科学和宗教的关系

11 views
Skip to first unread message

lihlii

unread,
Sep 25, 2012, 4:42:38 PM9/25/12
to lihlii-g, Salon Friends, posterous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science
Relationship between religion and science

The relationship between religion and science has been a focus of the demarcation problem. Somewhat related is the claim thatscience and religion may pursue knowledge using different methodologies. The scientific method relies on reason and empiricism, religion acknowledges revelation, faith and sacredness. Some scholars say science and religion are separate, as in John William Draper's conflict thesis and Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria, while others (John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme, Ken Wilber, et al.) propose an interconnection.

Contents

  [hide] 

[edit]Perspectives

Medieval artistic illustration of the spherical Earth in a 13th-century copy of L'Image du monde (ca. 1246).

The kinds of interactions that might arise between science and religion have been classified using the following typology:[1]

  1. Conflict, stating the disciplines contradict and are incompatible with each other.
  2. Independence treating each as quite separate realms of enquiry.
  3. Dialogue suggesting that each field has things to say to each other about phenomena in which their interests overlap.
  4. Integration aiming to unify both fields into a single discourse.

This typology is similar to ones found in Ian Barbour[3] and John Haught.[4] More typologies that categorize this relationship can be found among the works of other science and religion scholars such as Arthur Peacocke.[5]

[edit]Conflict

A variety of historical, philosophical, and scientific arguments have been put forth in favor of the idea that science and religion are in conflict. Historical examples of religious individuals or institutions promoting claims that contradict both contemporary and modern scientific consensus includecreationism (see level of support for evolution), and more recently, Pope Benedict XVI's 2009 statements claiming that the use of condoms to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa was ineffective and counterproductive.[6] In the Galileo affair, the acceptance, from 1616 to 1757, of the Greek geocentric model[7] (Ptolemaic system) by the Roman Catholic Church,[8] and its consequent opposition to heliocentrism, was first called into question by the Catholic cleric Copernicus, and subsequently disproved conclusively by Galileo, who was persecuted for his minority view.[9][10][11] Additionally, long held religious claims have been challenged by scientific studies such as STEP,[12] which examined the efficacy of prayer. A number of scientists including Jerry Coyne[13] have made an argument for a philosophical incompatibility between religion and science. An argument for the conflict between religion and science that combines the historical and philosophical approaches has been presented by Neil Degrasse Tyson[14]—Tyson argues that religious scientists, such as Isaac Newton, could have achieved more had they not accepted religious answers to unresolved scientific issues.

[edit]Conflict thesis

Main article: 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 andAndrew Dickson White. Most contemporary historians of science now reject the conflict thesis in its original form, arguing instead that it has been superseded by subsequent historical research indicating a more nuanced understanding:[15][16]

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.

— Gary Ferngren, Science & Religion[17]

Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was originally based is considered to be inaccurate. For instance, the claim that people of the Middle Ages widely believed that the Earth was flat was first propagated in the same period that originated the conflict thesis[18] and is still very common in popular culture. Modern scholars regard this claim as mistaken, as the contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."[18][19]

Other misconceptions such as: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages," "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science," and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of the natural sciences," are all reported by Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though they are not supported by current historical research. They help maintain the popular image of "the warfare of science and religion."[20]

While H. Floris Cohen states that most scholars reject crude articulations of the conflict thesis, such as Andrew D. White's, he also states that milder versions of this thesis still hold some sway. This is because "it remains an incontrovertible fact of history that, to say the least, the new science was accorded a less than enthusiastic acclaim by many religious authorities at the time." Cohen therefore considers it paradoxical "that the rise of early modern science was due at least in part to developments in Christian thought—in particular, to certain aspects of Protestantism" (a thesis first developed as what is now sometimes called the Merton thesis).[21] In recent years, Oxford historian Peter Harrison has further developed the idea that the Protestant Reformation had a significant and positive influence on the development of modern science.[22] A review of alternatives to the White/Draper conflict thesis has been composed by Ian G. Barbour.[23][24]

Richard H. Jones has recently proposed a "control" model that incorporates elements of both the conflict thesis and also the idea that religion can support science.[25] Under the control model, religion will provide tacit or explicit support for scientific theories and research as long as scientific findings support religious doctrines. Religion can support science by making suggestions for research and by offering a cultural "legitimation" for a theory or for science in general. But religious institutions will attempt to assert religious "control beliefs" over any scientific theories that appear to conflict with a core religious doctrine. The Galileo affair and the conflict over evolution are prime examples.

