answer
simply means tolerating and recognising each other's religious beliefs, without
any provocation or hindrances to practice.
Answer
Religious tolerance means
different things for different people. For example, when Maryland passed the
Maryland Toleration Act (also known as the Act Concerning Religion) in 1649,
the law mandated religious tolerance for Trinitarian Christians only and
therefore not true religious tolerance. In some countries, Muslims pride
themselves on religious toleration of other religions as required by the Koran,
but this is really a very limited and exclusive form of religious tolerance.
The United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 uses a very sound definition of
religious tolerance:
"Everyone has the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to
change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with
others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
teaching, practice, worship and observance
Relationship between Religion and Science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The relationship between religion and
science has been a subject of study since Classical antiquity, 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.
Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness whilst also acknowledging Philosophical and Metaphysicalexplanations with regard to the study of the
Universe. Both science and religion are not unchanging, timeless, or static
because both are complex social and cultural endeavors that have changed
through time across languages and cultures.[1] Most scientific and technical innovations prior to
the Scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by
religious traditions. Much of the scientific method was pioneered first by
Islamic scholars, and later by Christians. 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.
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 through history. This
thesis is held by some contemporary scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg and Carl Sagan, and some creationists. While the conflict thesis remains popular for the public, it
has lost favor among most contemporary historians of science[2][3][4][5] and the majority of scientists in elite universities in
the US do not hold a conflict view.[6]
Many scientists, philosophers, and theologians
throughout history have seen compatibility or independence between religion and
science such as Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins . 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 andKen 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 the idea
of 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
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] "science" emerged in the 19th century in the
midst of attempts to narrowly define those who studied nature,[8][10][11] 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] 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.[10]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][12]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.[10][13]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.[14] For example, there is
no precise equivalent of "religion" in Hebrew, and Judaism does not distinguish
clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities.[15] The Sanskrit word "dharma", sometimes
translated as "religion", also means law. Throughout classicalSouth 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.[16][17] 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.[18]
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."[19]
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.[20]
This typology is similar to ones used by
theologians Ian Barbour[21] and John Haught.[22] 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.[23]
According to Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C and
Avelina Espinosa, the historical conflicts between science and religion are
intrinsic to the incompatibility between scientific rationalism/empiricism and the belief in supernatural causation;[24] these authors have formally proposed the incompatibility
hypothesis (IH) to explain the
"everlasting-conflict-science-and-faith".[25] 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.[26] According to Lawrence Krauss, compatibility or incompatibility is a
theological concern, not a scientific concern.[26] 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.[26] 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.[26]
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.[27][28] 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.[29] Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris disagrees with Jerry Coyne and Daniel
Dennett's narrow view of the debate and argues that it is very easy for people
to reconcile science and religion because some things are above strict reason,
scientific expertise or domains do not spill over to religious expertise or
domains necessarily, and mentions "There simply IS no conflict between
religion and science."[26]
Richard Dawkins is hostile to fundamentalist religion
because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins,
religion "subverts science and saps the intellect".[30] 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.[31] According to Sean M. Carroll, since religion makes claims that are not
compatible with science, such as supernatural events, and therefore both are
incompatible.[32]
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.[33] 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.[26] 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.[34]
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.[26] 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.[35]
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 andAndrew 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.[36] Most contemporary historians of science now reject the
conflict thesis in its original form and no longer support it.[2][3][4][37] Instead, it has been superseded by subsequent historical
research which has resulted in a more nuanced understanding:[38][39] 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."[40]
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.[41]
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.[42] 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".[43] 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.[44] 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.[45]
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 19th century, and Newtonian mechanics in the 17th century.[46][47]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 didn't move, and
everything else circled around it and the Sun.[48]
In the view of physicist and Hindu monk
Mauricio Garrido non-Euclidean geometry proved that Euclidean axioms, such as
"there is only one straight line between two points", which were
considered self-evident, absolute truths until the 19th century, are in fact
interchangeable with different axioms. Therefore, claims by any ideology to
exclusive truth, proved by reason or by any other method are obviously wrong.[49]
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.[50] 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.[51]
The USA's National
Academy of Science supports the
view that science and religion are independent.[52]
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.[52]
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.[53] 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 Ptolemic (heliocentric) planetary model that held sway until
changes in scientific and religious thinking were brought about by Galileo and proponents of his views.[53]
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.[54]
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.[54] Polanyi added that the scientist often merely follows
intuitions of "intellectual beauty, symmetry, and 'empirical
agreement'".[54] Polanyi held that science requires moral commitments
similar to those found in religion.[54]
Two physicists, Charles A. Coulson and Harold K. Schilling, both claimed that "the methods of
science and religion have much in common."[54] Schilling asserted that both fields—science and
religion—have "a threefold structure—of experience, theoretical
interpretation, and practical application."[54] 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."[54] Religious language and scientific language also show
parallels (cf. rhetoric of science).
