Relationship between religion and science
The relationship between religion and science involves discussions that interconnect the study of the
Since then the relationship between science and religion has been characterized in terms of "conflict", "harmony", "complexity", and "mutual independence", among others.Both
Events in Europe such as the
Many
History
Concepts of science and religion
The concepts of "science" and "religion" are a recent invention: "religion" emerged in the 17th century in the midst of colonization, globalization and as a consequence of the Protestant reformation. "Science" emerged in the 19th century in the midst of attempts to narrowly define those who studied nature.[2][4][6][17] Originally what is now known as "science" was pioneered as "natural philosophy".
It was in the 19th century that the terms "Buddhism", "Hinduism", "Taoism", "Confucianism" and "World Religions" first emerged.[4][18][19] In the ancient and medieval world, the etymological Latin roots of both science (scientia) and religion (religio) were understood as inner qualities of the individual or virtues, never as doctrines, practices, or actual sources of knowledge.[4]
The 19th century also experienced the concept of "science" receiving its modern shape with new titles emerging such as "biology" and "biologist", "physics", and "physicist", among other technical fields and titles; institutions and communities were founded, and unprecedented applications to and interactions with other aspects of society and culture occurred.
It was in the 17th century that the concept of "religion" received its modern shape despite the fact that ancient texts like the Bible, the Quran, and other texts did not have a concept of religion in the original languages and neither did the people or the cultures in which these texts were written.[5][19] In the 19th century, Max Müller noted that what is called ancient religion today, would have been called "law" in antiquity.[22] For example, there is no precise equivalent of "religion" in Hebrew, and Judaism does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities.[23] The Sanskrit word "dharma", sometimes translated as "religion", also means law or duty. Throughout classical India, the study of law consisted of concepts such as penance through piety and ceremonial as well as practical traditions. Medieval Japan at first had a similar union between "imperial law" and universal or "Buddha law", but these later became independent sources of power.[24][25] Throughout its long history, Japan had no concept of "religion" since there was no corresponding Japanese word, nor anything close to its meaning, but when American warships appeared off the coast of Japan in 1853 and forced the Japanese government to sign treaties demanding, among other things, freedom of religion, the country had to contend with this Western idea.[26]
Middle Ages and Renaissance
The development of sciences (especially natural philosophy) in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, has a considerable foundation in the works of the Arabs who translated Greek and Latin compositions.[27] The works of Aristotle played a major role in the institutionalization, systematization, and expansion of reason. Christianity accepted reason within the ambit of faith. In Christendom, ideas articulated via divine revelation were assumed to be true, and thus via the law of non-contradiction, it was maintained that the natural world must accord with this revealed truth. Any apparent contradiction would indicate either a misunderstanding of the natural world or a misunderstanding of revelation. The prominent scholastic Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa Theologica concerning apparent contradictions:
"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." (Summa 1a, 68, 1)[28]
where the referenced text from Augustine of Hippo reads:
"In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture." (Gen. ad lit. i, 18)[29]
In medieval universities, the faculty for natural philosophy and theology were separate, and discussions pertaining to theological issues were often not allowed to be undertaken by the faculty of philosophy.[30][page needed] Natural philosophy, as taught in the arts faculties of the universities, was seen as an essential area of study in its own right and was considered necessary for almost every area of study. It was an independent field, separated from theology, and enjoyed a good deal of intellectual freedom as long as it was restricted to the natural world. In general, there was religious support for natural science by the late Middle Ages and a recognition that it was an important element of learning.[27]
The extent to which medieval science led directly to the new philosophy of the scientific revolution remains a subject for debate, but it certainly had a significant influence.[31]
The Middle Ages laid ground for the developments that took place in science, during the Renaissance which immediately succeeded it.[31][32] By 1630, ancient authority from classical literature and philosophy, as well as their necessity, started eroding, although scientists were still expected to be fluent in Latin, the international language of Europe's intellectuals. With the sheer success of science and the steady advance of rationalism, the individual scientist gained prestige.[31] Along with the inventions of this period, especially the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg, allowing for the dissemination of the Bible in languages of the common people (languages other than Latin). This allowed more people to read and learn from the scripture, leading to the Evangelical movement. The people who spread this message concentrated more on individual agency rather than the structures of the Church.[33]
Medieval Contributors
Some medieval contributors to science included:
Modern period
In the 17th century, founders of the Royal Society largely held conventional and orthodox religious views, and a number of them were prominent Churchmen.[35] While theological issues that had the potential to be divisive were typically excluded from formal discussions of the early Society, many of its fellows nonetheless believed that their scientific activities provided support for traditional religious belief.[36] Clerical involvement in the Royal Society remained high until the mid-nineteenth century when science became more professionalized.[37]
Albert Einstein supported the compatibility of some interpretations of religion with science. In "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium" published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York in 1941, Einstein stated:
Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.[38]
Einstein thus expresses views of ethical non-naturalism (contrasted to ethical naturalism).
Prominent modern scientists who are
Perspectives
The kinds of interactions that might arise between science and religion have been categorized by theologian, Anglican priest, and physicist John Polkinghorne: (1) conflict between the disciplines, (2) independence of the disciplines, (3) dialogue between the disciplines where they overlap and (4) integration of both into one field.[40]
This typology is similar to ones used by theologians
Incompatibility
"Not only is science corrosive to religion; religion is corrosive to science. It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural non-explanations and blinds them to the wonderful real explanations that we have within our grasp. It teaches them to accept authority, revelation and faith instead of always insisting on evidence."--Richard Dawkins[44]
According to Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C and Avelina Espinosa, the historical
According to
According to Renny Thomas' study on Indian scientists, atheistic scientists in India called themselves atheists even while accepting that their lifestyle is very much a part of tradition and religion. Thus, they differ from Western atheists in that for them following the lifestyle of a religion is not antithetical to atheism.[57]
Criticism
Others such as Francis Collins, George F. R. Ellis, Kenneth R. Miller, Katharine Hayhoe, George Coyne and Simon Conway Morris argue for compatibility since they do not agree that science is incompatible with religion and vice versa. They argue that science provides many opportunities to look for and find God in nature and to reflect on their beliefs.[58] According to Kenneth Miller, he disagrees with Jerry Coyne's assessment and argues that since significant portions of scientists are religious and the proportion of Americans believing in evolution is much higher, it implies that both are indeed compatible.[47] Elsewhere, Miller has argued that when scientists make claims on science and theism or atheism, they are not arguing scientifically at all and are stepping beyond the scope of science into discourses of meaning and purpose. What he finds particularly odd and unjustified is in how atheists often come to invoke scientific authority on their non-scientific philosophical conclusions like there being no point or no meaning to the universe as the only viable option when the scientific method and science never have had any way of addressing questions of meaning or God in the first place. Furthermore, he notes that since evolution made the brain and since the brain can handle both religion and science, there is no natural incompatibility between the concepts at the biological level.[59]
Karl Giberson argues that when discussing compatibility, some scientific intellectuals often ignore the viewpoints of intellectual leaders in theology and instead argue against less informed masses, thereby, defining religion by non-intellectuals and slanting the debate unjustly. He argues that leaders in science sometimes trump older scientific baggage and that leaders in theology do the same, so once theological intellectuals are taken into account, people who represent extreme positions like Ken Ham and Eugenie Scott will become irrelevant.[47] Cynthia Tolman notes that religion does not have a method per se partly because religions emerge through time from diverse cultures, but when it comes to Christian theology and ultimate truths, she notes that people often rely on scripture, tradition, reason, and experience to test and gauge what they experience and what they should believe.[60]
Conflict thesis
The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history, was popularized in the 19th century by John William Draper's and Andrew Dickson White's accounts. It was in the 19th century that relationship between science and religion became an actual formal topic of discourse, while before this no one had pitted science against religion or vice versa, though occasional complex interactions had been expressed before the 19th century.[61] Most contemporary historians of science now reject the conflict thesis in its original form and no longer support it.[62][14][63][64][65][66] Instead, it has been superseded by subsequent historical research which has resulted in a more nuanced understanding.[67][68] Historian of science, Gary Ferngren, has stated: "Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule."[69]
Most historians today have moved away from a conflict model, which is based mainly on two historical episodes (Galileo and Darwin), toward compatibility theses (either the integration thesis or non-overlapping magisteria) or toward a "complexity" model, because religious figures were on both sides of each dispute and there was no overall aim by any party involved to discredit religion.[70]
An often cited example of conflict, that has been clarified by historical research in the 20th century, was the Galileo affair, whereby interpretations of the Bible were used to attack ideas by
The actual evidences that finally proved heliocentrism came centuries after Galileo: the stellar aberration of light by James Bradley in the 18th century, the orbital motions of binary stars by William Herschel in the 19th century, the accurate measurement of the stellar parallax in the 19th century, and Newtonian mechanics in the 17th century.[75][76] According to physicist Christopher Graney, Galileo's own observations did not actually support the Copernican view, but were more consistent with Tycho Brahe's hybrid model where that Earth did not move and everything else circled around it and the Sun.[77]
British philosopher A. C. Grayling, still believes there is competition between science and religions in areas related to the origin of the universe, the nature of human beings and the possibility of miracles.[78]
Independence
A modern view, described by
The USA's National Academy of Sciences supports the view that science and religion are independent.[82]
Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to put science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.[82]
According to Archbishop
In the view of the
Parallels in method
According to
Two physicists,
Dialogue
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."--Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark[86]
The religion and science community consists of those scholars who involve themselves with what has been called the "religion-and-science dialogue" or the "religion-and-science field."