[edit]Independence

A modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), is that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully.[26] While Gould spoke of independence from the perspective of science, W. T. Stace viewed independence from the perspective of the philosophy of religion. Stace felt that science and religion, when each is viewed in its own domain, are both consistent and complete.[27]

Both science and religion represent distinct ways of approaching experience and these differences are sources of debate.[28] Science is closely tied to mathematics—a very abstract experience, while religion is more closely tied to the ordinary experience of life.[28] As interpretations of experience, science is descriptive and religion is prescriptive.[28] For science and mathematics to concentrate on what the world ought to be like in the way that religion does can be inappropriate and may lead to improperly ascribing properties to the natural world as happened among the followers of Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C.[28] In contrast, proponents of a normative moral science take issue with the idea that science has no way of guiding "oughts".

The reverse situation, where religion attempts to be descriptive, can also lead to inappropriately assigning properties to the natural world. A notable example is the now defunct belief in the Ptolemy planetary model that held sway until changes in scientific and religious thinking were brought about by Galileo and proponents of his views.[28]

[edit]Parallels in method

Thomas S. Kuhn asserted that science is made up of paradigms that arise from cultural traditions, which is similar to the secular perspective on religion.[29]

Michael Polanyi asserted that it is merely a commitment to universality that protects against subjectivity and has nothing at all to do with personal detachment as found in many conceptions of the scientific method. Polanyi further asserted that all knowledge is personal and therefore the scientist must be performing a very personal if not necessarily subjective role when doing science.[29] Polanyi added that the scientist often merely follows intuitions of "intellectual beauty, symmetry, and 'empirical agreement'".[29] Polanyi held that science requires moral commitments similar to those found in religion.[29]

Two physicists, Charles A. Coulson and Harold K. Schilling, both claimed that "the methods of science and religion have much in common."[29] Schilling asserted that both fields—science and religion—have "a threefold structure—of experience, theoretical interpretation, and practical application."[29] Coulson asserted that science, like religion, "advances by creative imagination" and not by "mere collecting of facts," while stating that religion should and does "involve critical reflection on experience not unlike that which goes on in science."[29] Religious language and scientific language also show parallels (cf. Rhetoric of science).

[edit]Dialogue

Clerks studying astronomy and geometry.
France, early 15th century.

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 imago dei. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, "Since human beings are said to be in the image of God in virtue of their having a nature that includes an intellect, such a nature is most in the image of God in virtue of being most able to imitate God".[30]

Many well-known historical figures who influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Copernicus, Galileo,Kepler, and Boyle. The Pew Forum has published data on attitudes about religion and science.[31]

[edit]Concerns over the nature of reality

Scientific and theological perspectives often coexist peacefully. Non-Christian faiths have historically integrated well with scientific ideas, as in the ancient Egyptian technological mastery applied to monotheistic ends, the flourishing of logic and mathematics underHinduism and Buddhism, and the scientific advances made by Muslim scholars during the Ottoman empire. Even many 19th century Christian communities welcomed scientists who claimed that science was not at all concerned with discovering the ultimate nature of reality.[28]

[edit]Integration

[edit]Bahá'í

A fundamental principle of the Bahá'í Faith is the harmony of religion and science. Bahá'í scripture asserts that true science and true religion can never be in conflict. `Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, stated that religion without science is superstition and that science without religion is materialism. He also admonished that true religion must conform to the conclusions of science.[32][33][34]

[edit]Buddhism

Main article: Buddhism and science

Buddhism and science have increasingly been discussed as compatible.[35] Some philosophic and psychological teachings within Buddhism share commonalities with modern Western scientific and philosophic thought. For example, Buddhism encourages the impartial investigation of nature (an activity referred to as Dhamma-Vicaya in the Pali Canon)—the principal object of study being oneself. A reliance on causality. philosophical principles shared between Buddhism and science. However, Buddhism doesn't focus onmaterialism.[36]

Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, spends a lot of time with scientists. In his book, "The Universe in a Single Atom" he wrote, "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science, so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation." and "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false," he says, "then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."[37][38]

[edit]Christianity

Science and Religion are portrayed to be in harmony in the Tiffany window Education (1890).

