List of science and religion scholars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a list of notable individuals who have focused on studying the intersection of science and religion.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.codenamegod.org/
  2. ^ Issues in Science and Religion pp. 189, 202, 335
  3. ^ Arthur Peacocke, Science and the Christian Experiment, Oxford University Press, 1971, in the preface (p.vii) writes "These [issues] have been most magisterially surveyed by I. G. Barour in his Issues in Science and Religion (London, 1966) and I willingly refer the reader to that work for a systematic and documented account."
  4. ^ Issues in Science and Religion pp. 34, 36, 51, 77
  5. ^ a b Ian Barbour in Science and Religion: New Perspectives on the Dialogue (1968) (p.xi) writes

    "The problem of Part Two is the relation between religion and the methods of science. Is the scientific method the only path to knowledge? Are theology and science similar enterprises (as Coulson and Schilling argue) or are they radically different (as Evans suggests)? Such questions about the relation of religion to science as a way of knowing are more basic than problems arising from particular scientific theories. Many persons today find that their religious beliefs are challenged not by any specific scientific discoveries but by the conviction that assertions in science can be proven while those in religion cannot. Science has been one of the influences on the "death of God" movement, as Ferre's essay indicates. Both Ferre and Evans provide careful philosophical analyses of the problem of verifying or evaluating theological statements. The central issue of Part Two, then, is the status of religious beliefs in an age of science.

  6. ^ Hough, Adrian (2006). "Not a Gap in Sight: Fifty Years of Charles Coulson's Science and Christian Belief". Theology Volume 109: pp.21-27.

    "With suitable changes of language and illustration, Coulson's Science and Christian Belief could be rewritten for the present day without having to remove any of his fundamental arguments. Indeed, his observation that the rise of science has led to a loss of tradition throughout the world is a view which is now held very widely as well as being a noted cause for concern."

  7. ^ Ian Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (1966), p.133, cites Arthur Eddington's The Nature of the Physical World (1928)--for a text that argues The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principles provides a scientific basis for "the defense of the idea of human freedom"--and his Science and the Unseen World (1929)--for support of philosophical idealism "the thesis that reality is basically mental"
  8. ^ Reviews in Science and Religion
  9. ^ Issues in Science and Religion pp. 130, 314, 334, 444, 445, 446, 447, 457
  10. ^ The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science pp. 184, 187, 189, 190, 191, 193, 196, 201, 348, 379, 690-1, 698, 898
  11. ^ a b c d e f The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science Philip Clayton(ed.), Zachary Simpson(associate-ed.)--Hardcover 2006, paperback July 2008-Oxford University Press, 1023 pages
  12. ^ Arthur Peacocke, The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, 1981, University of Notre Dame Press, ISBN 0-268-01704-2, p. xvii, "The volume ends with a retrospective survey by my co-chairman at the Symposium, Professor Mary Hesse, together with a few comments on that survey by some of the authors."
  13. ^ The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science pp. 304-5, 306
  14. ^ Review found in Saul A. Teukolsky (Cornell University) Physics Today, April 2002, p. 81-82
  15. ^ Ian Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (1966), p.166, writes "Theories as Mental Structures (Idealism)...The philosophical idealism exemplified by Eddington, Jeans, and Milne finds few supporters today, but a modified neo-Kantianism is found in Cassirer, Margenau, and in a somewhat different form among continental physicists such as von Weizsacker." and on page 167, "As compared with the actual practice of the scientific community, the views of Eddington and Milne neglect the experimental side, just as positivism neglects the theoretical side."
  16. ^ editorial committee member of The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science Philip Clayton(ed.), Zachary Simpson(associate-ed.)--Hardcover 2006, paperback July 2008-Oxford University Press, 1023 pages, page v
  17. ^ Arthur Peacocke, Science and the Christian Experiment, Oxford University Press, 1971, on page 122 writes "I.T. Ramsey has analysed the logical form of creation ex nihilo into the analogical model, 'creation', which is a word used of human beings making paintings, symphonies, etc. out of something or by means of something..."
  18. ^ Ian Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (1966), p. 246 writes "Theologian Ian Ramsey finds that the distinctive function of religious language is the evocation of commitment. Its logical structure is similar to that of statements about dominant personal loyalties: a man's devotion to his nation, a captain's loyalty to his ship, a man's love for his wife."
  19. ^ Ian Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (1966), p. 152 writes "The scientific community, like any group in society, has a set of attitudes which are influenced by but not identical with those of the culture at large. Schilling ["A Human Enterprise" Science, June 6, 1958, Vol. 127, p.1324] gives a vivid portrayal:

    It has its own ideals and characteristic way of life; its own standards, mores, conventions, signs and symbols, language and jargon, professional ethics, sanctions and controls, authority, institutions and organizations, publications; its own creeds and beliefs, orthodoxies and heresies--and effective ways of dealing with the latter. This community is affected, as are other communities, by the usual vagaries, adequacies, and shortcomings of human beings. It has its politics, its pulling and hauling, its pressure groups; its differing schools of thought, its divisions and schisms; its personal loyalties and animosities, jealousies, hatreds, and rallying cries; its fads and fashions.

  20. ^ Mary B. Hesse reviews his book Science and Religion: An Interpretation of Two Communities in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 3, Issue 1, (Autumn, 1963), page 112-113, where she writes

    "There remain however persistent, half-conscious, impressions among the religious that science is somehow a danger to true spirituality, and among the non-religious that science has once and for all refuted the claims of religion. Professor Schilling's book has the important merit of taking seriously the intellectual and social aspects of these half-conscious impressions, and of showing how mis- taken is the belief that science and religion can go their separate ways in utter disregard of each other. ...reading this book no one ought to doubt that the stereotypes described at the outset are not merely caricatures, but serious distortions. But still the synthetic view which is surely the aim of the book somehow fails to come across with the requisite punch. Is this because yet deeper issues remain to be discussed? Can the claim of Christianity to be based on experience in a way parallel to science really be sustained? And if not, then what is its relation to expe- rience? And what about the vexed question of religious language?"

  21. ^ http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/.../TAD24-1-fnl-pg32-38-pdf.pdf