Theology and the social sciences-discipline and antidiscipline

Zygon 25 (3):309-316 (1990)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this review of papers by E. O. Wilson, Philip Gorski, and Robert Segal, I apply Wilson's description of the relations between a discipline and its antidiscipline (the science just below it in the hierarchy of sciences) to the relations between theology and the social sciences. I claim (contra Gorski) that a common methodology is applicable to natural science, social science, and theology. However, despite the fact that a discipline cannot ordinarily be reduced to its antidiscipline, I claim (with Segal) that it remains to be shown that a theistic interpretation of religious phenomena is superior to a socialā€scientific explanation. I see this as work to be done rather than an impossibility. Insofar as it is shown that theology cannot be reduced to socialā€scientific explanations, support is provided for the hypothesis of the existence of God.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,891

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-02

Downloads
53 (#293,124)

6 months
4 (#1,005,419)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Ian Hacking.
Criticism and the growth of knowledge.Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.) - 1970 - Cambridge [Eng.]: Cambridge University Press.
Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.Imre Lakatos, Alan Musgrave, Roger C. Buck & Robert S. Cohen - 1972 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 23 (3):266-274.

View all 11 references / Add more references