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."[55][56] 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.[56][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,[57] 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.[58]
The modern dialogue between religion and
science is rooted in Ian Barbour's 1966 book Issues in Science and Religion.[59] 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.[59] Articles are also sometimes found in mainstream science
journals such as American
Journal of Physics[60] and Science.[61][62]
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 andnaturalism.[63] 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.[64] 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."[65] 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."[66]
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 byMuslim 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.[53] 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.[67] 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.[68]
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.[69][70][71]
Buddhism and science have been regarded as compatible by numerous
authors.[72] 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 thePali 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.[73]
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."[74][75][page needed]
Most sources of knowledge available to early
Christians were connected to pagan world-views.
There were various opinions on how Christianity should regard pagan learning,
which included its ideas about nature. 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.[76]
Clerks studying
astronomy and geometry.
France, early 15th century.
France, early 15th century.
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.[53] 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.[53] Robert John Russell has examined consonance and dissonance
between modern physics, evolutionary biology, and Christian theology.[77][78]
Christian philosophers Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and Thomas Aquinas[79] 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.[80] 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.[81]
Modern historians of science such as J.L. Heilbron,[82] Alistair
Cameron Crombie, David Lindberg,[83] Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein,[84]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.[85] Some of today's scholars, such asStanley Jaki, have claimed that Christianity with its particular worldview, was a crucial factor for the emergence of modern science.[86]
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.[87] 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."[88] 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".[89] 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 ofimago 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".[90]
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.[91]
Many well-known historical figures who
influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Copernicus,[92] Galileo,[93]Kepler,[94] Newton[95] and Boyle.[96]
Isaac Newton, for example, believed that gravity caused the planets to revolve about the Sun, and credited God with the design. In the concluding
General Scholium to the Philosophiae
Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he wrote: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets
and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent
and powerful being." Other famous founders of science who adhered to
Christian beliefs include Galileo, Johannes Kepler, and Blaise Pascal.[97][98]
In recent history, the theory of evolution has been at the center of some controversy between
Christianity and science. Christians who accept a literal interpretation of
the biblical account of
creation find
incompatibility between Darwinian evolution and their interpretation of the
Christian faith.[99] Creation science or scientific creationism[100] 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.[101][102] It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist
Christianeffort in the United
States to prove Biblical inerrancy and falsify the scientific evidence for evolution.[103] It has since developed a sizable religious following in
the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide.[104] 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 theConstitution.[105]
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.[106]
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.[107]
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.[108]
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.[109]
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.[110]
Galileo once stated "The intention of
the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not
how the heavens go."[111] 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".[112]
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.[113] 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.[114] 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[115] 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."[115][116] 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.[117]
H. Floris Cohen argued for a biblical Protestant, but
not excluding Catholicism, influence on the early development of modern
science.[118] 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 and open to emulation and
manipulation.[118] It supports the idea early modern science rose due to a
combination of Greek and biblical thought.[119][120]
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.[121][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.[122][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.[123] 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).[124] John Dillenberger and Christopher B. Kaiser have written theological surveys, which
also cover additional interactions occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th
centuries.[125][126] 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
Christinaity greatly elevated the importance of science by sanctioning and
religiously legitimizing it in 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 source of scientific pursuits by natural
philosophers, nor was Christianity, in and of itself, exclusively or directly
necessary in developing or practicing modern science.[41]
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."[127] 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."[128] The sociologist Rodney Stark of Baylor University, argued in contrast that "Christian
theology was essential for the rise of science."[129]
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.[130] However, during the Han Synthesis the more
anti-empirical Menciuswas 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.[131] 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.[132] 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.[133]
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
In Hinduism, the dividing line between objective sciences and spiritual
knowledge (adhyatma vidya) is a linguistic paradox.[134] 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.[135] Hindu sages maintained that logical argument and rational
proof using Nyaya is the way to obtain correct knowledge.[134] 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.[135] 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.[136] 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.[137] 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.[138] 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.[135]
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[139][140] –
1.