Earlier attempts at reconciliation of Christianity with Newtonian mechanics appear quite different from later attempts at reconciliation with the newer scientific ideas of evolution or relativity.[28] Many early interpretations of evolution polarized themselves around a struggle for existence. These ideas were significantly countered by later findings of universal patterns of biological cooperation. According to John Habgood, all man really knows here is that the universe seems to be a mix of good and evil, beauty and pain, and that suffering may somehow be part of the process of creation. Habgood holds that Christians should not be surprised that suffering may be used creatively by God, given their faith in the symbol of the Cross. Habgood states that Christians have for two millennia believed in the love of God because he revealed "Himself as Love in Jesus Christ," not because the physical universe does or does not point to the value of love.[28]

Robert John Russell has examined consonance and dissonance between modern physics, evolutionary biology, and Christian theology.[39][40]

[edit]Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century

In Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain, historian of biology Peter J. Bowler argues that in contrast to the conflicts between science and religion in the U.S. in the 1920s (most famously the Scopes Trial), during this period Great Britain experienced a concerted effort at reconciliation, championed by intellectually conservative scientists, supported by liberal theologians but opposed by younger scientists and secularists and conservative Christians. These attempts at reconciliation fell apart in the 1930s due to increased social tensions, moves towards neo-orthodox theology and the acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis.[41]

In the 20th century, several ecumenical organizations promoting a harmony between science and Christianity were founded, most notably the American Scientific Affiliation, The Biologos Foundation, Christians in Science, The Society of Ordained Scientists, and The Veritas Forum.[42]

[edit]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, Xunzi espoused a proto-scientific world view.[43] However during the Han Synthesis the more anti-empirical Mencius was favored and combined with Daoist skepticism regarding the nature of reality. Likewise, during the Medieval period, Zhu Xi argued against technical investigation and specialization proposed by Chen Liang.[44] After contact with the West, scholars such as Wang Fuzhi would rely on Buddhist/Daoist skepticism to denounce all science as a subjective pursuit limited by humanity's fundamental ignorance of the true nature of the world.[45] 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.[46]

[edit]Hinduism

In Hinduism, the dividing line between objective sciences and spiritual knowledge (adhyatma vidya) is a linguistic paradox.[47] Hindu scholastic activities and ancient Indian scientific advancements were so interconnected that many Hindu scriptures are also ancient scientific manuals and vice-versa. Hindu sages maintained that logical argument and rational proof using Nyaya is the way to obtain correct knowledge.[47] From a Hindu perspective, modern science is a legitimate, but incomplete, step towards knowing and understanding reality. Hinduism views that science only offers a limited view of reality, but all it offers is right and correct.[48] Hinduism offers methods to correct and transform itself in course of time.

Hindu views on evolution include a range of viewpoints in regards to evolution, creationism, and the origin of life within the traditions of Hinduism.

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[49][50] –

  1. Pratyakṣa or Dṛṣṭam – direct sense perception,
  2. Anumāna – logical inference and
  3. Śabda or Āptavacana – verbal testimony.

Nyaya, the Hindu school of logic, accepts all these 3 means and in addition accepts one more - Upamāna (comparison).

The accounts of the emergence of life within the universe vary in description, but classically the deity called Brahma, from a Trimurti of three deities also including Vishnu and Shiva, is described as performing the act of 'creation', or more specifically of 'propagating life within the universe' with the other two deities being responsible for 'preservation' and 'destruction' (of the universe) respectively.[51] In this respect some Hindu schools do not treat the scriptural creation myth literally and often the creation stories themselves do not go into specific detail, thus leaving open the possibility of incorporating at least some theories in support of evolution. Some Hindus find support for, or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in scriptures, namely the Vedas.[52]

The incarnations of Vishnu (Dashavatara) is almost identical to the scientific explanation of the sequence of biological evolution of man and animals.[53][54][55][56] The sequence of avatars starts from an aquatic organism (Matsya), to an amphibian (Kurma), to a land-animal (Varaha), to a humanoid (Narasimha), to a dwarf human (Vamana), to 5 forms of well developed human beings (Parashurama, Rama, Balarama/Buddha, Krishna, Kalki) who showcase an increasing form of complexity (Axe-man, King, Plougher/Sage, wise Statesman, mighty Warrior).[53][56] In India, the home country of Hindus; educated Hindus widely accept the theory of biological evolution. In a survey, 77% of respondents in India agreed that enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and 85 per cent of God-believing people said they believe in evolution as well.[57][58]An exception to this acceptance is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), which includes several members who actively oppose "Darwinism" and themodern evolutionary synthesis (see Hindu Creationism).

[edit]Islam

Main article: Islam and science

From an Islamic standpoint, science, the study of nature, is considered to be linked to the concept of Tawhid (the Oneness of God), as are all other branches of knowledge.[59] InIslam, nature is not seen as a separate entity, but rather as an integral part of Islam's holistic outlook on God, humanity, and the world. Unlike the other Abrahamic monotheistic religions, Judaism and Christianity, the Islamic view of science and nature is continuous with that of religion and God. This link implies a sacred aspect to the pursuit of scientific knowledge by Muslims, as nature itself is viewed in the Qur'an as a compilation of signs pointing to the Divine.[60] It was with this understanding that science was studied and understood in Islamic civilizations, specifically during the eighth to sixteenth centuries, prior to the colonization of the Muslim world.[61]

