The scientific and theological enterprises share many fundamental assumptions and have methodological similarities, though the two disciplines often have different focuses of investigation. Science seeks to unravel the detailed workings of nature by focusing on the quantitative aspects discemable in the universe. Theology strives to understand the essence, activity, and purposes of God in the universe. These two enterprises are partial views of the multi-faceted reality we call the world that occasionalfy overlap. Therefore, the data of science (...) arui theology should be thought of as complementary streams of knowledge both of which are important to understaruiing life and the world. (shrink)

The current interaction of science and theology is surveyed. Modern physics describes a world of intrinsic unpredictability and deep relationality. Theology provides answers to the metaquestions of why that world is rationally transparent and rationally beautiful and why it is so finely tuned for carbon‐based life. Biology's fundamental insight of evolutionary process is to be understood theologically as creation “making itself.” In the twenty‐first century, biology may be expected to move beyond the merely mechanical. Neuroscience will not (...) have much useful interaction with theology until it attains theories of wide explanatory scope. Computer models of the brain do not meet this requirement. A theological style of bottom‐up thinking comes closest to scientific habits of thought. Complexity theory suggests that information will prove to be an increasingly important scientific concept, encouraging theology to revive the Thomistic notion of the soul as the form of the body. Another gift of science to theology will lie in providing a meeting point for the encounter of the world faith traditions. (shrink)

This book offers the first study of theological thought experiments. It advances the discussion about the religious significance of the imagination and presents a tightly argued response to debates over pluralism in the history and philosophy of science.

Both Pierre Duhem and his successors emphasized that medieval scholastics created a science of mechanics by bringing both observation and mathematical techniques to bear on natural effects. Recent research into medieval and early modern science has suggested that Aristotle's subalternate sciences also were used in this program, although the degree to which the theory of subalternation had been modified is still not entirely clear. This paper focuses on the English tradition of subalternation between 1310 and 1350, and concludes (...) with a discussion of the theory advanced by Thomas Claxton early in the fifteenth century. (shrink)

Accession Number: ATLA0001712252; Hosting Book Page Citation: p 551-561.; Language(s): English; General Note: Bibliography: p 560-561.; Issued by ATLA: 20130825; Publication Type: Essay.

. Donald MacKay has suggested that the logical concept of complementarity is needed to relate scientific and theological thinking. According to Ian Barbour, this concept should only be used within, not between, disciplines. This article therefore attempts to clarify that contrast from the standpoint of cognitive process. Thinking in terms of complementarity is explicated within a structuralist‐genetic, interactive‐constructivist, developmental theory of the neo‐ and post‐Piagetian kind, and its role in religious development is indicated. Adolescents'complementary views on Creation and on the (...) corresponding scientific accounts serve as an illustration. After further analysis of parallel and circular complementarity, it is shown under which conditions complementarity of science and theology can be better justified and may be potentially more fruitful than is apparent from Barbour's or even MacKay's considerations. (shrink)

In an exciting study that bridges science and religion, physicists think about the connection between physics and faith and biologists discuss evolution, ethics, and the future. Complementing these viewpoints, theologians address these same issues from a religious standpoint. Chapter authors include Nobel Prize-winning physicist and inventor of the laser, Charles Townes, along with Pope John Paul II.

In both science and theology, there has been a revolution in our understanding of the nature of human uniqueness. As a background to this Symposium on the subject, a summary is here given of the history of Homo sapiens that is being revealed by fossil, archaeological, and genetic evidence. This is followed by a description of some of the distinctive characteristics of humans that have been proposed in the past, such as language, tool use, self-consciousness, art, and culture. (...) Ideas from theology and philosophy that are salient for the dialogue with science are then mentioned, together with a summary of the scientific and theological insights on uniqueness from contributors to this Symposium in Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science. (shrink)

The dialogue between science and theology is no longer confined to discussing theology, physics and biology, but, as these essays make clear, sociology, psychology & neuroscience are now open for discussions between theologians and scientists.