The modern dialogue between religion and science is rooted in Ian Barbour's 1966 book Issues in Science and Religion.[92] Since that time it has grown into a serious academic field, with academic chairs in the subject area, and two dedicated academic journals, Zygon and Theology and Science.[92] Articles are also sometimes found in mainstream science journals such as American Journal of Physics[93] and Science.[39][94]
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued that there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion, and that there is deep conflict between science and naturalism.[95] Plantinga, in his book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, heavily contests the linkage of naturalism with science, as conceived by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and like-minded thinkers; while Daniel Dennett thinks that Plantinga stretches science to an unacceptable extent.[96] Philosopher Maarten Boudry, in reviewing the book, has commented that he resorts to creationism and fails to "stave off the conflict between theism and evolution."[97] Cognitive scientist Justin L. Barrett, by contrast, reviews the same book and writes that "those most needing to hear Plantinga's message may fail to give it a fair hearing for rhetorical rather than analytical reasons."[98]
Integration
As a general view, this holds that while interactions are complex between influences of science, theology, politics, social, and economic concerns, the productive engagements between science and religion throughout history should be duly stressed as the norm.
Scientific and theological perspectives often coexist peacefully. Christians and some non-Christian religions have historically integrated well with scientific ideas, as in the
Individual religions
Baháʼí Faith
A fundamental principle of the
Buddhism
Christianity
Among early Christian teachers,
Earlier attempts at reconciliation of Christianity with
Christian philosophers Augustine of Hippo (354–430) and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)[109] held that scriptures can have multiple interpretations on certain areas where the matters were far beyond their reach, therefore one should leave room for future findings to shed light on the meanings. The "Handmaiden" tradition, which saw secular studies of the universe as a very important and helpful part of arriving at a better understanding of scripture, was adopted throughout Christian history from early on.[110] Also the sense that God created the world as a self operating system is what motivated many Christians throughout the Middle Ages to investigate nature.[111]
Modern historians of science such as
David C. Lindberg states that the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a time of ignorance and superstition due to the Christian church is a "caricature". According to Lindberg, while there are some portions of the classical tradition which suggest this view, these were exceptional cases. It was common to tolerate and encourage critical thinking about the nature of the world. The relation between Christianity and science is complex and cannot be simplified to either harmony or conflict, according to Lindberg.[117] Lindberg reports that "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led. There was no warfare between science and the church."[118] Ted Peters in Encyclopedia of Religion writes that although there is some truth in the "Galileo's condemnation" story but through exaggerations, it has now become "a modern myth perpetuated by those wishing to see warfare between science and religion who were allegedly persecuted by an atavistic and dogma-bound ecclesiastical authority".[119] In 1992, the Catholic Church's seeming vindication of Galileo attracted much comment in the media.
A degree of concord between science and religion can be seen in religious belief and empirical science. The belief that God created the world and therefore humans, can lead to the view that he arranged for humans to know the world. This is underwritten by the doctrine of
During the Enlightenment, a period "characterized by dramatic revolutions in science" and the rise of Protestant challenges to the authority of the Catholic Church via individual liberty, the authority of Christian scriptures became strongly challenged. As science advanced, acceptance of a literal version of the Bible became "increasingly untenable" and some in that period presented ways of interpreting scripture according to its spirit on its authority and truth.[121]
After the Black Death in Europe, there occurred a generalized decrease in faith in the Catholic Church. The "Natural Sciences" during the Medieval Era focused largely on scientific arguments.[122] The Copernicans, who were generally a small group of privately sponsored individuals, who were deemed Heretics by the Church in some instances. Copernicus and his work challenged the view held by the Catholic Church and the common scientific view at the time, yet according to scholar J. L. Heilbron, the Roman Catholic Church sometimes provided financial support to the Copernicans.[123] In doing so, the Church did support and promote scientific research when the goals in question were in alignment with those of the faith, so long as the findings were in line with the rhetoric of the Church.[124] A case example is the Catholic need for an accurate calendar. Calendar reform was a touchy subject: civilians doubted the accuracy of the mathematics and were upset that the process unfairly selected curators of the reform. The Roman Catholic Church needed a precise date for the Easter Sabbath, and thus the Church was highly supportive of calendar reform. The need for the correct date of Easter was also the impetus of cathedral construction.[123] Cathedrals essentially functioned as massive scale sun dials and, in some cases, camera obscuras. They were efficient scientific devices because they rose high enough for their naves to determine the summer and winter solstices. Heilbron contends that as far back as the twelfth century, the Roman Catholic Church was funding scientific discovery and the recovery of ancient Greek scientific texts. However, the Copernican revolution challenged the view held the Catholic Church and placed the Sun at the center of the Solar System.[125]
Perspectives on evolution
In recent history, the theory of
Most scientists have rejected creation science for several reasons, including that its claims do not refer to natural causes and cannot be tested. In 1987, the
Roman Catholicism
While refined and clarified over the centuries, the
Galileo once stated "The intention of the
Pope Francis, in his encyclical letter Laudato si', affirms his opinion that "science and religion, with their distinctive approaches to understanding reality, can enter into an intense dialogue fruitful for both".[140]
Influence of a biblical worldview on early modern science
According to
Oxford historian Peter Harrison is another who has argued that a biblical worldview was significant for the development of modern science. Harrison contends that Protestant approaches to the book of scripture had significant, if largely unintended, consequences for the interpretation of the book of nature.[149] [page needed] Harrison has also suggested that literal readings of the Genesis narratives of the Creation and Fall motivated and legitimated scientific activity in seventeenth-century England. For many of its seventeenth-century practitioners, science was imagined to be a means of restoring a human dominion over nature that had been lost as a consequence of the Fall.[150][page needed]
Historian and professor of religion
Protestantism had an important influence on science. According to the
Some scholars have noted a direct tie between "particular aspects of traditional Christianity" and the rise of science.[161] Other scholars and historians attribute Christianity to having contributed to the rise of the Scientific Revolution.[162]
Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century
In Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain, historian of biology
In the 20th century, several
Confucianism and traditional Chinese religion
The historical process of Confucianism has largely been antipathic towards scientific discovery. However the religio-philosophical system itself is more neutral on the subject than such an analysis might suggest. In his writings On Heaven,
The Jesuits from Europe taught Western math and science to the Chinese bureaucrats in hopes of religious conversion. This process saw several challenges of both European and Chinese spiritual and scientific beliefs. The keynote text of Chinese scientific philosophy, The Book of Changes (or Yi Jing) was initially mocked and disregarded by the Westerners.[168] In return, Confucian scholars Dai Zhen and Ji Yun found the concept of phantoms laughable and ridiculous. The Book of Changes outlined orthodoxy cosmology in the Qing, including yin and yang and the five cosmic phases.[168] Sometimes the missionary exploits proved dangerous for the Westerners. Jesuit missionaries and scholars Ferdinand Vervbiest and Adam Schall were punished after using scientific methods to determine the exact time of the 1664 eclipse.[169] However, the European mission eastward did not only cause conflict. Joachim Bouvet, a theologian who held equal respect for both the Bible and the Book of Changes, was productive in his mission of spreading the Christian faith.[169]
After the May Fourth Movement, attempts to modernize Confucianism and reconcile it with scientific understanding were attempted by many scholars including Feng Youlan and Xiong Shili. Given the close relationship that Confucianism shares with Buddhism, many of the same arguments used to reconcile Buddhism with science also readily translate to Confucianism. However, modern scholars have also attempted to define the relationship between science and Confucianism on Confucianism's own terms and the results have usually led to the conclusion that Confucianism and science are fundamentally compatible.[170]
Hinduism
In
Samkhya, the oldest school of Hindu philosophy prescribes a particular method to analyze knowledge. According to Samkhya, all knowledge is possible through three means of valid knowledge[176][177] –
- Pratyakṣa or Dṛṣṭam – direct sense perception,
- Anumāna – logical inference and
- Śabda or Āptavacana – verbal testimony.
