Bridging the gap between the world of science and the realm of the spiritual, B. Alan Wallace introduces a natural theory of human consciousness that has its roots in contemporary physics and Buddhism. Wallace's "special theory of ontological relativity" suggests that mental phenomena are _conditioned_ by the brain, but do not _emerge_ from it. Rather, the entire natural world of mind and matter, subjects and objects, arises from a unitary dimension of reality that is more fundamental than these dualities, (...) as proposed by Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung. To test his hypothesis, Wallace employs the Buddhist meditative practice of _samatha_, refining one's attention and metacognition, to create a kind of telescope to examine the space of the mind. Drawing on the work of the physicist John Wheeler, he then proposes a more general theory in which the participatory nature of reality is envisioned as a self-excited circuit. In comparing these ideas to the Buddhist theory known as the Middle Way philosophy, Wallace explores further aspects of his "general theory of ontological relativity," which can be investigated by means of _vipasyana_, or insight, meditation. Wallace then focuses on the theme of symmetry in reference to quantum cosmology and the "problem of frozen time," relating these issues to the theory and practices of the Great Perfection school of Tibetan Buddhism. He concludes with a discussion of the general theme of complementarity as it relates to science and religion. The theories of relativity and quantum mechanics were major achievements in the physical sciences, and the theory of evolution has had an equally deep impact on the life sciences. However, rigorous scientific methods do not yet exist to observe mental phenomena, and naturalism has its limits for shedding light on the workings of the mind. A pioneer of modern consciousness research, Wallace offers a practical and revolutionary method for exploring the mind that combines the keenest insights of contemporary physicists and philosophers with the time-honored meditative traditions of Buddhism. (shrink)

Abstract.Reflecting on the future of the field of science-and-religion, I focus on three aspects. First, I describe the history of the religion-and-science dialogue and argue that the emergence of the field was largely contingent on social-cultural factors in Western theology, especially in the United States. Next, I focus on the enormous influence of science on Western society and on what I call cultural scientism, which influences discussions in science-and-religion, especially how theological notions are (...) taken up. I illustrate by sketching the way divine action has been studied in science-and-religion. The divine-action debates may seem irrelevant to theologians because the way divine action is dealt with in science-and-religion is theologically problematic. Finally, I analyze the quest for integration and unity of science and religion that underlies much of the contemporary field of science-and-religion and was stimulated particularly by the efforts of Ian Barbour. I argue that his quest echoes the logical positivist vision of unification and has a strong bias toward science as the sole source of rationality, which does not take theology fully seriously. (shrink)

Bridging the gap between the world of science and the realm of the spiritual, B. Alan Wallace introduces a natural theory of human consciousness that has its roots in contemporary physics and Buddhism. Wallace's "special theory of ontological relativity" suggests that mental phenomena are _conditioned_ by the brain, but do not _emerge_ from it. Rather, the entire natural world of mind and matter, subjects and objects, arises from a unitary dimension of reality that is more fundamental than these dualities, (...) as proposed by Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung. To test his hypothesis, Wallace employs the Buddhist meditative practice of _samatha_, refining one's attention and metacognition, to create a kind of telescope to examine the space of the mind. Drawing on the work of the physicist John Wheeler, he then proposes a more general theory in which the participatory nature of reality is envisioned as a self-excited circuit. In comparing these ideas to the Buddhist theory known as the Middle Way philosophy, Wallace explores further aspects of his "general theory of ontological relativity," which can be investigated by means of _vipasyana_, or insight, meditation. Wallace then focuses on the theme of symmetry in reference to quantum cosmology and the "problem of frozen time," relating these issues to the theory and practices of the Great Perfection school of Tibetan Buddhism. He concludes with a discussion of the general theme of complementarity as it relates to science and religion. The theories of relativity and quantum mechanics were major achievements in the physical sciences, and the theory of evolution has had an equally deep impact on the life sciences. However, rigorous scientific methods do not yet exist to observe mental phenomena, and naturalism has its limits for shedding light on the workings of the mind. A pioneer of modern consciousness research, Wallace offers a practical and revolutionary method for exploring the mind that combines the keenest insights of contemporary physicists and philosophers with the time-honored meditative traditions of Buddhism. (shrink)