Theologians in the liberal tradition have developed the distinctive method of critically correlating Christian revelation with critical interpretations of history, texts and social realities. Non‐foundationalists react to this stance by developing theological anthropologies for which interdisciplinary correlation is deemed unnecessary. In response, this paper argues for a retrieval of a philosophical anthropology that address the advances made in the fields of genetics and evolutionary biology, though aware of the secularizing failings of theological liberalism. In contrast to the anti‐religious materialism of (...) scientists such as Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker, human freedom needs to be argued on the basis of complexity science and the emergent systems it explains. Both correlationist and non‐foundationalist theological strategies are unable to respond to the threat to human freedom posed by scientific materialism. The science of emergent complex structures is the most plausible research programme for constructing a viable theological anthropology. To uphold the humanum is to uphold human freedom based on a scature. This leads me to suggest that theology is best characterized as foundationalist in the general sense of its universal scope. (shrink)

This review article presents a critical evaluation of Christopher C. Knight’s central ideas expressed in his book entitled “Wrestling with the Divine, Religion, Science and Revelation”. The main position discussed is the one Knight calls sacramental panentheism or pan-sacramentalism. These terms refer to the idea that every natural thing can be the locus of God’s initiative as regards God’s self-communication. Using scientific analogies, one may want to defend the idea that culture offers a kind of possibility-space for revelation to (...) happen, somewhat like ecological niches are possibility-spaces for the evolution of biological species. The article argues that this view is inadequate because it implies that religious faith and its linguistic expression are a somewhat random process, sprouting up in various ways where conditions are favourable. It neglects the characteristic of revelation as a gift: God reaching out to us, not randomly, but intelligently and lovingly. (shrink)

For long time, especially in the West, there is old paradigm that is strong separation between science and theology/religion matters. Especially, such a diverging path started from Galileo persecution, and also other patterns where religious authority seem to hold the last word on scientific issues. Other area of this World, seems to not hold such a diverging path, for instance it can be read in the works of physicist turned to religious philosopher, for instance Pavel Florensky and Nesteruk. (...) That is why we also discuss shortly about those scientists in this book. In the last chapter, we discuss about eureka, an experience which for a long time was attributed to divine spark or “God’s favor to an artist or to a scientist, such luminaries like Newton, Pascal, Leibniz etc.” Nonetheless, new methodology appears to be able to be generated once we accept balanced brain approach, where left brain and right brain hemispheres of humans can work together. (shrink)

Theologians in the liberal tradition have developed the distinctive method of critically correlating Christian revelation with critical interpretations of history, texts and social realities. Non‐foundationalists react to this stance by developing theological anthropologies for which interdisciplinary correlation is deemed unnecessary. In response, this paper argues for a retrieval of a philosophical anthropology that address the advances made in the fields of genetics and evolutionary biology, though aware of the secularizing failings of theological liberalism. In contrast to the anti‐religious materialism of (...) scientists such as Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker, human freedom needs to be argued on the basis of complexity science and the emergent systems it explains. Both correlationist and non‐foundationalist theological strategies are unable to respond to the threat to human freedom posed by scientific materialism. The science of emergent complex structures is the most plausible research programme for constructing a viable theological anthropology. To uphold the humanum is to uphold human freedom based on a scature. This leads me to suggest that theology is best characterized as foundationalist in the general sense of its universal scope. (shrink)

Mary Hobgood rightly asserts the significance of social science analysis for theological ethics ; however, her argument that most injustice in the modern world is rooted in systemic flaws of global capitalism subverts her hope that governmental welfare policies can alleviate poverty and her support for the U.S. Catholic bishops' goals for welfare policies. On the other hand, if Hobgood's account of poverty and welfare exaggerates the role of systemic capitalism, as I contend it does, she has good reason (...) to explore connections with the strands of social and moral thought within what she calls the dominant discourse. (shrink)

This book explores the concept of Life from a range of perspectives. Divided into three parts, it first examines the concept of Life from physics to biology. It then presents insights on the concept from the perspectives of philosophy, theology, and ethics. The book concludes with chapters on the hermeneutics of Life, and pays special attention to the Biosemiotics approach to the concept. The question 'What is Life?' has been deliberated by the greatest minds throughout human history. Life as (...) we know it is not a substance or fundamental property, but a complex process. It is not an easy task to develop an unequivocal approach towards Life combining scientific, semiotic, philosophical, theological, and ethical perspectives. In its combination of these perspectives, and its wide-ranging scope, this book opens up levels and identifies issues which can serve as intersections for meaningful interdisciplinary discussions of Life in its different aspects. The book includes the four plenary lectures and selected, revised and extended papers from workshops of the 14th European Conference on Science and Theology (ECST XIV) held in Tartu, Estonia, April 2012. (shrink)