According to most historians, the modern scientific method was first developed by Islamic scientists, pioneered by Ibn Al-Haytham, known to the west as "Alhazen".[62] Robert Briffault, in The Making of Humanity, asserts that the very existence of science, as it is understood in the modern sense, is rooted in the scientific thought and knowledge that emerged in Islamic civilizations during this time.[63]

However, the colonizing powers of the western world and their destruction of the Islamic scientific tradition forced the discourse of Islam and Science in to a new period. Institutions that had existed for centuries in the Muslim world were destroyed and replaced by new scientific institutions implemented by the colonizing powers and suiting their economic, political, and military agendas.[citation needed] This drastically changed the practice of science in the Muslim world, as Islamic scientists had to interact with the western approach to scientific learning, which was based on a philosophy of nature completely foreign to them.[59] 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.[64] 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.[59][64]

[edit]Jainism

Jainism does not support belief in a creator deity. According to Jain doctrine, the universe and its constituents - soul, matter, space, time, and principles of motion have always existed (a static universe similar to that of Epicureanism and steady state cosmological model). All the constituents and actions are governed by universal natural laws. It is not possible to create matter out of nothing and hence the sum total of matter in the universe remains the same (similar to law of conservation of mass). Similarly, the soul of each living being is unique and uncreated and has existed since beginningless time.[a][65]

The Jain theory of causation holds that a cause and its effect are always identical in nature and hence a conscious and immaterial entity like God cannot create a material entity like the universe. Furthermore, according to the Jain concept of divinity, any soul who destroys its karmas and desires, achieves liberation. A soul who destroys all its passions and desires has no desire to interfere in the working of the universe. Moral rewards and sufferings are not the work of a divine being, but a result of an innate moral order in the cosmos; a self-regulating mechanism whereby the individual reaps the fruits of his own actions through the workings of the karmas.

Through the ages, Jain philosophers have adamantly rejected and opposed the concept of creator and omnipotent God and this has resulted in Jainism being labeled as nastika darsana or atheist philosophy by the rival religious philosophies. The theme of non-creationism and absence of omnipotent God and divine grace runs strongly in all the philosophical dimensions of Jainism, including its cosmology, karma, moksa and its moral code of conduct. Jainism asserts a religious and virtuous life is possible without the idea of a creator god.[66]

[edit]Current scholarship

The modern dialogue between religion and science is rooted in Ian Barbour's 1966 book Issues in Science and Religion.[67] Since that time it has grown in to a serious academic field, with academic chairs in the subject area, and two dedicated academic journals, Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science and Theology and Science.[67] Articles are also sometimes found in mainstream science journals such as American Journal of Physics[68] and Science.[69][70]

Recently philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued that there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion, and that there is superficial concord but deep conflict between science and naturalism.[71]

[edit]Influence of a biblical world view on early modern science

H. Floris Cohen argued for a biblical[72] influence on the early development of modern science.[73] Cohen presented Dutch historian R. Hooykaas' argument that a biblical world-view holds all the necessary antidotes for the hubris of Greek rationalism: a respect for manual labour, leading to experimentation and a greater level of empiricism and a supreme God that left nature "de-deified" and open to emulation and manipulation.[73] This argument gives support to the idea that the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought.[74] Cohen summarised Hooykaas' conclusion as attributing the rise of modern science to the combination of the "Greek powers of abstract reasoning and of thinking up idealized constructions" in combination with "the biblical humility toward accepting the facts of nature as they are, combined with a view of man as fitted out by God with the power to take nature on".[75] Cohen also noted that Richard S. Westfall "brought out the ultimate paradox" in stating: "Despite the natural piety of the virtuosi [English 17th-century scientists], the skepticism of the Enlightenment was already present in embryo among them. To be sure, their piety kept it in check, but they were unable to banish it. ... They wrote to refute atheism, but where were the atheists? The virtuosi nourished the atheists within their own minds."

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.[76] 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.[77]

Historian and professor of religion Eugene M. Klaaren holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher Michael Foster has published analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences.[78] Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have argued for a linkage between seventeenth century Anglican intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton).[79] John Dillenberger and Christopher B. Kaiserhave written theological surveys, which also cover additional interactions occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.[80][81]

Oxford University historian and theologian John Hedley Brooke wrote that "when natural philosophers referred to laws of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."[82] Historian Ronald L. Numbers stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead's Science and the Modern World (1925). Numbers has also argued, "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves."[83] The sociologist Rodney Stark of Baylor University, a Southern Baptist institution, argued in contrast that "Christian theology was essential for the rise of science."[84]

[edit]Perspectives of religious communities

[edit]Historical Judeo-Christian-Islamic view

Science, and particularly geometry andastronomy, was linked directly to the divine for most medieval scholars. The compass in this 13th-century manuscript is a symbol of creation.