The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, founded in Seoul in 1954 by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, has been more popularly known as the Unification Church or ‘the Moonies.’ Following revelations that he reports having received as a young man, Moon devoted his life to preaching and eventually publically proclaiming himself to be the Messiah, or Lord of the Second Advent, come to fulfil the mission of restoring God’s Kingdom of Heaven on earth. His (...) early struggles in Korea clearly had a considerable influence on the trajectory of his life and the development of the UC into a world-wide movement that reached into a wide variety of areas, such as anti-communist politics, the media, the arts, the sciences and vast businesses. Following Moon’s death, the movement has split into three separate factions, the largest of which is run by his widow, and the other two by, respectively, his oldest living and youngest sons. (shrink)

Abstract: A 1991 article by psychologist John D. Carter offers an underdeveloped insight that typologies for relating science and religion might be fruitfully formulated in discipline-specific perspectives. This essay thus covers a specifically theological perspective only briefly outlined in Carter, and it expands four models that theologians have used to relate religion and science. This essay renames these models and expands their implications, especially for addressing the behavioral sciences. (1) The contrarian model generally opposes science, (...) (2) the apologetic makes theology congenial to science, (3) the correlational holds both disciplines in tension, and (4) the synthetic attempts a grand unification of them. Arguing from the theologian's perspective, this essay is intended to demonstrate that different models/methods for relating science and religion are really reflections of deeper religious attitudes and argues that the task for which a method is employed ultimately determines its adequacy within that attitude's constraints. (shrink)

This book by an internationally reputed Indian scientist traces the developments of Science, Religion and Philosophy in human civilization through the ages. The common underlying bond-more specifically, a linkage of philosophy with both science and religion-has been examined incisively. All the three sub-areas of human culture have been presented from a holistic point of view, and at the same time, stressing some of their irreconcilable basic differences in scope and outlook. Meant primarily for general readers, the (...) book achieves a fine balance between basic comcepts, historical evolution and a critical unbiased analysis of rituals, dogmas, unresolved queries and it leads to an enlightened view of 'humanism', 'Nature', 'Unity of man', need for a new paradigm of social and political order transcending globalization and control of resources of weaker nations by supremacy in global power equation. The book reviews the wisdom of the ancient Hindus, Buddhism, Jainism and of the three semitic religions-Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It presents a concise account of the Indian Vedas, Vedangan, Saddarsana, the two epics and the Bhagavadgita, of the philosophy and science of the Greeks, science and technology of ancient Egypt, Babylonia and China. A valuable special feature is a summary of the status of present-day science, starting with the classical phase, and ending with the developments in the last century comprising the Theory of Relativity, quantum physics, genetics, various aspects of human consciousness, modern astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology. Last but not least, the author critically reviews some of the presentday fashionable discourses on 'science as the best way to reach God' and leads the readers to an appraisal of the on-going researches on the unification of the four fundamental interactions of physical sciences. He ends with the inexorable conclusion that this unification, when fully achieved, would still not strictly identify the unique force as 'God as concieved in different religions. (shrink)

Origins of the Copernican Revolution that led to modern science genesis can be explained only by the joint influence of external and internal factors. The author tries to take this influence into account with a help of his own growth of knowledge model according to which the growth of science consists in interaction, interpenetration and unification of various scientific research programmes spreading from different cultural milieux. Copernican Revolution consisted in revealation and elimination of the gap between Ptolemy’s (...) mathematical astronomy and Aristotelian qualitative physics. But the very realization of the gap between physics and astronomy appeared to be possible because at least at its first stages modern science was a result of Christian Weltanschaugung development with its aspiration for elimination of pagan components. Of all the external factors religion was the strongest one. Key words: scientific revolution, Christian weltanschaugung, modernity, Copernicus, Ptolemy. (shrink)