The accounts of the emergence of life within the universe vary in description, but classically the
The
As per Vedas, another explanation for the creation is based on the five elements: earth, water, fire, air and aether. The Hindu religion traces its beginnings to the Vedas. Everything that is established in the Hindu faith such as the gods and goddesses, doctrines, chants, spiritual insights, etc. flow from the poetry of
Jainism
Biology
Jainism classifies life into two main divisions those who are static by nature (sthavar) and those who are mobile (trasa).[187]
Jain texts describes life in plant long before
Jainism and non-creationism
Islam
From an Islamic standpoint, science, the study of
Ibn al-Haytham described his theology:I constantly sought knowledge and truth, and it became my belief that for gaining access to the effulgence and closeness to God, there is no better way than that of searching for truth and knowledge.[203]
With the decline of Islamic Civilizations in the late Middle Ages and the rise of Europe, the Islamic scientific tradition shifted into a new period. Institutions that had existed for centuries in the Muslim world looked to the new scientific institutions of European powers.[citation needed] This changed the practice of science in the Muslim world, as Islamic scientists had to confront the western approach to scientific learning, which was based on a different philosophy of nature.[190] From the time of this initial upheaval of the Islamic scientific tradition to the present day, Muslim scientists and scholars have developed a spectrum of viewpoints on the place of scientific learning within the context of Islam, none of which are universally accepted or practiced.[204] However, most maintain the view that the acquisition of knowledge and scientific pursuit in general is not in disaccord with Islamic thought and religious belief.[190][204]
During the thirteenth century, the Caliphate system in the Islamic Empire fell, and scientific discovery thrived.[205] The Islamic Civilization has a long history of scientific advancement; and their theological practices catalyzed a great deal of scientific discovery. In fact, it was due to necessities of Muslim worship and their vast empire that much science and philosophy was created.[206] People needed to know in which direction they needed to pray toward to face Mecca. Many historians through time have asserted that all modern science originates from ancient Greek scholarship; but scholars like Martin Bernal have claimed that most ancient Greek scholarship relied heavily on the work of scholars from ancient Egypt and the Levant.[206] Ancient Egypt was the foundational site of the Hermetic School, which believed that the sun represented an invisible God. Amongst other things, Islamic civilization was key because it documented and recorded Greek scholarship.
Ahmadiyya
The
The
Holy Quran directs attention towards science, time and again, rather than evoking prejudice against it. The Quran has never advised against studying science, lest the reader should become a non-believer; because it has no such fear or concern. The Holy Quran is not worried that if people will learn the laws of nature its spell will break. The Quran has not prevented people from science, rather it states, "Say, 'Reflect on what is happening in the heavens and the earth.'" (Al Younus)[210]
Surveys on scientists and the general public
Scientists
Between 1901 and 2000, 654 Nobel prize laureates belonged to 28 different religions. Most (65%) have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference. Specifically on the science-related prizes,
According to scholar
Global
According to a global study on scientists, a significant portion of scientists around the world have religious identities, beliefs, and practices overall.[213] Furthermore, the majority of scientists do not believe there is inherent conflict in being religious and a scientist and stated that "the conflict perspective on science and religion is an invention of the West" since such a view is not prevalent among most of scientists around the world.[213] Instead of seeing religion and science as 'always in conflict' they rather view it through the lenses of various cultural dimensions to the relations between religion and science.[214]
Europe
According to a study from 2023 "30–39% of Western-European researchers identify with “some religious affiliation”. "30–37% of scientists identify as non-believers or atheists, and an additional 10–28% as agnostic (with wide geographical differences)".[215]
United States
In 1916, 1,000 leading American scientists were randomly chosen from American Men of Science and 42% believed God existed, 42% disbelieved, and 17% had doubts/did not know; however, when the study was replicated 80 years later using American Men and Women of Science in 1996, the results were very much the same with 39% believing God exists, 45% disbelieved, and 15% had doubts/did not know.[39][216] In the same 1996 survey, for scientists in the fields of biology, mathematics, and physics/astronomy, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" was most popular among mathematicians (about 45%) and least popular among physicists (about 22%).[216]
In terms of belief in God among elite scientists, such as "great scientists" in the "American Men of Science" or members of the National Academies of Science; 53% disbelieved, 21% were agnostic, and 28% believed in 1914; 68% disbelieved, 17% were agnostic, and 15% believed in 1933; and 72% disbelieved, 21% were agnostic, and 7% believed in 1998.[217] However Eugenie Scott argued that there are methodological issues in the study, including ambiguity in the questions such using a personal definition of God instead of broader definitions of God. A study with simplified wording to include impersonal or non-interventionist ideas of God concluded that 40% of "prominent scientists" in the US believe in a god.[218]
Others have also observed some methodological issues which impacted the results.[219][220]
A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by
In terms of perceptions, most social and natural scientists from 21 American universities did not perceive conflict between science and religion, while 37% did. However, in the study, scientists who had experienced limited exposure to religion tended to perceive conflict.[227] In the same study they found that nearly one in five atheist scientists who are parents (17%) are part of religious congregations and have attended a religious service more than once in the past year. Some of the reasons for doing so are their scientific identity (wishing to expose their children to all sources of knowledge so they can make up their own minds), spousal influence, and desire for community.[228][229]
A 2009 report by the Pew Research Center found that members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) were "much less religious than the general public," with 51% believing in some form of deity or higher power. Specifically, 33% of those polled believe in God, 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power, and 41% did not believe in either God or a higher power.[230][231] 48% say they have a religious affiliation, equal to the number who say they are not affiliated with any religious tradition. 17% were atheists, 11% were agnostics, 20% were nothing in particular, 8% were Jewish, 10% were Catholic, 16% were Protestant, 4% were Evangelical, 10% were other religion. The survey also found younger scientists to be "substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God". Among the surveyed fields, chemists were the most likely to say they believe in God.[232]
Elaine Ecklund conducted a study from 2011 to 2014 involving the general US population, including rank and file scientists, in collaboration with the AAAS. The study noted that 76% of the scientists identified with a religious tradition. 85% of evangelical scientists had no doubts about the existence of God, compared to 35% of the whole scientific population. In terms of religion and science, 85% of evangelical scientists saw no conflict (73% collaboration, 12% independence), while 75% of the whole scientific population saw no conflict (40% collaboration, 35% independence).[233]
Religious beliefs of US professors were examined using a nationally representative sample of more than 1,400 professors. They found that in the social sciences: 23% did not believe in God, 16% did not know if God existed, 43% believed God existed, and 16% believed in a higher power. Out of the natural sciences: 20% did not believe in God, 33% did not know if God existed, 44% believed God existed, and 4% believed in a higher power. Overall, out of the whole study: 10% were atheists, 13% were agnostic, 19% believe in a higher power, 4% believe in God some of the time, 17% had doubts but believed in God, 35% believed in God and had no doubts.[234]
In 2005, Farr Curlin, a University of Chicago Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, noted in a study that doctors tend to be science-minded religious people. He helped author a study that "found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife." Furthermore, "90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults." He reasoned, "The responsibility to care for those who are suffering and the rewards of helping those in need resonate throughout most religious traditions.".[235] A study from 2017 showed 65% of physicians believe in God.[236]
Other countries
According to the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture's report on 1,100 scientists in India: 66% are Hindu, 14% did not report a religion, 10% are atheist/no religion, 3% are Muslim, 3% are Christian, 4% are Buddhist, Sikh or other.[237] 39% have a belief in a god, 6% have belief in a god sometimes, 30% do not believe in a god but believe in a higher power, 13% do not know if there is a god, and 12% do not believe in a god.[237] 49% believe in the efficacy of prayer, 90% strongly agree or somewhat agree with approving degrees in Ayurvedic medicine. Furthermore, the term "secularism" is understood to have diverse and simultaneous meanings among Indian scientists: 93% believe it to be tolerance of religions and philosophies, 83% see it as involving separation of church and state, 53% see it as not identifying with religious traditions, 40% see it as absence of religious beliefs, and 20% see it as atheism. Accordingly, 75% of Indian scientists had a "secular" outlook in terms of being tolerant of other religions.[237]
According to the Religion Among Scientists in International Context (RASIC) study on 1,581 scientists from the United Kingdom and 1,763 scientists from India, along with 200 interviews: 65% of U.K. scientists identified as nonreligious and only 6% of Indian scientists identify as nonreligious, 12% of scientists in the U.K. attend religious services on a regular basis and 32% of scientists in India do.[238] In terms of the Indian scientists, 73% of scientists responded that there are basic truths in many religions, 27% said they believe in God and 38% expressed belief in a higher power of some kind.[238] In terms of perceptions of conflict between science and religion, less than half of both U.K. scientists (38%) and Indian scientists (18%) perceived conflict between religion and science.[238]
General public
Global studies which have pooled data on religion and science from 1981 to 2001, have noted that countries with greater faith in science also often have stronger religious beliefs, while less religious countries have more skepticism of the impact of science and technology.[239]
Other research cites the National Science Foundation's finding that America has more favorable public attitudes towards science than Europe, Russia, and Japan despite differences in levels of religiosity in these cultures.[240]