Most sources of knowledge available to early Christians were connected to pagan world-views. There were various opinions on how Christianity should regard pagan learning, which included its ideas about nature. For instance, among early Christian teachers,Tertullian (c. 160–220) held a generally negative opinion of Greek philosophy, while Origen (c. 185–254) regarded it much more favorably and required his students to read nearly every work available to them.[85]

In the Middle Ages some leading thinkers in monotheistic religions commented on religion, philosophy, and the natural sciences. For example, the Islamic philosopher Averroes,[86] and both Christian philosophers Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and Thomas Aquinas [87] 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. [88] 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. [89]

[edit]Later views

Galileo once stated "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[90] More recently,John Paul II, leader of the Roman Catholic Church, in 1981 spoke of the relationship this way: "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer".[91] This statement would reflect the views of many non-Catholic Christians as well. An example of this kind of thinking is theistic evolution.

[edit]Perspectives from the Scientific community

[edit]History

In the 17th century, founders of the Royal Society largely held conventional and orthodox religious views, and a number of them were prominent Churchmen.[92] 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.[93] Clerical involvement in the Royal Society remained high until the mid-nineteenth century, when science became more professionalised.[94]

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.[95]

Einstein thus expresses views of ethical non-naturalism (contrasted to ethical naturalism).

Prominent modern scientists who are atheists include evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and Nobel prize winning physicist Stephen Weinberg. Prominent scientists advocating religious belief include Nobel prize winning physicist Charles Townes, Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and past head of the Human Genome Project, and climatologist John T. Houghton.[69]

[edit]Studies of scientists' belief in God

Globe icon.
 The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this articleand discuss the issue on the talk page. (March 2012)

Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than are the rest of the population. Precise definitions and statistics vary, but generally about 1/3 are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God (although some might be deistic, for example).[69][96][97] This is in contrast to the more than roughly 3/4 of the general population that believe in some God in the United States. Belief also varies slightly by field. Two surveys on physicists, geoscientists, biologists, mathematicians, and chemists have noted that, from those specializing in these fields, physicists had lowest percentage of belief in God (29%) while chemists had highest (41%).[98][99] Doctors of medicine in the United States are much more likely to believe in God (76%).[100]

Some of the most recent research into scientists' self reported belief in God is discussed by Professor Elaine Howard Ecklund. Some of her most interesting findings were that scientist-believers generally considered themselves "religious liberals" (not fundamentalists), and that their religion did not change the way they did science, but rather the way they reflected on its implications. Ecklund also discusses how there is a stigma against belief in God in the professional science community, which may have contributed to underrepresentation of religious voices in the field.[101]

[edit]Studies on the views of scientists

Among contemporary scientists—physicists and biologists—about 40% held strong religious beliefs in 1997, which closely matched those of a similar 1916 poll.[69][96]

According to a 1996 survey of United States 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%). In total, about 60% of United Statesscientists in these fields expressed disbelief or agnosticism toward a personal god who answers prayer and personal immortality.[98] This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933.

Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer.[102]

A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York found that over 60% of natural and social science professors at 21 elite US research universities are atheists or agnostics. When asked whether they believed in God, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answering "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out."[97] According to the same survey, "[m]any scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition."[103] In further analysis, published in 2007, Ecklund and Christopher Scheitle conclude that "the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable" and that "[i]t appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists."[104]

An explanation has been offered by Farr Curlin, a University of Chicago Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, that science-minded religious people instead elect to study medicine. He helped author a study that "found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife." and "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."[100]

Another study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that "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."[105] 48% say they have a religious affiliation, equal to the number who say they are not affiliated with any religious tradition. 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.[99]

Religious beliefs of US professors, many in scientific fields, were recently examined using a nationally representative sample of more than 1400, published in Sociology of Religion. They found that 60.8 percent of biology professors "are either atheists or agnostics" (p. 115).[106]

Ecklund and Sheitle, in a 2005–2007 survey,[107] compared differences between natural and social scientists at the 21 elite US research universities that they surveyed. 52 percent of the scientists listed themselves as having no religious affiliation. Analyses of the more than 1600 responses indicated that "differences in religiosity between natural and social scientists are simply no longer a meaningful descriptor of the place of religion in the academy. For the most part, there is little difference between these larger fields [social versus natural science] or between the specific disciplines themselves. The differences that do exist are seen among chemists and political scientists who are more likely to be religious, according to traditional indicators, when compared to physicists".[108]