On a pu voir dans les droits de l’Homme la religion civile de notre temps. La conception philosophique des droits de l’Homme ouvre la perspective cosmopolitique d’une Civitas gentium, Cité des peuples universelle, version séculière de la Civitas Dei, qui conserverait un élément de transcendance dans le milieu du droit rationnel avec l’idée régulatrice d’une unification politique de l’espèce humaine sous les lois de la liberté. Sans rejeter cette utopie, J.-M Ferry se propose ici de regarder les droits (...) de l’Homme, d’un point de vue pragmatique, comme la garantie des arguments qui activent la raison publique et ses exigences de justice notamment. Les religions représentant plutôt, quant à elles, le fonds de convictions privées qui orientent moralement l’existence individuelle, conditionnent de façon variable l’adhésion des sociétaires aux principes politiques, lois et institutions, qui régissent leur vivre-ensemble. Ainsi présenté, le rapport qu’entretiennent les religions aux droits de l’Homme se laisse spécifier comme un rapport entre, d’une part, l’arrière-plan éthico-religieux des convictions privées et, d’autre part, l’avant-scène éthico-juridique de la raison publique. Human rights have been viewed as the civil religion of our time. The philosophical conception of human rights opens up the cosmopolitan perspective of a Civitas gentium, a universal City of peoples, a secular version of the Civitas Dei, which preserves an element of transcendence in the realm of rational law, with the regulating idea of a political unification of the human species under the laws of freedom. Without rejecting this utopia, J.-M Ferry proposes here to look at human rights from a pragmatic standpoint as the guarantee of arguments that activate public reason, particularly its demand for justice. Religions, on the other hand, represent the foundation of private convictions that morally direct individual existence, conditioning in varying ways the adherence of the members of society to the political principles, laws and institutions that govern their life together. Presented in this way, the relationship between religions and human rights can be specified as a relationship between the ethical-religious background of private convictions on the one hand, and the ethical-legal foreground of public reason on the other. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reply to Sandra Costen Kunz's "Respecting the Boundaries of Knowledge"Paul O. IngramI am gratified by Sandra Costen Kunz's application of my thoughts on boundary constraints and my call for a Buddhist-Christian-science "trilogue" to her work in spiritual formation within the context of Protestant theological education. Over the past fifteen years I have witnessed numerous examples of what process theologians call "creative transformation" in contemporary science-religion dialogue. (...) To this date, creative transformation has occurred mainly among Christian theologians involved in this particular dialogue. But Buddhists are now beginning to engage the natural sciences in serious conversation. Most of this conversation is with the neurosciences because of Buddhism's strong emphasis on meditation and the fact that the physical realities described in scientific theory imply that nature—from the level of quantum events to the larger-scale structures of the universe—is interdependent and "empty" of permanency. I have argued, as has Kunz, that the New Testament reflects this same view of existence. But it is also true that classical Christian theological tradition, which presupposes Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic substance categories, is in conflict with biblical anthropology and portrayals of God. Process theology, science-theology dialogue, and Buddhist-Christian dialogue have clarified the biblical foundations of Christian faith apart from classical theism, at least among Christian liberal theologians. In my view, it is now time to deepen the process of creative transformation occurring in Buddhist-Christian dialogue by including the natural sciences as a third dialogical partner.Kunz's essay is an example of possibilities of creative transformation and dialogical engagement with the sciences; in her case, the cognitive sciences and Buddhism. She notes that in similarity with most theologians, most scientists are caught up in a Cartesian mind-body dualism. The result is that scientific accounts of mental processes tend to reduce subjective experience to the physical processes occurring in regions of the brain coupled with ignoring what meditators actually say they are experiencing, which scientists sometimes hold to be epiphenomenal. Kunz does not accept this dualism because it not only misrepresents reality, it undercuts the disciplines of spiritual discernment. She argues that combining third-person cognitive [End Page 187] scientific accounts of subjective experiences with Buddhist or Christian first-person descriptions of what is experienced in the disciplines of meditation or contemplative prayer offers a more comprehensive, more accurate account of meditative and contemplative experience. B. Alan Wallace draws a similar conclusion in regard to Buddhist meditation.1Although acknowledging that Christians have much to learn from Buddhist "discernment practices," distinctively Christian forms of meditation are rooted in the conviction that God's nature as love proclaimed by the historical Jesus is active in any situation. Kunz notes that Christian processes of spiritual discernment engendered by centering and contemplative prayer can be described as "making decisions" that correspond to the sorts of decisions the historical Jesus is portrayed as making in the New Testament: unselfish decisions for the common good. This means that authentic Christian faith is experienced and lived at the boundaries of ordinary conventional concerns. Or, to paraphrase Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945), when God as Jesus experienced God calling a person, God calls that person to his or her death. Sometimes an actual death, but always to life lived at the boundaries beyond mere conventionality. As a Lutheran, I can only agree.Paul O. IngramPacific Lutheran University (Emeritus)note1. B. Alan Wallace, Hidden Dimensions: The Unification of Physics and Consciousness (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007). [End Page 188]Copyright © 2011 University of Hawai'i Press... (shrink)

