Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Conflict Between Science and Religion while connecting Dialogue | acewriters
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

1) Show how conflict between science and religion leads to dialogue between the two. 2) Provide a specific example.3) What I want you to do is to be able to define any concepts related to the question, properly explain the concepts, and provide examples. Thus, define, explain and provide examples.Make sure that in providing your answer that you use the articles I provide and you must provide page numbers from the article if you quote or if you paraphrase.MLA Format: use 2 scholarly articles max! ( 1 is attached) 2 pages plus works cited page ( 3 pgs total)
barbour__chapter_4.pptx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

IAN BARBOUR
INTRODUCTION
• There are four ways of relating the discourse of science and religion:
I.
Conflict
• They are at odds with one another
II.
Independence
• They are independent of one another
III. Dialogue
• There is a dialogue on the similarities of one another
IV. Integration
• One is used to the mutual benefit of the other (science to religion)
CONFLICT
I. Conflict
• Scientific materialism
o Moves from science to philosophical claims (scientism)
• Biblical literalism
o Theology to claims about scientific matters
SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM
I. Conflict
1. Scientific Materialism
1. The scientific is the only reliable path to knowledge
i. This an epistemological claim about what we know and how we come to know things
2. Matter (or matter and energy) is the fundamental reality in the universe
i. This is a metaphysical assertion about the fundamentals of reality
REDUCTIONISM
I. Conflict, cont.
1. Scientific Materialism, cont.
3. Reductionism
i. Epistemological reductionism claims that the laws and theories of all the sciences are
in principle reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry
ii. Metaphysical reductionism claims that the component parts of any system constitute
its most fundamental reality
1. Jacques Monod’s Chance and Necessity
a. “Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he
emerged only by chance.”
b. BUT, what about consciousness and free will or purposive behavior?
REDUCTIONISM, CONT
I. Conflict, cont.
1. Scientific Materialism, cont.
3. Reductionism
iii.
Authors have failed to distinguish between scientific and philosophical questions.
1. Just because what appears as chance does not mean there is no inherent design.
2. Besides, science is not there to establish whether there is design or not, it is only to
uncover facts of procedure.
BIBLICAL LITERALISM
I. Conflict, cont.
2. Biblical Literalism
1. “Scientific Creationism” argues that scientifically the earth has only been
around for a few thousand years.
i. The problem is that hardcore scientists and fundamental literalists both have the
misguided idea that belief in evolution is the same as belief in atheism, or that
believing in evolution leads one to become an atheist.
• See Russell, The Conflict of Science and Religion
INDEPENDENCE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION
II. Independence
• This is the separation thesis argued for by Gould in the NOMA principle
1. Contrasting Methods, according to Gilkey
a. Religion:
i. Asks about the existence of order and beauty in the world and the experiences of our
inner life (such as guilt, anxiety, and meaninglessness, on the one hand, and
forgiveness, trust, and wholeness on the other)
ii. Asks personal why questions about meaning and purpose and about our ultimate
origin and destiny
iii. It’s final authority is God and revelation, understood through persons to whom
enlightenment and insight were given, and validated in our own experience
iv. Uses symbolic and analogical language because God is transcendent.
1. God is outside our means of comprehension.
INDEPENDENCE, CONT
II. Independence
1. Contrasting Methods
b. Science:
i. Seeks to explain objective, public, repeatable data
ii. Asks objective how questions
iii.It’s basis of authority is logical coherence and experimental adequacy
iv.Science makes quantitative predictions that can be tested experimentally
INDEPENDENCE, CONT
II. Independence
1. Contrasting Methods
c. Ultimately they have different languages for achieving different results
i. In the propositional view religion can make statements about matters of fact
occurring in the world though revelation or divine inspiration.
ii. In the expressive view religions presents an inner expression through religious
language understood as symbols