Pratyakṣa or Dṛṣṭam – direct
sense perception,
3.
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 andShiva, 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.[141] 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.[142]
The incarnations of Vishnu (Dashavatara) is almost identical to the scientific explanation of the
sequence of biological evolution of man and animals.[143][144][145][146] 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).[143][146] 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.[135] 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.[147][148]
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.[149]
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.[150] InIslam, 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.[151] 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.[152] 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.[153]
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.[150] 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.[154] 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.[150][154]
The Ahmadiyya movement emphasize that there is no contradiction between
Islam and science. 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.[155] For general purposes, the secondKhalifa 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)[156]
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][157]
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 thecosmos; 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.[158]
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.[159] 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.[160] Clerical involvement in the Royal Society remained high
until the mid-nineteenth century, when science became more professionalised.[161]
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.[162]
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.[61]
According to a study that was done by University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, 60% of Nobel prize laureates in physics from 1901 to 1990 had a Christian background.[163] Since 1901-2013, 22% of all Nobel prizes have been awarded
to Jews despite them being 0.2% of the world population.[164]
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 USA are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in
God (although some might be deistic, for example).[61][165][166] 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.[167] 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%).[165][168] Other studies show that among members of the National Academy of Sciences, concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer,
7.0% expressed belief, 72.2% expressed disbelief, and 20.8% were agnostic,[169] however Eugenie Scott argued that there are methodological
issues in the study, including ambiguity in the questions. A study with clearer
wording on leading scientists in the US, concluding that 40% of prominent
scientists believe in a god.[170]
In 1916, 1,000 leading American scientists
were randomly chosen from American Men of Science and 41.8%
believed God existed, 41.5% disbelieved, and 16.7% 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
39.3% believing God exists, 45.3% disbelieved, and 14.5% had doubts/did not
know.[61][165] 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.[165] This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933.[citation needed]
A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007
by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of
New York on 1,646 natural
and social science professors at 21 elite 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."[171]In the same study, 28% said they believed in God and 8% believed
in a higher power that was not God.[172] Ecklund stated that scientists were often able to consider
themselves spiritual without religion or belief in god.[173] 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.[174] 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.[171][174][175] The authors also found little difference in religiosity
between social and natural scientists.[175]
In terms of perceptions, most social and
natural scientists from 21 American elite universities did not perceive
conflict between science and religion, while 36.6% did. However, in the study,
scientists who had experienced limited exposure to religion tended to perceive
conflict.[6] 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.[176]
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.[177] 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.[168]
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 not doubts about the existence of God,
compared to 35% of the whole scientific population. In terms of religion and
science, 84.5% of evangelical scientists saw no conflict (72.5% collaboration, 12%
independence), while 75.3% of the whole scientific population saw no conflict
(40.4% collaboration, 34.9% independence).[178]
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: 23.4% did not believe in
God, 16% did not know if God existed, 42.5% believed God existed, and 16% believed
in a higher power. Out of the natural sciences: 19.5% did not believe in God,
32.9% did not know if God existed, 43.9% believed God existed, and 3.7%
believed in a higher power. Overall, out of the whole study: 9.8% were
atheists, 13.1% were agnostic, 19.2% believe in a higher power, 4.3% believe in
God some of the time, 16.6% had doubts but believed in God, 34.9% believed in
God and had no doubts.[179]
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."[180]
Physicians in the United States, by contrast,
are much more religious than scientists, with 76% stating a belief in God.[180]
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.[181] 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.[182]
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.[183]
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.[184]
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
(20.4%), Germany (18.1%).[185] Other countries such as Netherlands, Britain, and
Australia have experienced growth in such views as well.[185]
The 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 are 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).[186]
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 a complementary and
21% saw them as independent) while 73% of the general US population saw no
conflict as well.[178][187]
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.[188][189] 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.[190] Even strict creationists tend to have very favorable views
on science.[182]
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."[191] 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.[191] 51% of the population believes humans and other living
things evolved: 26% through natural selection only, 21% somehow guided, 4%
don't know.[191] 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.[182][191] In terms of advanced industrialized nations, the United
States is the most religious.[191]
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% 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.[192]
A 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.[193]
In the US, people who had no religious
affiliation were no more likely than the religious population to have New Age
beliefs and practices.[194]
By tradition:
In the US:
|
|
1.