This article seeks to delineate some of the fundamental philosophical traits that are special characteristics of the Indian cultural soil. Tracing these from the Vedic period, it is shown that this heritage is still alive and gives a distinctive flavor to the science–religion dialogue in the Indian context. The prevalent attitude is not to view science and religion as antagonistic, but rather as forces that together could create a world where the persistent epistemological and ethical problems (...) can get resolved to the benefit of humanity. In Indian thought rationality and spirituality are not viewed as opposed categories. The notion of “evidence” has played a crucial role in all enquiries for legitimizing the sources of knowledge and the criteria by which any claim to knowledge can be tested. References to investigations pertaining to such areas as cosmology, ecology, ethics, study of consciousness, and so on are made in order to bring out their relevance for science–religion dialogue today. (shrink)

The relationship between science and religion is generally depicted in one of two ways. In one view, they are locked in an inevitable, eternal conflict in which one must choose a side. In the other, they are separate spheres, in which the truth claims of one have little bearing on the other. This collection of provocative essays by leading thinkers offers a new way of looking at this problematic relationship. The authors begin from the premise that both (...) class='Hi'>science and religion operate in, yet seek to reach beyond, specific historical, political, ideological, and psychological contexts. How may we understand science and religion as arising from, yet somehow transcending, human experience? The volume is divided into four sections. The first takes a fresh look at the relationship between science and religion in broad terms: as spheres of knowledge or belief, realms of experience, and sources of authority. The other three sections take on topics that have been focal points of conflict between science and religion: the nature of the cosmos, the origin of life, and the workings of the mind. Ultimately, the authors argue, by seeing science and religion as irrevocably tied to human experience we can move beyond simple either/or definitions of reality and arrive at a more rich and complex view of both science and religion. (shrink)

This acclaimed book is back in print with a new introduction by its award-winning author.

The Science and Religion Forum promotes discussion on issues at the interface of science and religion. The forum membership is diverse including professionals, academics, clergy, and interested lay people and each year it holds a conference to encourage discussion and exploration of issues that arise at the interface of science and religion. This article provides an overview of the online conference that took place in May 2021 and introduces this thematic section that includes six (...) articles from the conference. (shrink)

This is an English translation of my essay: Alfred Gierer Wissenschaft, Religion und die deutungsoffenen Grundfragen der Biologie. Mpi for the History of Science, preprint 388, 1-21, also in philpapers. Range and limits of science are given by the universal validity of physical laws, and by intrinsic limitations, especially in self-referential contexts. In particular, neurobiology should not be expected to provide a full understanding of consciousness and the mind. Science cannot provide, by itself, an unambiguous interpretation (...) of the natural order at the philosophical, cultural and religious level. The diversity of interpretations, however appears as a positive factor of cultural dynamics. Historically, the revival of the philosophy of nature in the middle ages included remarkable biological thoughts such as those of Eriugena and Thierry of Chartres. In this essay, emphasis is placed on basic issues of modern biology – the distinction of man and animal, the evolution of human mental capabilities, the physics of the universe as precondition for biological evolution, and the intricasies of the brain-mind-relation. They are open to agnostic as well as religious interpretations, the individual choice being mainly a matter of wisdom and not just of knowledge. -/-. (shrink)