iii. In the linguistic view religious doctrines are rules agreed upon by individual and
communal dialogues (by way of forms (ways) of life)
DIALOGUE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION
III. Dialogue
• This is the idea that religion and science can in fact uncover similar
knowledge base realities by looking at what they actually do have in
common.
• It does not mean they are overlapping in their magisteria, but they can
inform one another.
DIALOGUE, CONT
III. Dialogue
1. Presuppositions and Limit Questions
a. There is an important way to understand what religion is doing in trying to
explain God:
i. McMullin: the doctrine of creation is to understand ultimately that everything is God
dependent…
1. Including science?
ii. Rahner: God, though independent in study from science, is the Absolute.
1. In this sense, our need to understanding the Universe, though we cannot, is the
transcendental desire to understand God, the universe, the one theory of everything, etc.
iii.Tracy: religion is a dimension of science.
1. What can we do at the scientific level must be held accountable to the religious and
ethical principles of both religion and philosophy.
a. i.e. Ethics of science and conditions for the possibility of scientific inquiry
DIALOGUE, CONT.
III. Dialogue
2. Methodological Parallels
a. Similarities:
i. Both science and religion are in fact theory laden, and thus allow for varying degrees
of subjective belief.
ii. Both draw their conclusions from given data in the world, and have ways of testing
given data.
iii. Religious beliefs are similar to scientific beliefs as systematic beliefs.
DIALOGUE, CONT.
III. Dialogue
2. Methodological Parallels
b. Differences:
i. Science is clearly more objective than religion
ii. Religion has a much more difficult time testing its data (religious beliefs)
iii. Religion really is dealing with more than an intellectual system, but rather a way of
life, lacking a necessary system or even a reason to test its beliefs
DIALOGUE, CONT.
III. Dialogue
3. Nature Centered Spirituality
a. Both science and religion are both looking at nature to confirm and verify
their respective beliefs
b. Look at the holism of quantum physics and the spiritualism of Eastern
religions
c. New age religions look to nature for validation of their beliefs the same
way that science looks at nature
INTEGRATION: NATURAL THEOLOGY
CONFIRMATION THEORY
IV. Integration
• In a systematic synthesis, both science and religion contribute to the
development of an inclusive metaphysics, such as that of process
philosophy.
1. Natural Theology
a. Confirmation Theory:
i. We take evidence provided by the natural world, and from there we conclude X. (we
use science to prove a religious belief)
1. It is plausible that there is God that orders the world.
2. The universe is highly ordered
3. That elevates the probability of God
4. Thus Theism is more probable than not
INTEGRATION: NATURAL THEOLOGY
THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
IV. Integration, cont.
1. Natural Theology, cont.
b. The Anthropic Principle
i. If conditions weren’t right for us to be here, we wouldn’t very well be here to remark on
the fact.
ii. The Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in
physics have one strange thing in common–these are precisely the values you need if you
want to have a universe capable of producing life.
1. Strong Force:
(short range, strength 1)
2. Electromagnetism: (long range, strength 1/100)
3. Weak Force:
(very short, strength 1/100,000)
4. Gravity:
(long range, strength 1/1039)
5. As divergent in strength as these forces are, very slight changes in any would be disastrous.
iii.This cannot be chance, this has to be God.
INTEGRATION: THEOLOGY OF NATURE
IV. Integration
2. Theology of Nature
a. Starts from theological beliefs and historical revelation.
b. Scientific discoveries demand that some traditional doctrines be
reconsidered.
c. Environmental Scientific Design (a move to use theological doctrines to
environmental needs):
i. Stewardship of Nature
ii. Celebration of Nature
iii. A Sacramental View of Nature
iv. The Holy Spirit in Nature
INTEGRATION: SYSTEMIC SYNTHESIS
IV. Integration
3. Systematic Synthesis
a. Process Philosophy
i. God is in charge of novelty, order, and Creation.
1. We are to look at nature and at the world and see how Creation is a continuing process in
the development of Earth, the Solar System and the Universe
2. God is ultimately in charge
3. Science gives us factual insight, but Religion gives us moral, and philosophical insight into
the ultimate reality.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

error: Content is protected !!