Other cross-national studies studies have found no correlations supporting the contention that religiosity undermines interest in science topics or activities among the general populations globally.[241]
Cross-cultural studies indicate that people tend to use both natural and supernatural explanations for explaining numerous things about the world such as illness, death, and origins. In other words, they do not think of natural and supernatural explanations as antagonistic or dichotomous, but instead see them as coexisting and complementary.[242][243] The reconciliation of natural and supernatural explanations is normal and pervasive from a psychological standpoint across cultures.[244]
Europe
A study conducted on adolescents from Christian schools in Northern Ireland, noted a positive relationship between attitudes towards Christianity and science once attitudes towards scientism and creationism were accounted for.[245]
A study on people from Sweden concludes that though the Swedes are among the most non-religious, paranormal beliefs are prevalent among both the young and adult populations. This is likely due to a loss of confidence in institutions such as the Church and Science.[246]
Concerning specific topics like creationism, it is not an exclusively American phenomenon. A poll on adult Europeans revealed that 40% believed in naturalistic evolution, 21% in theistic evolution, 20% in special creation, and 19% are undecided; with the highest concentrations of young earth creationists in Switzerland (21%), Austria (20%), Germany (18%).[247] Other countries such as Netherlands, Britain, and Australia have experienced growth in such views as well.[247]
United States
According to a 2015 Pew Research Center Study on the public perceptions on science, people's perceptions on conflict with science have more to do with their perceptions of other people's beliefs than their own personal beliefs. For instance, the majority of people with a religious affiliation (68%) saw no conflict between their own personal religious beliefs and science while the majority of those without a religious affiliation (76%) perceived science and religion to be in conflict.[248] The study noted that people who are not affiliated with any religion, also known as "religiously unaffiliated", often have supernatural beliefs and spiritual practices despite them not being affiliated with any religion[248][249][250] and also that "just one-in-six religiously unaffiliated adults (16%) say their own religious beliefs conflict with science."[248] Furthermore, the study observed, "The share of all adults who perceive a conflict between science and their own religious beliefs has declined somewhat in recent years, from 36% in 2009 to 30% in 2014. Among those who are affiliated with a religion, the share of people who say there is a conflict between science and their personal religious beliefs dropped from 41% to 34% during this period."[248]
The 2013 MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins examined the views of religious people in America on origins science topics like evolution, the Big Bang, and perceptions of conflicts between science and religion. It found that a large majority of religious people see no conflict between science and religion and only 11% of religious people belong to religions openly rejecting evolution. The fact that the gap between personal and official beliefs of their religions is so large suggests that part of the problem, might be defused by people learning more about their own religious doctrine and the science it endorses, thereby bridging this belief gap. The study concluded that "mainstream religion and mainstream science are neither attacking one another nor perceiving a conflict." Furthermore, they note that this conciliatory view is shared by most leading science organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).[251]
A study was made in collaboration with the AAAS collecting data on the general public from 2011 to 2014, with the focus on evangelicals and evangelical scientists. Even though evangelicals make up only 26% of the US population, the study found that nearly 70 percent of all evangelical Christians do not view science and religion as being in conflict with each other (48% saw them as complementary and 21% saw them as independent) while 73% of the general US population saw no conflict either.[233][252]
According to Elaine Ecklund's study, the majority of religious groups see religion and science in collaboration or independent of each other, while the majority of groups without religion see science and religion in conflict.[253]
Other lines of research on perceptions of science among the American public conclude that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science and they have no differences with nonreligious groups in the propensity of seeking out scientific knowledge, although there may be subtle epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.[254][255] Findings from the Pew Center note similar findings and also note that the majority of Americans (80–90%) show strong support for scientific research, agree that science makes society and individual's lives better, and 8 in 10 Americans would be happy if their children were to become scientists.[256] Even strict creationists tend to have very favorable views on science.[240]
According to a 2007 poll by the
A 2009 study from the Pew Research Center on Americans perceptions of science, showed a broad consensus that most Americans, including most religious Americans, hold scientific research and scientists themselves in high regard. The study showed that 84% of Americans say they view science as having a mostly positive impact on society. Among those who attend religious services at least once a week, the number is roughly the same at 80%. Furthermore, 70% of U.S. adults think scientists contribute "a lot" to society.[258]
A 2011 study on a national sample of US college students examined whether these students viewed the science / religion relationship as reflecting primarily conflict, collaboration, or independence. The study concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move away from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than towards a conflict view.[259]
In the US, people who had no religious affiliation were no more likely than the religious population to have New Age beliefs and practices.[260]
See also
|
By tradition:
In the US:
|
|
References
- ISBN 9780226184517. Retrieved 22 May 2019.
So familiar are the concepts 'science' and 'religion,' and so central to Western culture have been the activities and achievements that are usually labeled 'religious' and 'scientific,' that it is natural to assume that they have been enduring features of the cultural landscape of the West. But this view is mistaken. [...] 'science' and 'religion' are concepts of relatively recent coinage [...].
- ^ ISBN 978-0226317830.
Indeed, prior to about the middle of the nineteenth century, the trope "science and religion" was virtually nonexistent.".."In fact, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries witnessed the creation of what one commentator called "whole libraries" devoted to reconciling religion and science. That estimate is confirmed by the data contained in figures 10.1 and 10.2, which reveal that what started as a trickle of books and articles addressing "science and religion" before 1850 became a torrent in the 1870s." (see Fig. 10.1 and 10.2)
- ISBN 9780226184517.
When did people first begin to speak about science and religion, using that precise terminology? As should now be apparent, this could not have been before the nineteenth century. When we consult written works for actual occurrences of the conjunction "science and religion" or "religion and science" in English publications, that is exactly what we discover (see figure 14).
- ^ ISBN 978-0-226-18448-7.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-300-15416-0.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-226-08928-7.
- ISBN 978-0-8028-2823-1.
Recognizing that science and religion are essentially social practices always performed by people living in certain cultural and historical situations should alert us to the fact that religion and science change over time.
- ISBN 978-0226317830.
- ISBN 978-0226482057.
- ^ Clegg, Brian. "The First Scientist: A Life of Roger Bacon". Carroll and Graf Publishers, NY, 2003
- ISBN 9781935191285.
Long before the birth of modern science and the appearance of "scientists" in the nineteenth century, the study of nature in the West was carried out by Christian scholars known as natural philosophers, who typically expressed a preference for natural explanations over divine mysteries." & "By the late Middle Ages the search for natural causes had come to typify the work of Christian natural philosophers. Although characteristically leaving the door open for the possibility of direct divine interventions, they frequently expressed contempt for soft-minded contemporaries who invoked miracles rather than searching for natural explanations.
- OCLC 1130904542.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link - Science and Islam, Jim Al-Khalili. BBC, 2009
- ^ ISBN 9780226750200.
In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the 'warfare between science and religion' and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science.
- ^ National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2008). Science, Evolution and Creationism. Vol. 105. National Academy of Sciences. pp. 3–4. )
- ^ National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2008). Science, Evolution and Creationism. Vol. 105. National Academy of Sciences. pp. 3–4. )
- ISBN 978-0-226-48214-9.
- ISBN 978-0-226-41234-4.
- ^ ISBN 9780470673508.
- ^ The Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the word "scientist" to 1834.
- ISBN 978-0-521-68957-1.
- ^ Max Müller. Introduction to the science of religion. p. 28.
- ^ Hershel Edelheit, Abraham J. Edelheit, History of Zionism: A Handbook and Dictionary, p. 3, citing Solomon Zeitlin, The Jews. Race, Nation, or Religion? ( Philadelphia: Dropsie College Press, 1936).
- ^ Kuroda, Toshio and Jacqueline I. Stone, translator. "The Imperial Law and the Buddhist Law" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 March 2003. Retrieved 28 May 2010.. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23.3–4 (1996)
- ^ Neil McMullin. Buddhism and the State in Sixteenth-Century Japan. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1984.
- ISBN 978-0-226-41234-4.
- ^ a b Grant, E. (12 December 1990). Science and Religion in the Middle Ages. Speech presented at "Science and Religion in the Middle Ages," in Harvard University, Cambridge
- ^ Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica, 1a, 8,1.
- ^ Augustine of Hippo. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, i, 18.
- ISBN 978-0-511-03262-2.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-06-130583-2. Retrieved 26 June 2023.
- ISBN 978-0-19-870256-6.
- ^ Szalay, Jessie (29 June 2016). "The Renaissance: The 'Rebirth' of Science & Culture". www.livescience.com. Retrieved 3 November 2017.
- ISBN 9780190053093.
- ^ Peter Harrison, 'Religion, the Royal Society, and the Rise of Science', Theology and Science, 6 (2008), 255–71.
- ^ Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal Society (London, 1667)
- ^ Frank Turner, 'The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension', Isis, 49 (1978) 356–76.
- ^ "Albert Einstein:Religion and Science". Sacred-texts.com. Retrieved 16 June 2013.
- ^ S2CID 39722460.
- ISBN 0-8006-3153-6 pp. 20–22, following Ian Barbour
- ISBN 978-1-4514-0985-7. Retrieved 26 June 2023.
- ISBN 978-0-8091-3606-3.