Do the same epistemic standards govern scientific and religious belief? Or should science and religion operate in completely independent epistemic spheres? Commentators have recently been divided on William James’s answer to this question. One side depicts “The Will to Believe” as offering a separate-spheres defense of religious belief in the manner of Galileo. The other contends that “The Will to Believe” seeks to loosen the usual epistemic standards so that religious and scientific beliefs can both be justified by (...) a unitary set of evidentiary rules. I argue that James did build a unitary epistemology but not by loosening cognitive standards. In his psychological research, he had adopted the Comtian view that hypotheses and regulative assumptions play a crucial role in the context of discovery even though they must be provisionally adopted before they can be supported by evidence. “The Will to Believe” relies on this methodological point to achieve a therapeutic goal—to convince despairing Victorians that religious faith can be reconciled with a scientific epistemology. James argues that the prospective theist is in the same epistemic situation with respect to the “religious hypothesis” as the scientist working in the context of discovery. (shrink)

Many intellectuals wrote texts on the relations between Islam and science in the nineteenth‐century Ottoman Empire. These texts not only addressed the massive social and cultural changes the Empire was going through, but responded to European authors’ claims about the extent to which Islam was compatible with the modern world. Focusing on several texts written in the second half of the nineteenth century by the influential Muslim Ottoman authors Namik Kemal, Ahmed Midhat, and Şemseddin Sami, this article shows the (...) influence of these exigencies on arguments on Islam and science. In order to represent Islam as a respectable religion in harmony with science, these intellectuals defined a “pure Islam” that was a set of basic principles that could be found in the Qur'an. Rather than an embedded way of life, Islam in these texts was an objectified, delimitable entity that could be imagined as having relations with other entities, such as science. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: * Brief History * How We Talk * Science and Infinity * Religion and Infinity * Concluding Remarks * Notes * References * Further Reading.

Have evolution, science and the trappings of the modern world killed off God irrevocably? And what do we lose if we choose not to believe in him? From Newton and Descartes to Darwin and the discovery of the genome, religion has been pushed back further and further while science has gained ground. But what fills the void that religion leaves behind? This book is an attempt to look at these questions and to suggest a third way (...) between the easy consolations of religion and the persuasive force of science that the everyday modern reader can engage with. (shrink)

The Fifth European Conference on Science and Theology, held in Freising and Munich, Germany, 1994, exemplified the growing worldwide interest in science-religion dialogue. The keys to this dialogue care the emergmg linkages and interfaces among all the sciences, on the one hand, and the enigmatic complexity of questions concerning the origin, nature, and destiny of man and the universe, on the other. Both increasingly address issues of meaning values, and ultimate causes, which lie well beyond the ken (...) of science as presently understood. Underlying the current science-religion dialogue is a sense of awe, humility, and wonder in the face of incomplete knowledge seeking understanding and transcendental faith seeking rational foundations. (shrink)

In “Milvian Bridges in Science, Religion, and Theology: Debunking Arguments and Cultural Evolution,” Lari Launonen and Aku Visala engage with an EDA against religious belief that appeals to cultural rather than biological evolution. According to this EDA, religious beliefs are unjustified, not because they are generated by biologically shaped cognitive processes that are unreliable as far as those beliefs are concerned but because they are generated by cultural processes that select for those beliefs for their ability to produce (...) prosocial behavior rather than for their truth sensitivity. Scientific beliefs, by contrast, are truth-sensitive because their cultural fitness depends on their power to produce accurate predictions. Their truth sensitivity explains the great amount of convergence on them that exists across cultures. In response to the EDA in question, Launonen and Visala argue that the difference between science and religion is actually more a matter of degree than a matter of kind, that there is considerable cross-cultural convergence on theistic and Christian beliefs, and that folk Christian beliefs, just as folk scientific ones, are truth-sensitive to the extent that they are constrained by expert beliefs. (shrink)