In order to illuminate the similarities and differences between science and theology, we consider an epistemology and methodology for each that can be characterised as a dialectical critical realism. Our approach is deeply indebted to the work of the great Swiss theologian, Karl Barth. Key points are that the object under study determines the method to be used, the community of investigators and the nature of the possible knowledge to be gained; the necessity of a posteriori, rather than (...) a priori reasoning; and that the dialogue between theology and science should account for both the similarities and differences between the two disciplines. The counterintuitive nature of quantum physics is used to illustrate how in science the dialectic element should lead to a critical dimension to realism, and one is forced to engage with reality on its own terms. (shrink)

This volume examines emotions and emotional well-being from a rich variety of theological, philosophical and scientific and therapeutic perspectives. To experience emotion is a part of being human; but what are emotions? How can theology, philosophy and the natural sciences unpack the nature and content of emotions? This volume is based on contributions to the 15th European Conference on Science and Theology held in Assisi, Italy. It brings together contributions from scholars of various academic backgrounds from around (...) the world, whose individual insights are made all the richer by their juxtaposition with those from experts in other fields, leading to a unique exchange of ideas. (shrink)

Theology and the life sciences are mutually dependent on one another in the task of understanding the origin and function of moral behavior. The life sciences investigate morality from the perspective of the historical and communal dimension of humanity and point to survival as the primary function of human behavior. A Christian ethic of self‐sacrifice advances the preservation of the entire human and nonhuman creation and should not, therefore, be objected to by the life sciences. Religion, however, is more (...) than a survival mechanism. It points to a preserving agency beyond humanity and prevents the life sciences from reducing life to its strictly biological side. (shrink)

Scientific cosmology raises various issues of philosophical interest. Among these is the understanding of the beginning', as it arises in normal cosmology, which seems not intelligible as an ordinary beginning (' in time'), but rather as a beginning ' of time'. Recent cosmological research that seeks to unite theories of gravity and of quantum physics is speculative; various proposals with different philosophical perspectives on time and reality co-exist. This plurality of speculative cosmological proposals reflects also a diversity of views regarding (...) the nature of explanations. ' Anthropic principles' are not fruitful as additional explanations. It is argued here, however, that any cosmological proposal will always have an open end, due to limit questions that arise in relation to the scientific research but are not answered by it. These limit questions allow for various religious interpretations, theistic, pantheistic and agnostic. /// O presente artigo parte da constatação de que a cosmologia científica contemporânea suscita questões de grande relevância e interesse filosófico. Entre estas está a compreensão do "começo", tal como ele se dá na cosmologia normal, o qual não se mostra inteligível nos termos de um começo ordinário ("no tempo"), mas sim se entendido como começo "do tempo". O artigo analisa alguns aspectos da investigação cosmológica mais recente, a qual procura sobretudo unir as teorias da gravidade e da física quântica, considerando-a como especulativa; mostra-se assim até que ponto diversas propostas científicas co-existem com diferentes perspectivas filosóficas acerca do tempo e da realidade. Por outro lado, mostra-se também até que ponto esta pluralidade de propostas cosmológicas especulativas reflecte também uma diversidade de pontos de vista acerca da natureza das explicações em si mesmas. Por exemplo, o artigo tenta demonstrar que os "Princípios antrópicos" não são fecundos enquanto que explicações adicionais. Nesse sentido, o autor do artigo defende que toda e qualquer proposta cosmoíógica terá de ser sempre aberta, e isso precisamente devido à presença de questões-íimite que brotam a partir da investigação científica, mas que não podem por esta ser respondidas. Finalmente, mostra-se ainda que estas questões-limite dão azo a uma diversidade de interpretações religiosas, entre estas se vislumbrando posições como a tetsta, a panteísta e a agnóstica. (shrink)

Miracles are not "violations" of nature. Contemporary miraculous healings seem to follow natural healing processes but to be enormously accelerated. Like grace, miracles elevate but do not contradict nature. Scriptural miracles, but also contemporary miracle accounts, have something to tell us about how God acts in the world.