Throughout these pages we shall observe that there are at least four distinct ways in which science and religion can be related to each other: 1) Conflict – the conviction that science and religion are fundamentally irreconcilable; 2) Contrast – the claim that there can be no genuine conflict since religion and science are each responding to radically different questions; 3) Contact – an approach that looks for both dialogue and interaction, and possible "consonance" between science and religion, and especially for ways in which science shapes religious and theological understanding. 4) Confirmation – a somewhat quieter but extremely important perspective that highlights the ways in which, at a very deep level, religion supports and nourishes the entire scientific enterprise.
- ISBN 0-268-01704-2, pp. xiii–xv
- ^ Dawkins, Richard (16 April 2007). "Militant atheism". TED. TED Conferences, LLC. Retrieved 26 June 2023.
- ^ Paz-y-Miño-C G. & Espinosa A. (2014). "The Incompatibility Hypothesis: Evolution versus Supernatural Causation" (PDF). In Why Does Evolution Matter? The Importance of Understanding Evolution, edited by Gabriel Trueba. Newcastle UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 3–16. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 August 2016. Retrieved 4 April 2015.
The Incompatibility Hypothesis (IH) is an ultimate-level hypothesis. IH explains the cause of the controversy science-versus-religion, its fundamental reason. IH addresses directly the inquiry: what elicits the controversy science versus religion? And it offers an educated answer: their intrinsic and opposing approaches to assess reality, i.e. science by means of testing hypotheses, falsifying and/or testing predictions and replication of experiments; religion, in contrast, via belief in supernatural causality. Belief disrupts, distorts, delays or stops (3Ds + S) the comprehension and acceptance of scientific evidence. The authors consider the 3Ds + S to be cognitive effects of illusory thinking.
- ^ Paz-y-Miño-C G. & Espinosa A. (2013). "The Everlasting Conflict Evolution-and-science versus Religiosity" (PDF). In Religion and Ethics, edited by Gloria Simpson and Spencer Payne, New York, NY: NOVA Publishers. pp. 73–98. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 August 2016. Retrieved 4 April 2015.
- ^ a b c d e f Coyne, Jerry. "Does The Empirical Nature Of Science Contradict The Revelatory Nature Of Faith?". Edge. Retrieved 16 June 2013.
- Council for Secular Humanism. Archived from the originalon 5 March 2016. Retrieved 22 March 2008.
- ^ Porco, Carolyn. "The Greatest Story Ever Told". www.edge.org.
- ^ Prothero, Donald (25 September 2013). "Losing our religion". Skepticblog. Retrieved 21 August 2018.
- ^ "Scientific Literacy: How Do Americans Stack Up?". Michigan State University. Science Daily. 27 February 2007.
A slightly higher proportion of American adults qualify as scientifically literate than European or Japanese adults, but the truth is that no major industrial nation in the world today has a sufficient number of scientifically literate adults.
- ^ "Steven Weinberg on the Conflict Between Religion and Science".
- ^ "PZ Myers on how much science should accommodate religion". 18 October 2010.
- ^ Carroll, Sean (23 June 2009). "Science and Religion are Not Compatible". Sean Carroll Blog.
- ^ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Bantam Press, 2006, pp. 282–86.
- ^ Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Free Press, 2010, pp. 5–6.
- S2CID 171788110.
- ^ "Excerpts of Statements by Scientists Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science". National Academy of Sciences.
- ISBN 978-0-06-093049-3.
- ^ Tolman, Cynthia. "Methods in Religion". Malboro College. Archived from the original on 4 September 2015.
- ISBN 978-0-674-05741-8.
- ISBN 978-0-8018-7038-5.
The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science.
- ^ Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. p. 42.
In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited.
- ISBN 9780190053093.
The series of myths that Draper and White spread about science and religion are known today in the literature as the conflict thesis. Thanks to the dedicated and committed research of a band of specialists operating since the 1980s at least, the conflict thesis has now been thoroughly debunked. One by one, the tales spun out in Conflict and Warfare have been shown to be either entirely false, horribly misunderstood, or deliberately misrepresented... There is a clear, evidence-based consensus among this group: the conflict thesis is utter bunk.
- ISBN 9780674915473
- ISBN 978-0-8018-7038-5.
While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought."; "... while [John Hedley] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind.
- ISBN 0-8018-7038-0."
"...while [John Hedley] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind." (p. x) - ISBN 0-8018-7038-0."
"The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science." (p. 7, followed by a list of the basic reasons why the conflict thesis is wrong). - ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
- ^ ISBN 978-0-7618-5566-8.
- ^ Fantoli (2005, p. 139), Finocchiaro (1989, pp. 288–93).
- ^ Finocchiaro (1997), p. 82; Moss & Wallace (2003), p. 11
- The Sleepwalkers (1959), after noting that Urban suspected Galileo of having intended Simplicio to be a caricature of him, says "this of course is untrue" (1959, p. 483).
- ^ Lindberg, David. "Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science".
- ISBN 978-9401026185.
- ^ "Did Galileo have Proof of the Earth's Movement?". Tel-Aviv University.
- .
- ^ Grayling 2014, p. 55:"In fact religion and science are competitors for the truth about quite a number of things, including the origins of the universe, the nature of human beings, and the belief that the laws of nature can be locally and temporarily suspended- thus allowing for miracle"
- Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. Ballantine Books, 1999.
- Time and Eternity: an Essay in the Philosophy of Religion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1952.
- ISBN 978-0-8245-2213-1.
- ^ National Academies of the United States. 2008.
- ^ a b c d e Religion and Science, John Habgood, Mills & Brown, 1964, pp. 11, 14–16, 48–55, 68–69, 87, 90–91.
- ^ Schneerson, Menachem M. "Torah and Geometry". chabad.org. Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center. Retrieved 8 February 2020.
- ^ Harper & Row. pp. 3–29.
- ^ Dawkins, Richard (16 April 2007). "Militant atheism". TED. TED Conferences, LLC. Retrieved 26 June 2023.
- ^ Religion-and-Science Philip Hefner, pp. 562–76 in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science Philip Clayton(ed.), Zachary Simpson(associate-ed.). Hardcover 2006, paperback July 2008. Oxford University Press, 1023 pages
- ^ .
- ^ "Ian Ramsey Centre". Users.ox.ac.uk. 4 June 2013. Archived from the original on 25 October 2010. Retrieved 16 June 2013.
- ^ Scott, Eugenie (1998). ""Science and Religion", "Christian Scholarship", and "Theistic Science"". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 18 (2). National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 7 January 2013.
- ^ Gifford, Lord (1885–2018). "Lectures on Natural Theology and Science". University of St Andrews, University of Glasgow, University of Aberdeen, and University of Edinburgh. Retrieved 14 August 2018.
- ^ .
- ISSN 0002-9505.
- Brancazio, Peter J. (1994). "What is truth? A course in science and religion". American Journal of Physics. 62 (10). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 893–899. ISSN 0002-9505.
- Barthel, Romard (2000). "The stifling grip of religion". American Journal of Physics. 68 (9). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 785. ISSN 0002-9505.
- Jammer, Max; Bernstein, Jeremy (2000). "Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology". American Journal of Physics. 68 (7). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 676–682. ISSN 0002-9505.
- Neuenschwander, Dwight E. (1998). "Science, religion, and skepticism". American Journal of Physics. 66 (4). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 273. ISSN 0002-9505.
- Kobe, Donald H. (1998). "Copernicus and Martin Luther: An encounter between science and religion". American Journal of Physics. 66 (3). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 190–196. ISSN 0002-9505.
- Haught, John F.; Selk, Eugene E. (1996). "Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation". American Journal of Physics. 64 (12). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 1532–1533. ISSN 0002-9505.
- Vandyck, M. A. (1996). "Science and Religion—A Comment". American Journal of Physics. 64 (2). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 110. ISSN 0002-9505.
- Segre, Eduardo (1994). "Religion versus science?". American Journal of Physics. 62 (4). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 296. ISSN 0002-9505.
- Pakdemirli, Mehmet (1993). "Does religion contradict science?". American Journal of Physics. 61 (3). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 201–202. ISSN 0002-9505.
- Phipps, Thomas E. (1992). "Religion versus science?". American Journal of Physics. 60 (10). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 871. ISSN 0002-9505.
- Dotson, Allen C. (1992). "A response to Religion vs. Science?, by Jay Orear". American Journal of Physics. 60 (9). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 778. ISSN 0002-9505.
- Orear, Jay (1992). "Religion vs. science?". American Journal of Physics. 60 (5). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 394. ISSN 0002-9505.
- Barbour, Ian G.; Selk, Eugene E. (1991). "Religion in an Age of Science". American Journal of Physics. 59 (12). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 1152–1153. ISSN 0002-9505.
- Powell, Harry D. (1991). "Making sense of experience: Common ground in science and religion". American Journal of Physics. 59 (8). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 679. ISSN 0002-9505.
- ISSN 0002-9505.
- Brancazio, Peter J. (1994). "What is truth? A course in science and religion". American Journal of Physics. 62 (10). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 893–899.