[edit]Scientific studies on religion

Scientific studies have been done on religiosity as a social or psychological phenomenon. These include studies on the correlation between religiosity and intelligence (often IQ, but also other factors). A recent study on serotonin receptors and religiosity[109] suggests a correlation between low density of serotonin receptors and intense religious experiences. Also of popular interest are the studies regarding prayer and medicine, in particular whether there is any causal or correlative link between spiritual supplication and improvement of health. Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Centre and the Pew Organisation conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[110] A cross-national investigation on subjective well-being has noted that, globally, religious people are usually happier than nonreligious people, though nonreligious people can also reach high levels of happiness.[111] An analysis of over 200 social studies that "high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with life and a sense of well-being."[112] A review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of these studies showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem, and lower levels of hypertension, depression and clinical delinquency.[113][114] Surveys suggest a strong link between faith and altruism.[115] Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health.[116] Michael Argyle and others claim that there is little or no evidence that religion ever causes mental disorders.[117]

Other studies have shown that certain mental disorders, such as schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder, are also associated with high levels of religiosity.[118] In addition, anti-psychotic medication, which is mainly aimed to block dopamine receptors, typically reduces religious behaviour and religious delusions.[119]

[edit]Perspectives from the Public

[edit]Studies on the views of the public and individuals in higher education

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 epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.[120][121] 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. [122] A 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 vice versa.[123]

Cross-national studies on religion and science have noted that countries with high religiosity also have stronger faith in science, while less religious countries have more skepticism of the impact of science and technology.[124] Other research has observed that the United States is a highly religious country compared to most advanced industrial countries. It was noted also that public attitudes towards science are more favorable in the United States than Europe, Russia, and Japan despite differences in levels of religiosity in these cultures. [125]

[edit]Religion and science community

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."[126][127] The community belongs to neither the scientific nor the religious community, but is said to be a third overlapping community of interested and involved scientists, priests, clergymen, theologians, and engaged non-professionals.[127][not in citation given] Institutions interested in the intersection between science and religion include the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, the Ian Ramsey Centre,[128] and the Faraday Institute. Journals addressing the relationship between science and religion include Theology and Science and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science.

[edit]See also

 This "see also" section may contain an excessive number of suggestions. Please ensure that only the most relevant suggestions are given and that they are not red links, and consider integrating suggestions into the article itself. (June 2011)

By tradition:

In the US:

[edit]Notes

  1. ^ John Polkinghorne Science and Theology SPCK/Fortress Press, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3153-6 pp20-22, following Ian Barbour
  2. ^ Creation and double chaos: science and theology in discussion, Sjoerd Lieuwe Bonting, 2005, Fortress Press, ISBN 0-8006-3759-3, page 5
  3. ^ Nature, Human Nature, and God, Ian G. Barbour, Fortress Press, 2002, ISBN 0-8006-3477-2
  4. ^ Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation, 1995, p. 9 Paulist Press, ISBN 0-8091-3606-6

    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:Religion in an Age of Science (1990), ISBN 0-06-060383-6