Jump
up^ Stenmark, Mikael (2004). How to
Relate Science and Religion: A Multidimensional Model. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. ISBN 080282823X.
2.
^ 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
3.
^ 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.
4.
^ 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.
5.
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.
6.
^ 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):
276–292. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01447.x.
7.
Jump
up^ Committee on Revising Science and
Creationism: A view fom the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of
Medicine of the National Academies (2008). Science, Evolution and Creationism. National Academy of Sciences.
8.
^ Jump
up to:a b c d e f Harrison, Peter (2015). The
Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 022618448X.
9.
^ Jump
up to:a b Nongbri, Brent (2013). Before
Religion: A History of a Modern Concept. Yale University Press. ISBN 030015416X.
10.
^ 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 0226089282.
11.
Jump
up^ Numbers, Ronald; Lindberg, David, eds.
(2003). When Science and Christianity Meet. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. ISBN 0226482146.
13.
Jump
up^ Grant, Edward (2007). A History
of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521689570.
15.
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).
16.
Jump
up^ Kuroda, Toshio and Jacqueline I. Stone, translator. "The Imperial Law and the Buddhist
Law" at the Wayback Machine (archived March 23, 2003). Japanese
Journal of Religious Studies 23.3-4 (1996)
17.
Jump
up^ Neil McMullin. Buddhism and the
State in Sixteenth-Century Japan. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton
University Press, 1984.
18.
Jump
up^ Josephson, Jason Ananda (2012). The
Invention of Religion in Japan. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226412342.
19.
Jump
up^ Richard Dawkins on militant atheism (transcript), TED talk, 2007 (page visited on 21 January 2015).
20.
Jump
up^ John Polkinghorne Science and Theology SPCK/Fortress
Press, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3153-6 pp20-22, following Ian Barbour
21.
Jump
up^ Nature, Human Nature, and God, Ian G. Barbour, Fortress Press, 2002, ISBN 0-8006-3477-2
22.
Jump
up^ Haught, John F. (1995). Science
and Religion : From Conflict to Conversation. Paulist Prees.
p. 9. ISBN 0809136066. 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.
23.
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, p. xiii-xv
24.
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. Beliefdisrupts,
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.
25.
Jump
up^ Paz-y-Miño-C G. & Espinosa A.
2013. "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.
pp. 73–98.
26.
^ Jump
up to:a b c d e f g "Does The Empirical Nature Of Science
Contradict The Revelatory Nature Of Faith? - Jerry Coyne". Edge. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
29.
Jump
up^ Stenger, Victor J.. God and the folly of faith : the incompatibility
of science and religion. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
pp. 290–296. ISBN 1-61614-599-4.
31.
Jump
up^ Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for
Evolution, Free Press, 2010,
pages 5-6.
32.
Jump
up^ Carroll, Sean (June 23, 2009). "Science and Religion are Not
Compatible". Sean Carroll
Blog.
33.
Jump
up^ "Excerpts of Statements by Scientists Who
See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science". National Academy of Sciences.
34.
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. 284–285.ISBN 9780060930493.
36.
Jump
up^ Ronald Numbers, ed. (2009). Galileo
Goes To Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. p. 3. ISBN 9780674057418.
37.
Jump
up^ Ferngren, G.B. (2002). Ferngren, G.B.,
ed. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction.Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 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.
38.
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)
"...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)
39.
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).
"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).
40.
Jump
up^ Gary Ferngren (editor). Science
& Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
41.
^ 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 9780761855668.
44.
Jump
up^ See Langford (1966, pp. 133–134), 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).
45.
Jump
up^ Lindberg, David. "Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of
the Encounter between Christianity and Science".
46.
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.
48.
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.
50.
Jump
up^ Stephen Jay Gould. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion
in the fullness of life. Ballantine Books, 1999.
51.
Jump
up^ W. T. Stace, Time and Eternity:
an Essay in the Philosophy of Religion, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1952.
53.
^ Jump
up to:a b c d e Religion and Science, John Habgood, Mills & Brown, 1964, pp., 11, 14-16, 48-55, 68-69, 90-91,
87
54.
^ 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.
55.
Jump
up^ Religion-and-Science Philip Hefner, pages 562-576 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
56.