- S2CID 155250302.
- Weaver, W. (13 December 1957). "Science and the Citizen". Science. 126 (3285). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): 1225–1229. PMID 17734927.
- Hills, C. H. (25 April 1958). "Science and Religion". Science. 127 (3304). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): 1004–1006. S2CID 56193337.
- Schilling, H. K. (6 June 1958). "A Human Enterprise: Science as lived by its practitioners bears but little resemblance to science as described in print". Science. 127 (3310). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): 1324–1327. PMID 17742389.
- Seife, C. (23 February 2001). "PAPAL SCIENCE: Science and Religion Advance Together at Pontifical Academy". Science. 291 (5508). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): 1472–1474. S2CID 9490555.
- Weaver, W. (13 December 1957). "Science and the Citizen". Science. 126 (3285). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): 1225–1229.
- ^ Science and Religion, by Alvin Plantinga, 2007, 2010.
- ^ Schuessler, Jennifer (13 December 2011). "Philosopher sticks up for God". The New York Times. Retrieved 7 January 2013.
- ^ Boudry, Maarten (September 2012). "Review of Alvin Plantinga (2011), Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism". International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Group.
Plantinga's effort to stave off the conflict between theism and evolution is a failure... if the bar for rational belief is lowered to mere logical possibility, and the demand for positive evidence dropped, then no holds are barred.
- ^ "Themelios | Review: Where The Conflict Really Lies Science Religion And Naturalism". The Gospel Coalition. Retrieved 16 June 2013.
- ^ Principe (2006). Science and Religion. The Teaching Company.
- ^ Principe. History of Science from Antiquity to 1700. The Teaching Company.
- ISBN 978-1-85168-184-6.
- ^ Yong, Amos. (2005) Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground (review) Buddhist-Christian Studies – Volume 25, 2005, pp. 176–80
- ^ Wallace, B. Alan. (2003). Buddhism & science: breaking new ground. Columbia University Press, p. 328
- ^ Hamilton, Jon. (2005) "The Links Between the Dalai Lama and Neuroscience" www.NPR.org, 11 November 2005 [1]
- ^ Dalai Lama. (2005) "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality" Broadway.
- ISBN 978-0-02-865704-2.
- ISBN 978-0-8006-6273-8.
- ^ Knight, Christopher C. (2008). "God's Action in Nature's World: Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell". Science & Christian Belief. 20 (2): 214–15.
- ISBN 978-0-8018-8401-6.
- ^ Grant 2006, pp. 111–14
- ^ Grant 2006, pp. 105–06
- ^ "What Time Is It in the Transept?". D. Graham Burnett book review of J.L.Heilbron's work, The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories. The New York Times. 24 October 1999. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
- ISBN 978-0-226-48214-9.
- ISBN 978-0-306-80637-7.
- ^ Pope John Paul II (September 1998). "Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), IV". Retrieved 15 September 2006.
- ISBN 0-8028-4772-2.
- ^ David C. Lindberg, "The Medieval Church Encounters the Classical Tradition: Saint Augustine, Roger Bacon, and the Handmaiden Metaphor", in David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, ed. When Science & Christianity Meet, (Chicago: University of Chicago Pr., 2003).
- ^ quoted in: Peters, Ted. "Science and Religion". Encyclopedia of Religion p. 8182
- ^ quoted in Ted Peters, Science and Religion, Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 8182
- ^ "Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 16 June 2013.
- ^ "Enlightenment". Enlightenement. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 2017.
- ^ Dear, Peter (2001). Revolutionizing the sciences: European knowledge and its ambitions, 1500–1700. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- ^ a b Heilbron, J. L. (2001). The Sun in the Church Cathedrals as Solar Observatories. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- ^ Duncan, David Ewing (1998). Calendar: Humanity's Epic Struggle to Determine a True and Accurate Calendar Year. New York City: Avon Books.
- ^ Lipking, Lawrence (2015). What Galileo Saw : Imagining the Scientific Revolution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
- ISBN 9780199279272
- ^ "Religion and Science". stanford.edu. 2019.
- ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 268–285
- ISBN 978-0-393-33073-1.
Most creationists are simply people who choose to believe that God created the world-either as described in Scripture or through evolution. Creation scientists, by contrast, strive to use legitimate scientific means both to argue against evolutionary theory and to prove the creation account as described in Scripture.
- ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 271–274
- ISBN 978-0-679-64288-6.
- ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 399–431
- ^ The Origin of Rights, Roger E. Salhany, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver: Carswell pp. 32–34
- ^ "The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching." Edwards v. Aguillard
- ^ Postal, Leslie; et al. (1 June 2018). "Schools Without Rules: Private schools' curriculum downplays slavery, says humans and dinosaurs lived together". Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved 5 June 2018.
- ISBN 978-1-4165-4274-2.
- ^ "Catholic Encyclopedia". New Advent. Retrieved 16 June 2013.
- ISBN 978-0-521-58841-6.
- John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics", 3 October 1981
- ^ Pope Francis (2015), Laudato si': On Care for our Common Home, paragraph 62, accessed 8 December 2023
- ^ Andrew Dickson White. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (Kindle Locations 1970–2132)
- ISBN 978-0-674-05741-8.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-275-95904-3.
- . Studies in the History of Science and Christianity.
- ISBN 978-0-674-05741-8.
- ^ ISBN 0-226-11280-2, pp. 308–21
- ^ "Finally, and most importantly, Hooykaas does not of course claim that the Scientific Revolution was exclusively the work of Protestant scholars." Cohen (1994) p. 313
- ^ Cohen (1994) p. 313. Hooykaas puts it more poetically: "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been Greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical."
- ^ Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge, 1998).
- ^ Peter Harrison, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (Cambridge, 2007); see also Charles Webster, The Great Instauration (London: Duckworth, 1975)
- ISBN 9780520056923.
- ^ The Anglican Origins of Modern Science, Isis, Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251–67; this is also noted on p. 366 of Science and Religion, John Hedley Brooke, 1991, Cambridge University Press
- ^ John Dillenberger, Protestant Thought and Natural Science (Doubleday, 1960).
- Eerdmans, 1991).
- ISBN 0-521-23961-3, p. 19. See also Peter Harrison, "Newtonian Science, Miracles, and the Laws of Nature", Journal of the History of Ideas 56 (1995), 531–53.
- Stanley L. Jaki
- ISBN 0-691-11436-6, p. 123
- ^ ISBN 978-1-4051-0595-8.
- ^ Gregory, Andrew (1998), Handout for course 'The Scientific Revolution' at The Scientific Revolution
- ^ Becker, George (1992), The Merton Thesis: Oetinger and German Pietism, a significant negative case, Sociological Forum (Springer) 7 (4), pp. 642–60
- ISBN 978-0-520-05538-4
- ^ Some scholars and historians attribute Christianity to having contributed to the rise of the Scientific Revolution:
- Harrison, Peter (8 May 2012). "Christianity and the rise of western science". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 28 August 2014.
- Noll, Mark, Science, Religion, and A.D. White: Seeking Peace in the "Warfare Between Science and Theology" (PDF), The Biologos Foundation, p. 4, archived from the original (PDF) on 22 March 2015, retrieved 14 January 2015
- ISBN 978-0520055384
- Gilley, Sheridan (2006). The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 8, World Christianities c. 1815 – c. 1914. Brian Stanley. Cambridge University Press. p. 164. ISBN 0521814561.
- Lindberg, David. (1992) The Beginnings of Western Science University of Chicago Press. p. 204.
- ISBN 0-226-06858-7. Front dustcover flap material
- Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.. Across the Atlantic, the Society of Ordained Scientists and Christians in Science are similar affiliation in Great Britain.
As to specifically Christian theists, an example of continue presence would be the American Scientific Affiliation. It currently has about two thousand members, all of whom affirm the Apostles' Creed as part of joining the association, and most of whom hold Ph.D.s in the natural sciences. Their active journal is Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
- ^ Cua, Antonio S. "The Quasi-Empirical Aspect of Hsün-tzu's Philosophy of Human Nature." PEW 28 (1978), 3–19.
- ^ Tillman, Hoyt Cleveland. "Utilitarian Confucianism : Chʻen Liang challenge to Chu Hsi" Cambridge, Mass.: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University: Distributed by Harvard University Press, 1982.
- ^ Black, Alison Harley. "Man and Nature in the Philosophical Thought of Wang Fu-Chih." Publications on Asia of the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, no. 41. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1989
- ^ ISBN 978-0295741802.
- ^ a b Helmer, Alasken. When is Chinese New Year?. Singapore: Department of Mathematics; University of Singapore. 117543.
- ^ Mary Evelyn Tucker "Confucianism and Ecology: The Interrelation of Heaven, Earth, and Humans (Religions of the World and Ecology)" Center for the Study of World Religions (15 August 1998)
- ^ ISBN 978-0-02-865831-5.
- ^ .