    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 dialogue. 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.
  5. ^ The Sciences and theology in the twentieth century, Arthur R. Peacocke (ed),University of Notre Dame press, 1981 ISBN 0-268-01704-2, p. xiii-xv
  6. ^ Owen, Richard (2009-03-17). "Pope says condoms are not the solution to Aids they make it worse". The Times (London). Retrieved 2010-05-22.
  7. ^ Lawson, Russell M. (2004). Science in the ancient world: an encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 29–30. ISBN 1-85109-534-9. Retrieved 2 October 2009.
  8. ^ Galilei, Galileo (1613). "Letter to Benedetto Castelli". Florence. "It follows that it is absolutely impossible to stop the sun and lengthen the day in the system of Ptolemy and Aristotle, and therefore either the motions must not be arranged as Ptolemy says or we must modify the meaning of the words of the Scripture; we would have to claim that, when it says that God stopped the sun, it meant to say that He stopped the Prime Mobile, and that is said the contrary of what it would have said if speaking to educated men in order to adapt itself to the capacity of those who are barely able to understand the rising and setting of the sun."
  9. ^ Numbers, Ronald L. (2009). Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Cambridge and London: Harward University Press. pp. 69, 70, 102.ISBN 978-0-674-03327-6. Retrieved 2011-08-19. "In December 1615, however, Galileo went to Rome of his own accord to defend the Copernican theory.... In contrast to our starting myth, it is an easy matter to point to important figures of Scientific Revolution who were themselves Catholics. The man often credited with the first major step of the Scientific Revolution, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), was not only Catholic but in Holy Orders as a cathedral canon (a cleric charged with administrative duties)."
  10. ^ Ginzburg, Vitaly (2000). "Религия и наука. Разум и вера. (Religion and science –reason and faith)." (in Russian). Nauka i Zhizn (Science and Life). Retrieved 2011-08-19. "Finally, the attitude of the Church to science. The history of this relationship is controversial. At certain stages of the monasteries served as a bulwark of science, its development centres. The most famous example - work of Copernicus, who was a priest."
  11. ^ http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Geocentrism.pdf
  12. ^ Benson H, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB et al. (2006). "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer". Am. Heart J. 151 (4): 934–42. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2005.05.028. PMID 16569567.
  13. ^ http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html
  14. ^ http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/1999/10/01/holy-wars
  15. ^ Quotation from Ferngren's introduction at "Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0."
    "...while [John] 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)
  16. ^ Quotation from Colin A. Russell in "The Conflict Thesis" the first essay of "Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. 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).
  17. ^ Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
  18. ^ a b Jeffrey Russell. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback; New Ed edition (January 30, 1997). ISBN 0-275-95904-X; ISBN 978-0-275-95904-3.
  19. ^ Quotation from David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers in Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science. Studies in the History of Science and Christianity.
  20. ^ Ronald Numbers (Lecturer) (May 11, 2006). Myths and Truths in Science and Religion: A historical perspective (Video Lecture). University of Cambridge (Howard Building, Downing College): The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. Also see Ronald L. Numbers (ed.), Galileo goes to Jail and other Myths about Science and Religion(Harvard, 2009)
  21. ^ Cohen(1994) pp 310-311
  22. ^ Peter Harrison, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (Cambridge, 2007)ISBN 978-0-521-87559-2; The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science(Cambridge, 1998) ISBN 978-0-521-00096-3.
  23. ^ Ian G. Barbour, "Ways of relating science and theology" in Physics, philosophy, and theology: a common quest for understanding (Editors: Robert John Russell, William R. Stoeger, and George V. Coyne; Vatican City and Notre Dame Press, 1988).
  24. ^ John Hedley Brooke, Bibliographic Essay (pages 348-403) in Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, 1991, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-23961-3, pages 349-350.
  25. ^ Jones, Richard H., For the Glory of God: The Role of Christianity in the Rise and Development of Modern Science. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2011.
  26. ^ Stephen Jay Gould. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the fullness of life. Ballantine Books, 1999.
  27. ^ W. T. Stace, Time and Eternity: an Essay in the Philosophy of Religion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1952.
  28. ^ a b c d e f g h Religion and Science, John Habgood, Mills & Brown, 1964, pp., 11, 14-16, 48-55, 68-69, 90-91, 87
  29. ^ a b c d e f g Barbour, Ian G. (1968). "Science and Religion Today". In Ian G. Barbour (ed.). Science and Religion: New Perspectives on the Dialogue (1st ed.). New York, Evanston and London: Harper & Row. pp. 3–29.
  30. ^ Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  31. ^ "Science in America: Religious Belief and Public Attitudes".
  32. ^ Hatcher, William (September 1979). "Science and the Bahá'í Faith". Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 14 (3): 229–253.
  33. ^ Smith, P. (1999). A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications. pp. 306–307. ISBN 1-85168-184-1.