If the discovery of life elsewhere in the universe is just around the corner, what would be the consequences for religion? Would it represent another major conflict between science and religion, even leading to the death of faith? Some would suggest that the discovery of any suggestion of extraterrestrial life would have a greater impact than even the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions. It is now over 50 years since the first modern scientific papers were published on the (...) search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Yet the religious implications of this search and possible discovery have never been systematically addressed in the scientific or theological arena. SETI is now entering its most important era of scientific development. New observation techniques are leading to the discovery of extra-solar planets daily, and the Kepler mission has already collected over 1000 planetary candidates. This deluge of data is transforming the scientific and popular view of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Earth-like planets outside of our solar system can now be identified and searched for signs of life. Now is a crucial time to assess the scientific and theological questions behind this search. This book sets out the scientific arguments undergirding SETI, with particular attention to the uncertainties in arguments and the strength of the data already assembled. It assesses not only the discovery of planets but other areas such as the Fermi paradox, the origin and evolution of intelligent life, and current SETI strategies. In all of this it reflects on how these questions are shaped by history and pop culture and their relationship with religion, especially Christian theology. It is argued that theologians need to take seriously SETI and to examine some central doctrines such as creation, incarnation, revelation, and salvation in the light of the possibility of extraterrestrial life. (shrink)

Fengshui (also called Chinese geomancy) is a pre-modern tradition rooted in Chinese civilization. Chinese civilization is pre-modern and practice-oriented due to the domination of political power in China. In contrast, Western civilization is modernized. It witnessed the development of religion in ancient times, and the growth of science through reason (logic) and experiment in modern times. It is both rational and transcendental. It seems that Fengshui is an intermediate between science and religion. It is not (...) class='Hi'>science although its focus is on this world, for it does not seek knowledge and truth. It is not religion although it is mystical, for it does not seek transcendence and good. It is not only superstition (or magic), but also a mystical trade that centers on secular benefits. (shrink)

A new perspective on the interaction of science, religion and politics in Restoration England, based on discussion of Cumberland's De legibus naturae.

In this essay, I argue that Polanyi developed a realism which ranges over the sciences and the humanities as well as over values. I argue that his comprehensive realism had best be understood as relative to veracious inquirers participating in communal traditions of inquiry and that this leads to a theological realism according to which the divine realities are interpreted contextually, i.e., in terms of a particular religious form of life, rather than in terms of the grand metaphysics of classical (...) theism. (shrink)

Debates sometimes arise within democratic societies because of the fact that findings accepted in accordance with the standards of scientific research conflict with the beliefs of citizens. I use the example of the dispute about Darwinian evolutionary theory to explore what a commitment to democracy might require of us in circumstances of this kind. I argue that the existence of hybrid epistemologies -- tendencies to acquiesce in scientific recommendations on some occasions and to defer to non-scientific authorities on others -- (...) poses a serious problem for democratic decision-making. We need a shared conception of public reason, and it can only be secular. (shrink)

A world in which atheism has replaced religion is the dream of Oxford evolutionary biologist and “New Atheist” activist, Richard Dawkins. He thinks that religious belief is irrational superstition that leads to violence (like the inquisition), intolerance (like homophobia), ignorance (like creationism), and corruption (like red hot Catholic love). In fact, in the episode “Go God Go,” it is the cartoon version of Dawkins himself who pioneered the efforts culminating in religion's demise. First, one has to understand what (...) science is. Science is a method for discovering the truth about the world. Many philosophers argue that science and religion are perfectly compatible. Religion is about ethics and meaning, but science is about explaining the way the world works. Religion has led to a lot of violence—the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, witch trials, 9/11, and more. And it's certain that the end of religion wouldn't eliminate all violence. (shrink)