- ^ Gosling, David (September 2012). "Science and the Hindu Tradition: Compatibility or Conflict?". Hinduism and Science: Contemporary Considerations. 47 (3): 576–77. Retrieved 26 September 2014.
- ^ Sehgal, Sunil (1999). Encyclopedia of Hinduism (Volume 3). Sarup & Sons. p. 688.
The Hindus were Spinozaites more than two thousand years before the existence of Spinoza; and Darwinians many centuries before our time, and before any word like 'evolution' existed in any language of the world.
- ^ Gosling, David (September 2012). "Science and the Hindu Tradition: Compatibility or Conflict?". Hinduism and Science: Contemporary Considerations. 47 (3): 577.
- ^ Sarma, Deepak (2011) "Classical Indian Philosophy: A Reader" p. 167 Columbia University Press
- ^ Samkhya Karika, śloka4
- ^ "Religion & Ethics-Hinduism". BBC. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
- ^ Moorty, J.S.R.L.Narayana (18–21 May 1995). "Science and spirituality: Any Points of Contact? The Teachings of U.G.Krishnamurti: A Case Study". Krishnamurti Centennial Conference. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
- ^ a b Rastogi, V.B. (1988). Organic Evolution. Kedar Nath Ram Nath, New Delhi.
- ^ Cvancara, A.M. (1995). A field manual for the amateur geologist. John Wiley & sons, Inc. New York.
- ^ Similarities in concept of evolution of life on earth in Dashavatar and modern Geology. Archived 14 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine Dr. Nitish Priyadarshi, American Chronicle
- ^ ]
- ^ "Opinions on evolution from ten countries". NCSE. 30 June 2009. Retrieved 16 June 2013.
- ^ Hamilton, Fiona. "One in seven Britons believe in creationism over evolution". The Times. London.
- ^ Raman, Varadaraja (2012). "Hinduism and science : some reflections". ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials.
- ^ "Science And Religion by Chandrashekhar Vijayji Maharaj Saheb". www.yugpradhan.com. Kamal Prakashan Trust. p. 200. Retrieved 24 February 2021.
- ^ "Science And Religion by Chandrashekhar Vijayji Maharaj Saheb". www.yugpradhan.com. Kamal Prakashan Trust. pp. 200–201. Retrieved 24 February 2021.
- ^ Nayanar (2005b), p. 190, Gāthā 10.310
- ^ a b c Muzaffar Iqbal (2007). Science & Islam. Greenwood Press.
- ^ 2. Toshihiko Izutsu (1964). God and Man in the Koran. Weltansckauung. Tokyo.
- ^ 3. Situating Arabic Science: Locality versus Essence (A.I. Sabra)
- ^ Robert Briffault (1928). The Making of Humanity, pp. 190–202. G. Allen & Unwin Ltd.
- ^ Vernet 1996, p. 788: "IBN AL-HAYXHAM, B. AL-HAYTHAM AL-BASRI, AL-MisRl, was identified towards the end of the 19th century with the ALHAZEN, AVENNATHAN and AVENETAN of mediaeval Latin texts. He is one of the principal Arab mathematicians and, without any doubt, the best physicist."
- ^ Sardar 1998.
- ^ Topdemir 2007, pp. 8–9.
- ^ Rashed 2007, p. 11.
- ^ Ackerman 1991.
- ^ Haq, Syed (2009). "Science in Islam". Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages. ISSN 1703-7603. Retrieved 22 October 2014.
- ^ "International Year of Light – Ibn Al-Haytham and the Legacy of Arabic Optics". Archived from the original on 1 October 2014. Retrieved 20 November 2016.
- ^ Al-Khalili, Jim (4 January 2009). "The 'first true scientist'". BBC News. Retrieved 24 September 2013.
- ^ Gorini, Rosanna (October 2003). "Al-Haytham the man of experience. First steps in the science of vision" (PDF). Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine. 2 (4): 53–55. Retrieved 25 September 2008.
- ^ Plott 2000, Pt. II, p. 465
- ^ a b Seyyid Hossein Nasr. "Islam and Modern Science"
- ^ Saliba, George (2014). Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- ^ a b Bala, Arun. "The Dialogue of Civilizations in the Birth of Modern Science". ProQuest Ebook Central. Palgrave Macmillan.
- OCLC 779265251.
- ^ "From the Archives: Why I Believe in Islam". The Review of Religions. March 1940. Retrieved 31 August 2021.
- ^ "Jesus and the Indian Messiah – 13. Every Wind of Doctrine". Archived from the original on 9 May 2010.
- ^ "Islam in Science". Al Islam. 7 February 2010. Archived from the original on 11 August 2014. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
- ^ a b c d Shalev, Baruch (2005). 100 Years of Nobel Prizes. p. 59
- ^ ISBN 9781317610366.
- ^ ISBN 9780190926755.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link - S2CID 145466527.
- PMID 36827404.
- ^ S2CID 32101226.
- S2CID 204998837.
- ^ Scott, Eugenie. "Do Scientists Really Reject God?: New Poll Contradicts Earlier Ones". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. National Center for Science Education.
- ISBN 9781591023913.
- .
- ^ a b Ecklund, Elaine. "Religion and Spirituality among University Scientists" (PDF). Social Science Research Council.
- ISBN 978-0-19-539298-2.
- ^ "Natural scientists are less likely to believe in God than are social scientists" (PDF). Physorg.com. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."
- ^ a b Donovan, Patricia. "Scientists May Not Be Very Religious, but Science May Not Be to Blame". University at Buffalo New York.
- ^ S2CID 6296778.
- ^ Wuthnow, Robert (21 May 2005). "Essay Forum on the Religious Engagements of American Undergraduates". Religion.ssrc.org. Retrieved 16 June 2013.
- S2CID 27316976.
- ^ Ecklund, Elaine Howard. "Some Atheist Scientists With Children Embrace Religious Traditions". Huffington Post.
- .
- ^ "Scientists and Belief". Pew Research Center. 5 November 2009. Retrieved 8 April 2011.
A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
- ^ "Scientists and Belief". Pew Research Center. 5 November 2009.
- ^ Pew Research Center: "Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media", Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion. 9 July 2009.
- ^ a b Ecklund, Elaine (16 February 2014). "Religious Communities, Science, Scientists, and Perceptions: A Comprehensive Survey" (PDF). Elaine Ecklund Blog. Rice University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 May 2016. Retrieved 27 May 2015.
- .
- ^ Easton, John. Survey on physicians' religious beliefs shows majority faithful Medical Center Public Affairs, U of C Chronicle. 14 July 2005.
- S2CID 38793240.
- ^ a b c Keysar, Ariela; Kosmin, Barry (2008). Worldviews and Opinions of Scientists: India 2007–2008. Trinity College: Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (ISSSC).
- ^ a b c McCaig, Amy (24 September 2014). "Indian scientists significantly more religious than UK scientists". Rice University News. Rice University. Archived from the original on 16 November 2018. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
- ISBN 978-1-107-64837-1.
Instead, as is clearly shown in Figure 3.3, societies with greater faith in science also often have stronger religious beliefs." and "Indeed, the secular postindustrial societies, exemplified by the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, prove most skeptical toward the impact of science and technology, and this is in accordance with the countries where the strongest public disquiet has been expressed about certain contemporary scientific developments such as the use of genetically modified organisms, biotechnological cloning, and nuclear power. Interestingly, again the United States displays distinctive attitudes compared with similar European nations, showing greater faith in both God and scientific progress.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-415-87369-7.
The United States is perhaps the most religious out of the advanced industrial democracies."; "In fact, large majorities of the traditionally religious American nevertheless hold very positive views of science and scientists. Even people who accept a strict creationist view, regarding the origins of life are mostly favorable towards science."; "Our review of three important issues on the public policy agenda in the United States suggest that although there is a potential for broad religiously based conflict over science, the scope of this conflict is limited. Only on one issue does a significant portion of the public deny strong consensus for religious reasons: evolution. The significance of this disagreement should not be understated, but it is decidedly unrepresentative of the broader set of scientific controversies and issues. As already noted, it is difficult to find any other major policy issues on which there are strong religious objections to scientific research. Religious concerns do arise in connection with a number of areas of life sciences research, such as the effort to develop medical therapies from embryonic stem cells. But these are not rooted in disputes about the truth of scientific research, and can be found across the spectrum of religious sentiment."; "According to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes about science are more favorable in the United States than in Europe, Russia, and Japan, despite great differences across these cultures in level of religiosity (National Science Foundation, 2008).
- S2CID 225696990.
However, previous studies have mainly examined American samples; therefore, generalizations about antagonism between religion and science may be unwarranted...Results show that, within the United States, religiosity is consistently associated with lower interest in science topics and activities and less positive explicit and implicit attitudes toward science. However, this relationship is inconsistent around the world, with positive, negative, and null correlations being observed in various countries. Our findings are inconsistent with the idea that science and religion are necessarily at odds, undermining common theories of scientific advancement undermining religion.
- PMID 22417318.
- S2CID 225231409.
- S2CID 53668380.
- S2CID 145735058.