The possibility of in-breakings of God in science is discussed. A realist philosophy of science is used as a framework in which new paradigms are seen as providing ever better approximations to the true underlying structure of nature, which will be revealed in the eschaton. It is argued that ecology–the study of the earth as a whole–cannot be treated as a natural science because there can be no paradigms for understanding the earth as a whole. Instead technology (...) is used as a means for interacting with God through nature. (shrink)

In this paper, I aim to discuss E. J. Lowe's view of the synergy between metaphysics and natural science. In doing so, I will extend Lowe’s synergistic model to develop a realist account of theological claims thereby responding to Byrne’s strong form of eliminativism and agnosticism about theological claims. The paper is divided up as follows. In section 1, I will discuss Lowe’s view of metaphysics. In section 2, I will explain how Lowe thinks metaphysics and natural science (...) are related. In section 3, I will respond to objections against Lowe’s conception of metaphysics. In section 4, I will discuss the implications of Lowe’s conception of metaphysics for a realist account of theological claims. In section 5, I will conclude this paper by claiming that there are excellent reasons to extend the synergy between metaphysics and natural science to that of theology as well. (shrink)

This book offers a penetrating analysis of issues raised by the perennial question, 'Are We Special?' It brings together scholars from a variety of disciplines, from astronomy and palaeontology to philosophy and theology, to explore this question. Contributors cover a wide variety of issues, including what makes humans distinct from other animals, the possibilities of artificial life and artificial intelligence, the likelihood of life on other planets, and the role of religious behavior. A variety of religious and scientific perspectives (...) are brought to bear on these matters. As a whole, the book addresses whether the issue of human uniqueness is one to which sciences and religions necessarily offer differing responses. (shrink)

The important role of hope in the author's thinking is acknowledged. While natural theology is important in its proper place, Christian theology centers on the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Its discourse will need to avail itself of the power of symbol.

Faced with what he saw as the danger to society in the ascendancy of natural science and decline in religion and morals, the great French sociologist Emile Durkheim sought the origins of both religion and science in their function in primitive societies as guarantors of social solidarity. In contrast to Frazer, Tylor, and other early anthropologists, he looked for the internal intelligibility of myth and ritual in social terms, rather than regarding them just as failed attempts to state (...) objective truths about the natural world of the same kind as those later arrived at by natural science. One does not have to accept Durkheim's ultimately atheistic identification of God with Society, nor the politically authoritarian consequences which have some-times been held to follow from this identification, to see that Durkheim has raised a set of issues of crucial importance for a discussion of science and the myths and doctrines of religion. For what he has done is to reintroduce a third factor into the perennial and by now rather frustrating dichotomy between science and religion, namely society and the sciences of man. It is some consequences of this approach that I want to explore in this paper. (shrink)

Zygon®, Volume 57, Issue 1, Page 233-243, March 2022.

This article—the first of a linked set of three outlining the development and practice of a different approach to science/religion dialogue—begins with an overview of some persistent tensions in the field. Then, using a threefold heuristic of encounter, engagement, and expression, it explores the routes taken by James Ashbrook and Andrew Newberg to develop a dialogue between theology and neuroscience, discussing some of the problems associated with these and their implications for attempts to further develop neurotheology. Finally, it (...) proposes a different way of thinking about this enterprise and points toward a new methodology for supporting this endeavor. (shrink)

A strategy for dealing systematically with such complex relationships as those between science and theology is presented after a brief overview of the historical record and illustrated in terms of the concept of divinity. The application of that strategy to the title relationships yields a multilogical/multilevel solution which presents certain analogies to or isomorphisms with the doctrine of the Trinity. These concern mainly the multilogical/multilevel character of both conceptualizations and the relational and contextual reasoning required to conceive them. (...) Furthermore, certain characteristics of the doctrine facilitate the dialogue between theologians and scientists on account of their similarity with such scientific concepts as diversity in unity, multiplicity of relationships, nonseparability, and nonclassical logic. (shrink)