This article deals with phenomena occurring at the interface of the existential, the religious, and scientific inquiry. On the basis of in-depth interviews with Polish physicists and biologists, I examine the role that science and religion play in their narrative of the meaning of the Universe and human life. I show that the narratives about meaning have a system-related character that is associated with responses to adjacent metaphysical questions, including those based on scientific knowledge. I reconstruct the typical (...) amalgam questions of Polish scientists and come to a conclusion about the stability of religious and nonreligious amalgams in this group. Critically referring to the thesis concerning the secularizing impact of science, I conclude that science by itself does not have a destructive effect on Polish scientists’ confidence that life and the Universe are meaningful, but is rather an exacerbating factor of the existing worldview system. (shrink)

According to hyper-Humeanism, the world of “fact” is utterly distinct from the realm of “value”-that is, the realm of morality and religion.This is a well-known philosophical position, and it more or less follows from some well-known philosophical doctrines (e.g., logical positivism, and neo-Wittgensteinianism), but its appeal is not limited to philosophers. Indeed, an acceptance of hyper-Humeanism seems to be at the root of Stephen Jay Gould’s recent defense of the thesis that science and religion are utterly distinct. (...) Gould’s stated aim in defending this thesis is to settle, or perhaps reveal as illusory, various conflicts between science and religion. However, I arguenot only that Gould’s version of this thesis is defective, but also that hyper-Humeanism itself is false. If I am right, then “facts” and “values”-science and religion in particular-can overlap in philosophically interesting ways. (shrink)

Une théorie de la politique n'existe pas dans la pensée libertine intéressée à l'élaboration d'un modèle moral concentré sur la dimension de la vie privée. Pourtant à l'intérieur de cette tradition dans la deuxième moitié du VIIe siècle en France, s'amorce un filon à cheval entre utopie et roman d'aventure dans lequel apparaissent des formes d'organisation sociétales modelées selon les principes de la liberté, égalité, tolérance qui constitueront les mots d'ordres des philosophes des lumières.

When we read books or essays about the dialogue between “religion and science,” or when we attend conferences on the theme of “religion and science,” we cannot avoid the impression that they actually are dealing, almost without exception, not with a dialogue between “religion and science,” but with a dialogue between “Christianity and science.” This could easily be affirmed by looking at the major publications in this field. But how can the science– (...) class='Hi'>religion dialogue take place in a world where conventional Christian concepts of God, religion, and science are foreign and unfamiliar? Is the critique that the scientist plays God still valid when there is no “God” at all? This article tries to answer the questions mentioned above, and seeks to sketch out some aspects of the science–religion dialogue in Japan which I believe could contribute a new paradigm for understanding and describing ultimate reality. (shrink)

In the 19th century, the conflict thesis was forged to explain the science-religion relationship. This thesis presents religion as an obstacle to the development of science. Andrew White publishes a book that is at the origin of this thesis and Charles S. Peirce writes a review of this book in which he shows that there is nothing in religion that opposes scientific progress, but points to four human characteristics that offer difficulties in the face of (...) radical novelties. It is interesting to note how while the conflict thesis was forged, one of the greatest thinkers already shows the weakness of this thesis. (shrink)

Debates sometimes arise within democratic societies because of the fact that findings accepted in accordance with the standards of scientific research conflict with the beliefs of citizens. I use the example of the dispute about Darwinian evolutionary theory to explore what a commitment to democracy might require of us in circumstances of this kind. I argue that the existence of hybrid epistemologies – tendencies to acquiesce in scientific recommendations on some occasions and to defer to non-scientific authorities on others – (...) poses a serious problem for democratic decision-making. We need a shared conception of public reason, and it can only be secular. (shrink)

As America's debate over federal funding of embryonic stem cell research continues to deepen, it is increasingly characterized as a conflict between the objectivity of secular science and the cultural variability of traditional religion. Yet science alone, by the very limitations of its naturalistic methodology and domain of knowledge, is unable to draw its own moral boundaries. Through a careful consideration of the relationship between scientific knowledge and our most fundamental assumptions concerning the moral value of developing (...) life, we may discern the terms of a possible resolution to our current conflict. In May 2005, the President's Council on Bioethics issued a report "Alternative Sources of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells," that discusses four proposals for a technological means of obtaining pluripotent stem cells without the destruction of human embryos. Drawing on the principles laid out in this report we discuss one of these proposals, Altered Nuclear Transfer, as a way forward that can sustain social consensus while opening avenues for scientific advance. (shrink)