^ Jump
up to:a b Hefner, Philip (2008). "Editorial:
Religion-and-Science, the Third Community". Zygon43 (1): 3–7. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00893.x.
58.
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.
59.
^ 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.
60.
Jump
up^ Theerman, Paul "James Clerk Maxwell
and religion", American Journal of Physics, 54 (4), April 1986, p.312–317 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
•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
61.
^ Jump
up to:a b c d Science 15 August 1997: Vol. 277. no.
5328, pp. 890 - 893; "Scientific Community: Science and God: A Warming
Trend?" Gregg Easterbrookdoi:10.1126/science.277.5328.890
62.
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 - 1229; "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), pages 1324-1327; "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 - 1474; "PAPAL SCIENCE: Science and Religion Advance Together at Pontifical Academy" Charles Seifedoi:10.1126/science.291.5508.1472
•Science 13 December 1957: Vol. 126. no. 3285, pp. 1225 - 1229; "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), pages 1324-1327; "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 - 1474; "PAPAL SCIENCE: Science and Religion Advance Together at Pontifical Academy" Charles Seifedoi:10.1126/science.291.5508.1472
64.
Jump
up^ Schuessler, Jennifer (13 December
2011). "Philosopher sticks up for God". The New York Times.
Retrieved 7 January 2013.
65.
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.
66.
Jump
up^ "Themelios | Review: Where The Conflict
Really Lies Science Religion And Naturalism". The Gospel Coalition.
Retrieved 2013-06-16.
69.
Jump
up^ Hatcher, William (September 1979).
"Science and the Bahá'í Faith". Zygon:
Journal of Religion & Science 14 (3): 229–253. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1979.tb00359.x.
70.
Jump
up^ Smith, P. (1999). A Concise
Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications.
pp. 306–307. ISBN 1-85168-184-1.
71.
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.
72.
Jump
up^ Yong, Amos. (2005) Buddhism and
Science: Breaking New Ground (review) Buddhist-Christian Studies -
Volume 25, 2005, pp. 176-180
73.
Jump
up^ Wallace, B. Alan. (2003) " Buddhism
& science: breaking new ground" Columbia University Press, pp 328
74.
Jump
up^ Hamilton, Jon. (2005) "The Links
Between the Dalai Lama and Neuroscience" www.NPR.org, November 11,
2005 [1]
75.
Jump
up^ Dalai Lama. (2005) "The Universe in
a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality" Broadway.
76.
Jump
up^ Davis, Edward B. (2003).
"Christianity, History Of Science And Religion". In Van Huyssteen,
Wentzel. Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. Macmillan Reference
USA. pp. 123–7. ISBN 978-0-02-865704-2
77.
Jump
up^ Russell, Robert John (2008). Cosmology:
From Alpha to Omega. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. p. 344. ISBN 978-0-8006-6273-8.
78.
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):
214–215. (subscription required
(help)).
79.
Jump
up^ Grant, Edward (2006). Science
and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550 : from Aristotle to Copernicus (Johns
Hopkins Paperbacks ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 222.ISBN 0801884012.
82.
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.
83.
Jump
up^ Lindberg, David; Numbers, Ronald L
(October 2003). When Science and Christianity Meet. University of
Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-48214-6.
84.
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.
85.
Jump
up^ Pope John Paul II (September
1998). "Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason),
IV".
Retrieved 2006-09-15.
86.
Jump
up^ Jaki, Stanley L. The Savior of Science,
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (July 2000), ISBN 0-8028-4772-2.
87.
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).
90.
Jump
up^ "Religion and Science (Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
92.
Jump
up^ Pro forma candidate to Prince-Bishop
of Warmia, cf. Dobrzycki, Jerzy, and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, "Kopernik,
Mikołaj", Polski słownik
biograficzny (Polish
Biographical Dictionary), vol. XIV, Wrocław, Polish
Academy of Sciences, 1969, p. 11.
93.
Jump
up^ Sharratt, Michael (1994). Galileo:
Decisive Innovator. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 17,
213. ISBN 0-521-56671-1.
94.
Jump
up^ "Because he would not accept the
Formula of Concord without some reservations, he was excommunicated from the
Lutheran communion. Because he remained faithful to his Lutheranism throughout
his life, he experienced constant suspicion from Catholics." John L.