- S2CID 144733731.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-674-05741-8.
- ^ a b c d Funk, Cary; Alper, Becka (22 October 2015). "Religion and Science: Highly Religious Americans are less likely than others to see Conflict between Faith and Science". Pew Research Center. Pew.
- ^ "Religion and the Unaffiliated". "Nones" on the Rise. Pew Research Center: Religion & Public Life. 9 October 2012.
- ^ "Most of the Religiously Unaffiliated Still Keep Belief in God". Pew Research Center. 15 November 2012.
- ^ Tegmark, Max; Lee, Eugena (11 February 2013). "The MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins: the Belief Gap". Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- ^ McCaig, Amy (13 March 2015). "Nearly 70 percent of evangelicals do not view religion and science as being in conflict". Unconventional Wisdom. Rice University. Archived from the original on 16 November 2018. Retrieved 27 May 2015.
- ISBN 9780190650629.
- .
- S2CID 35333653.
- ^ Keeter, Scott; Smith, Gregory; Masci, David. "Religious Belief and Public Attitudes About Science in the US" (PDF). Pew Research Center. pp. 1–2, 13. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 June 2012.
- ^ a b c d e "Science in America: Religious Belief and Public Attitudes". The Pew Forum. 18 December 2007. Retrieved 16 January 2012.
- ^ "Public Opinion on Religion and Science in the United States". Pew Research Center. 5 November 2009.
- S2CID 145194313.
- ^ "Nones on the Rise" (PDF). Pew Research Center. p. 24. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 March 2013. Retrieved 19 February 2013.
Sources
- Ackerman, Robert (1991). Introduction. A Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. By Jane Ellen Harrison. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691015149.
- Barbour, Ian. When Science Meets Religion. San Francisco: Harper, 2000.
- ISBN 0-06-060938-9
- Chu, Dominique (2013), The Science Myth – God, society, the self and what we will never know, ISBN 1-78279-047-0
- Drummond, Henry. Natural Law in the Spiritual World. London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, 29th Edition, 1890 [2]
- Grayling, A.C. (2014). The God Argument. Great Britain: Bloomsbury. ISBN 9781408837436.
- ISBN 0-8091-3606-6
- Jones, Richard H. For the Glory of God: The Role of Christianity in the Rise and Development of Modern Science. 2 Volumes. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2011 and 2012.
- Larson, Edward J. and Larry Witham. "Scientists are still keeping the faith" Nature Vol. 386, pp. 435–36 (3 April 1997)
- Larson, Edward J. and Larry Witham. "Leading scientists still reject God," Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691 (1998), p. 313. online version
- Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). OCLC 69734583.
- Plott, C. (2000). Global History of Philosophy: The Period of Scholasticism. ISBN 8120805518.
- Rashed, Roshdi (2007). "The Celestial Kinematics of Ibn al-Haytham". Arabic Sciences and Philosophy. 17. Cambridge University Press: 7–55. S2CID 170934544.
- Sardar, Ziauddin (1998), "Science in Islamic philosophy", Islamic Philosophy, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retrieved 3 February 2008
- Topdemir, Huseyin Gazi (18 July 2007), Ibn al-Haytham (965–1039): His Life and Works
- Vernet, J. (1996) [1960], "Ibn al-Haytham", in Gibb, H. A. R.; Bearman, P. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam (First ed.), Leiden: Brill Publishers, ISBN 978-9004161214
- Einstein on Religion and Science from Ideas and Opinions (1954), Crown Publishers, ISBN 0-517-00393-7
- The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science Philip Clayton(ed.), Zachary Simpson (associate-ed.) Hardcover 2006, paperback July 2008. Oxford University Press, 1023 pages
Further reading
- Barr, Stephen M. The Believing Scientist: Essays on Science and Religion, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2016 ISBN 978-0-8028-7370-5
- ISBN 0-226-07565-6.
- ISBN 0-521-23961-3
- Bunge, Mario, Chasing Reality: Strife over Realism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
- Buxhoeveden, Daniel; Woloschak, Gayle, eds. (2011). Science and the Eastern Orthodox Church (1. ed.). Farnham: Ashgate. ISBN 9781409481614.
- Cavanaugh, William T. and James K. A. Smith, editors, Evolution and the Fall, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2017 ISBN 978-0-8028-7379-8
- Cook, Melvin Alonzo, and Melvin Garfield Cook. Science and Mormonism: Correlations, Conflicts, and Conciliations. [Salt Lake City, Utah]: Deseret News Press, 1967.
- Crisp, Thomas. M., Steven L. Porter, and Gregg A. Ten Elshof, eds, Neuroscience and the Soul: The Human Person in Philosophy, Science, and Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2016 ISBN 978-0-8028-7450-4
- Ecklund, Elaine Howard; Scheitle, Christopher P. (2017). Religion vs. Science: What Religious People Really Think. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0190650629.
- Haisch, Bernard. The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What's Behind It All, Red Wheel/Weiser, 2006, ISBN 1-57863-374-5
- Harper, Sharon M.P. (ed.) (2000). The Lab, the Temple, and the Market: Reflections at the Intersection of Science, Religion, and Development. ISBN 0-88936-920-8.
- Harrison, Peter, The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (Cambridge, 2010).
- D. Appleton and Company, 1897, 372 pages
- Johnston, Howard Agnew. Scientific Faith. [London]: Hodder & Stoughton; New York: G. H. Doran Co., 1904.
- ISBN 978-1-59333-583-0.
- Nelson, Thomas L. Scientific Aspects of Mormonism: or, Religion in Terms of Life. Chicago, Ill.: Press of Hillison & Etten Co., 1904, t.p. 1918.
- ISBN 1-60608-287-6
- ISBN 1-932031-70-7
- Restivo, Sal, The Social Relations of Physics, Mysticism, and Mathematics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1983.
- Richardson, Mark – Wesley Wildman (ed.), Religion & Science: History, Method, Dialogue, Routledge, 1996. ISBN 0-415-91667-4
- Ruse, Michael. Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? The Relationship Between Science and Religion. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2000. ISBN 0-521-63716-3
- Ruse, Michael. Science and Spirituality: Making Room for Faith in the Age of Science. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-521-75594-8
- Sollereder, B., & McGrath, A. (Eds.). (2022). Emerging Voices in Science and Theology: Contributions by Young Women (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003251446
- Spierer, Eugen. God-of-the-Gaps Arguments in Light of Luther's Theology of the Cross. Archived 19 August 2019 at the Wayback Machine
- Stump, J.B., and Alan G. Padgett (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell (2012).
- Van Huyssteen, J. Wentzel (editor), Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, MacMillan, 2003, ISBN 0-02-865704-7
- Waters, F. W. The Way in and the Way out: Science and Religion Reconciled. Toronto: Oxford University Press, Canadian Branch, 1967. x, [2], 269 p.
- Watson, Simon R. (2019). "God in Creation: A Consideration of Natural Selection as the Sacrificial Means of a Free Creation". Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses. 48 (2): 216–236. S2CID 202271434.
- ISBN 0-7679-0343-9
External links
- The BioLogos Forum: Science and Faith in Dialogue
- Test of Faith – From the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion
- Counterbalance.org: Science and Religion Project
- "Faith and Reason" – website about the historical relations between science and religion, PBS
- Religion and Science in Historical Perspective by Ted Davis Archived 6 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine
- Is Science Killing the Soul? – Discussion with atheists Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker on Edge Foundation.
- Meaning of Life A collection of video interviews with prominent scientists about topics relating science and religion (requires WMV or RealMediasoftware)
- Clash in Cambridge: Science and religion seem as antagonistic as ever – by John Horgan, Scientific American, September 2005
- How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science, David Masci, Pew Research Center
- Young, Robert M. (1985). "Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's Place in Victorian Culture". Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 31 August 2007.
- Zygon Journal of Religion and Science
- Science and Religion by Archbishop Luke of Crimea, an Eastern Orthodoxperspective
- Victorian Science and Religion The Victorian Web: Literature, History, and Culture in the Age of Victoria
- Science Philosophy Theology: Science in Christian World Fifth International Conference, 29 – 31 August 1994, Dubna, Russia
- INTERS – Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science – collection of documents (including the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science) that seeks to help scientists frame their work within a philosophical and humanistic context, edited at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross (Rome, Italy)
- (in Italian) DISF – Dizionario Interdisciplinare di Scienza e Fede (online version of the dictionary edited in Rome by Urbaniana University Press and Città Nuova Editrice)
- "Science and Religion", BBC Radio 4 discussion with Steven Jay Gould, John Haldane and Hilary Rose (In Our Time, 25 January 2001)
- We'd be better off without religion? Panellists: Christopher Hitchens, Nigel Spivey, Richard Dawkins, rabbi Juliet Neuberger, AC Grayling and Roger Scruton.
- Dialogue with Professor Richard Dawkins, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Professor Anthony Kenny (four topics: the nature of individual human beings, the origin of the human species, thirdly the origin of life on Earth, and finally the origin of the universe)