Are science and religion compatible when it comes to understanding cosmology (the origin of the universe), biology (the origin of life and of the human species), ethics, and the human mind (minds, brains, souls, and free will)? Do science and religion occupy non-overlapping magisteria? Is Intelligent Design a scientific theory? How do the various faith traditions view the relationship between science and religion? What, if any, are the limits of scientific explanation? What are the (...) most important open questions, problems, or challenges confronting the relationship between science and religion, and what are the prospects for progress? These and other questions are explored in Science and Religion: 5 Questions--a collection of thirty-three interviews based on 5 questions presented to some of the world's most influential and prominent philosophers, scientists, theologians, apologists, and atheists. Contributions by Simon Blackburn, Susan Blackmore, Sean Carroll, William Lane Craig, William Dembski, Daniel C. Dennett, George F.R. Ellis, Owen Flanagan, Owen Gingerich, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, John F. Haught, Muzaffar Iqbal, Lawrence Krauss, Colin McGinn, Alister McGrath, Mary Midgley, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Timothy O'Connor, Massimo Pigliucci, John Polkinghorne, James Randi, Alex Rosenberg, Michael Ruse, Robert John Russell, John Searle, Michael Shermer, Victor J. Stenger, Robert Thurman, Michael Tooley, Charles Townes, Peter van Inwagen, Keith Ward, Rabbi David Wolpe. (shrink)

In a recent Zygon article (June 1991), Roger Sperry argues for the unification of science and religion based on the principle of emergent causation within the central nervous system. After illustrating Sperry's position with some current experiments, I suggest that his conclusions exceed his argument and the findings of contemporary neuroscience and propose instead a pluralistic, rather than unified, approach to the relations between religion and science necessitated by the incompleteness inherent in any strictly neurological (...) account of human nature. (shrink)

Susan Haack has recently attempted to discredit religion by showing that science is an extended and enhanced version of common sense while religion is not. I argue that Haack’s account is misguided not because science is not an extended version of common sense, as she says. It is misguided because she assumes a very restricted, and thus inadequate, account of common sense. After reviewing several more realistic models of common sense, I conclude that common sense is (...) rich enough to allow various kinds of extensions. Just as science can be correctly seen as an enhanced version of common sense, so also religion. (shrink)

How do we and should we decide what is morally right and what is morally wrong? For much of human history, the teachings of religion were presumed to provide either the answer, or much of the answer. Over time, two developments challenged this. The first was the establishment of the discipline of moral philosophy. Foundational texts, such as Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and the growth of coherent, nonreligious approaches to ethics, notably utilitarianism, served to marginalize (...) the role of religion. And then, second, the twentieth century saw the rapid growth of evolutionary biology with an enthusiastic presumption that biology was the source of ethics. Here, I begin by discussing these developments and then examine the extent to which religion is still needed for a coherent account of ethics. (shrink)

La distinction entre l'approche scientifique du réel des approches religieuse ou philosophique est une tâche urgente si on veut éviter le banal : "Tout est bon, tout se vaut" qui place les diverses connaissances au même niveau d'incertitude et de confusion. Chacune propose en fait un modèle original d'interprétation du monde. Encore faut-il s'attacher à bien comprendre sa portée spécifique et ses limites. Elles ne sont pas équivalentes. Chaque approche est pertinente suivant son intention et dans ses frontières propres. Elles (...) sont comme trois "faces de la vie" pour parler comme Bernard Russel. Il convient seulement de ne pas oublier que la dimension métaphysique de l'existence humaine n'est pas aisément réductible. Ce travail de distinction permet aussi de ne pas les réduire avec ce qui n'est que leurs caricatures : le scientisme, fanatisme et la sophistique. (shrink)