Treloar, "Biography of Kepler shows man of rare integrity. Astronomer saw
science and spirituality as one." National Catholic Reporter,
October 8, 2004, p. 2a. A review of James A. Connor Kepler's Witch: An
Astronomer's Discovery of Cosmic Order amid Religious War, Political Intrigue
and Heresy Trial of His Mother, Harper San Francisco.
95.
Jump
up^ Richard S. Westfall - Indiana University The Galileo Project. (Rice University). Retrieved 2008-07-05.
101.
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.
103.
Jump
up^ Larson, Edward J. (2004). Evolution: The
Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. Modern Library. ISBN 978-0-679-64288-6.
106.
Jump
up^ "The legislative history
demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the
state legislature, embraces this religious teaching." Edwards v. Aguillard
107.
Jump
up^ Collins, Francis S. (2007). The
Language of God : A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York:
Free Press. ISBN 1416542744.
108.
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
109.
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 isPerspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Across the Atlantic, the Society of Ordained
Scientists and Christians in Science are similar affiliation in Great Britain.
111.
Jump
up^ Machamer, Peter (1998). The
Cambridge Companion to Galileo. Cambridge
University Press. p. 306. ISBN 0-521-58841-3.
112.
Jump
up^ Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics"
113.
Jump
up^ Andrew Dickson White. History of the
Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (Kindle Locations 1970-2132)
114.
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 9780674057418.
115.
^ Jump
up to:a b Jeffrey Russell. Inventing the Flat
Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback; New Ed edition
(January 30, 1997). ISBN 0-275-95904-X; ISBN 978-0-275-95904-3.
116.
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.
117.
Jump
up^ Cormack, Leslie (2009). "Myth 3:
That Medieval Christians Taught that he Earth was Flat". In Ronald
Numbers. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and
Religion. Harvard University Press. pp. 28–34. ISBN 9780674057418.
118.
^ 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, pages 308-321
119.
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
120.
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."
121.
Jump
up^ Peter Harrison, The Bible,
Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge, 1998).
122.
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)
123.
Jump
up^ God and nature, Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list; this is noted on page 366 of Science
and Religion, John Hedley Brooke, 1991, Cambridge
University Press
124.
Jump
up^ The Anglican Origins of Modern Science, Isis, Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on
page 366 of Science and Religion, John Hedley Brooke, 1991,Cambridge
University Press
127.
Jump
up^ John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some
Historical Perspectives, 1991,Cambridge University
Press, ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19. See also Peter Harrison,
"Newtonian Science, Miracles, and the Laws of Nature", Journal
of the History of Ideas 56 (1995), 531-53.
128.
Jump
up^ Science and Christianity in pulpit
and pew, Oxford University
Press, 2007, Ronald L. Numbers, p. 4, and p.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
129.
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, page 123
130.
Jump
up^ Cua, Antonio S. "The
Quasi-Empirical Aspect of Hsün-tzu's Philosophy of Human Nature." PEW 28
(1978), 3-19.
131.
Jump
up^ Tillman, Hoyt Cleveland.
"Utilitarian Confucianism : Chʻen Liang's challenge to Chu Hsi"
Cambridge, Mass. : Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard
University : Distributed by Harvard University Press, 1982.
132.
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
133.
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)
134.
^ Jump
up to:a b Carl Mitcham (2005). Encyclopedia
of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Macmillan Reference USA.
p. 917. ISBN 0-02-865831-0.
135.
^ 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): 345–369. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01177.x.
136.
Jump
up^ Gosling, David (September 2012). "Science and the Hindu Tradition:
Compatibility or Conflict?". Hinduism and Science: Contemporary Considerations 47 (3):
576–577. Retrieved 2014-09-26.
137.
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.
138.
Jump
up^ Gosling, David (September 2012).
"Science and the Hindu Tradition: Compatibility or Conflict?". Hinduism
and Science: Contemporary Considerations 47 (3): 577.
139.
Jump
up^ Sarma, Deepak (2011) "Classical
Indian Philosophy: A Reader" p.167 Columbia University Press
142.
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.
144.
Jump
up^ Cvancara, A.M. (1995). A field manual
for the amateur geologist. John Wiley & sons, Inc. New York.
145.
Jump
up^ Similarities in concept of evolution of life
on earth in Dashavatar and modern Geology.Dr. Nitish Priyadarshi, American Chronicle
146.
^ Jump
up to:a b Dr Kutty (2009). Adam's Gene and the Mitochondrial Eve. Xlibris Corporation. p. 136. ISBN 978-1-4415-0729-7.
148.
Jump
up^ Hamilton, Fiona. "One in seven Britons believe in
creationism over evolution". The Times (London).
149.
Jump
up^ Raman, Varadaraja (2012). "Hinduism and science : some
reflections". ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials.
158.
Jump
up^ *Soni, Jayandra; E. Craig (Ed.)
(1998). "Jain Philosophy". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (London:
Routledge). Retrieved 2008-06-27.
159.
Jump
up^ Peter Harrison, 'Religion, the Royal
Society, and the Rise of Science', Theology and Science, 6 (2008),
255-71.
161.
Jump
up^ Frank Turner, 'The Victorian Conflict
between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension', Isis, 49
(1978) 356-76.
165.
^ Jump
up to:a b c d Larson, E. J.; Witham, L. (1997). "Scientists are still keeping the
faith". Nature386 (6624):
435–436. doi:10.1038/386435a0.
166.
Jump
up^ Wuthnow, Robert (2005-05-21). "Essay Forum on the Religious Engagements of American
Undergraduates". Religion.ssrc.org.
Retrieved 2013-06-16.
168.
^ Jump
up to:a b Pew Research Center: "Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault
Public, Media",Section 4:
Scientists, Politics and Religion. July 9, 2009.
170.
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.
171.
^ Jump
up to:a b Ecklund, Elaine. "Religion and Spirituality among University
Scientists" (PDF). Social
Science Research Council.
172.
Jump
up^ Ecklund, Elaine Howard (2010). Science
vs. Religion : What Scientists Really Think. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. p. 16. ISBN 9780195392982.
173.
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."
174.
^ 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.
175.
^ 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.
176.
Jump
up^ Ecklund, Elaine Howard. "Some Atheist Scientists With Children
Embrace Religious Traditions". Huffington Post.
177.
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.
178.
^ 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.
179.
Jump
up^ Neil Gross and Solon Simmons
(2009). The religiosity of American college and
university professors. Sociology of
Religion, 70(2):101-129. doi:10.1093/socrel/srp026
180.
^ 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.http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith--.shtml accessed:1-February-09
181.
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.
182.
^ 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. p. 336,345–347. ISBN 978-0415873697.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).
183.
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.
184.
Jump
up^ Sjodin, Ulf (2002). "The Swedes and
the Paranormal". Journal of Contemporary Religion17 (1).
185.
^ 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. 215–223. ISBN 9780674057418.
186.
Jump
up^ Tegmark, Max; Lee, Eugena (February 11,
2013). "The MIT Survey on Science, Religion and
Origins: the Belief Gap". Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
187.
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.
188.
Jump
up^ Evans, John (2011).
"Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science".Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion 50 (4):
707–727. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01603.x.
189.
Jump
up^ Baker, Joseph O. (2012). "Public
Perceptions of Incompatibility Between "Science and
Religion"". Public Understanding of Science 21 (3):
340–353.doi:10.1177/0963662511434908.
190.
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.
191.
^ 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.
192.
Jump
up^ "Public Opinion on Religion and Science
in the United States".
Pew Research Center. November 5, 2009.
193.
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):
175–186. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x. ISSN 1468-5906.
·
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 1782790470
·
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 – 436 (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
·
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
·
Cook, Melvin Alonzo,
and Melvin Garfield Cook. Science and Mormonism: Correlations,
Conflicts, and Conciliations. [Salt Lake City, Utah]: Deseret News Press,
1967.
·
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 0889369208.
·
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
·
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
·
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.
·
Watson, Simon (Spring
2011). "Transversal Rationality: The Challenge
of Assigning ‘Cognitive Parity’ to the Sciences and Theology" (PDF). Toronto Journal of Theology 27/1.
·
Wilber, Ken, The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating
Science and Religion,
Broadway; Reprint edition, 1999, ISBN 0-7679-0343-9
·
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
·
Robert
M. Young (1985). "Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's Place in Victorian
Culture". Cambridge University
Press. Retrieved 2007-08-31.
·
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
·
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)
·
(Italian) DISF
- Dizionario Interdisciplinare di Scienza e Fede (online version of the dictionary edited
in Rome by Urbaniana University Press and Città Nuova Editrice)
0 comments:
Post a Comment