  34. ^ Mehanian, Courosh; Friberg, Stephen R. (2003). "Religion and Evolution Reconciled: 'Abdu'l-Bahá's Comments on Evolution". The Journal of Bahá'í studies 13 (1–4): 55–93.
  35. ^ Yong, Amos. (2005) Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground (review) Buddhist-Christian Studies - Volume 25, 2005, pp. 176-180
  36. ^ Wallace, B. Alan. (2003) " Buddhism & science: breaking new ground" Columbia University Press, pp 328
  37. ^ Hamilton, Jon. (2005) "The Links Between the Dalai Lama and Neuroscience" www.NPR.org, November 11, 2005 [1]
  38. ^ Dalia Lama. (2005) "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality" Broadway.
  39. ^ Russell, Robert John (2008). Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. pp. 344. ISBN 978-0-8006-6273-8.
  40. ^ Knight, Christopher C. (2008). "God's Action in Nature's World: Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell" (subscription required). Science & Christian Belief 20 (2): 214–215.
  41. ^ Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain,Peter J. Bowler, 2001, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-06858-7. Front dustcover flap material
  42. ^ James C. Peterson (2001). Genetic Turning Points: The Ethics of Human Genetic Intervention. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. "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. Across the Atlantic, the Society of Ordained Scientists and Christians in Science are similar affiliation in Great Britain."
  43. ^ Cua, Antonio S. "The Quasi-Empirical Aspect of Hsün-tzu's Philosophy of Human Nature." PEW 28 (1978), 3-19.
  44. ^ Tillman, Hoyt Cleveland. "Utilitarian Confucianism : Chʻen Liang's challenge to Chu Hsi" Cambridge, Mass. : Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University : Distributed by Harvard University Press, 1982.
  45. ^ 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
  46. ^ 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 (August 15, 1998)
  47. ^ a b Carl Mitcham (2005). Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Macmillan Reference USA. p. 917. ISBN 0-02-865831-0.
  48. ^ A Hindu Primer by Shukavak N. Dasa
  49. ^ Sarma, Deepak (2011) "Classical Indian Philosophy: A Reader" p.167 Columbia University Press
  50. ^ Samkhya Karika, śloka4
  51. ^ "Religion & Ethics-Hinduism". BBC. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
  52. ^ Moorty, J.S.R.L.Narayana (May 18–21, 1995). "Science and spirituality: Any Points of Contact? The Teachings of U.G.Krishnamurti: A Case Study". Krishnamurti Centennial Conference. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
  53. ^ a b Rastogi, V.B. (1988). Organic Evolution. Kedar Nath Ram Nath, New Delhi.
  54. ^ Cvancara, A.M. (1995). A field manual for the amateur geologist. John Wiley & sons, Inc. New York.
  55. ^ Similarities in concept of evolution of life on earth in Dashavatar and modern Geology. Dr. Nitish Priyadarshi, American Chronicle
  56. ^ a b Dr Kutty (2009). Adam's Gene and the Mitochondrial Eve. Xlibris Corporation. p. 136. ISBN 978-1-4415-0729-7.
  57. ^ http://ncse.com/news/2009/07/opinions-evolution-from-ten-countries-004885
  58. ^ Hamilton, Fiona. The Times (London).http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6610938.ece.
  59. ^ a b c Muzaffar Iqbal (2007). Science & Islam. Greenwood Press.
  60. ^ 2. Toshihiko Izutsu (1964). God and Man in the Koran. Weltansckauung. Tokyo.
  61. ^ 3. Situating Arabic Science: Locality versus Essence (A.I. Sabra)
  62. ^ Rosanna Gorini (2003). "Al-Haytham the Man of Experience. First Steps in the Science of Vision", International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine. Institute of Neurosciences, Laboratory of Psychobiology and Psychopharmacology, Rome, Italy.
  63. ^ Robert Briffault (1928). The Making of Humanity, p. 190-202. G. Allen & Unwin Ltd.
  64. ^ a b Seyyid Hossein Nasr. "Islam and Modern Science"
  65. ^ Nayanar (2005b), p.190, Gāthā 10.310
  66. ^ *Soni, Jayandra; E. Craig (Ed.) (1998). "Jain Philosophy". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (London: Routledge). Retrieved 2008-06-27.
  67. ^ a b Smedes, Taede A. (2008). "Beyond Barbour or Back to Basics? The Future of Science-and-Religion and the Quest for Unity". Zygon 43 (1): 235 58.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00910.x.
  68. ^ Theerman, Paul "James Clerk Maxwell and religion", American Journal of Physics, 54 (4), April 1986, p.312–317 doi:10.1119/1.14636
    •What is truth? A course in science and religion Peter J. Brancazio, Am. J. Phys. 62, 893 (1994) doi:10.1119/1.17735
    •The stifling grip of religion Romard Barthel Am. J. Phys. 68, 785 (2000)doi:10.1119/1.1303729
    •Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology, Max Jammer Author Jeremy Bernstein and Reviewer, Am. J. Phys. 68, 676 (2000), doi:10.1119/1.19513
    •Science, religion, and skepticism, Dwight E. Neuenschwander, Am. J. Phys. 66, 273 (1998), doi:10.1119/1.19024
    •Copernicus and Martin Luther: An encounter between science and religion Donald H. Kobe, Am. J. Phys. 66, 190 (1998), doi:10.1119/1.18844
    •Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation John F. Haught and Eugene E. Selk, Am. J. Phys. 64, 1532 (1996), doi:10.1119/1.18441
    •Science and Religion—A Comment M. A. Vandyck, Am. J. Phys. 64, 110 (1996),doi:10.1119/1.18125
    •Religion versus science? Eduardo Segre, Am. J. Phys. 62, 296 (1994),doi:10.1119/1.17567
    •Does religion contradict science? Mehmet Pakdemirli, Am. J. Phys. 61, 201 (1993),doi:10.1119/1.17287
    •Religion versus science? Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., Am. J. Phys. 60, 871 (1992),doi:10.1119/1.17004
    •A response to ``Religion vs. Science?, by Jay Orear Allen C. Dotson, Am. J. Phys. 60, 778 (1992), doi:10.1119/1.17057
    •Religion vs. science? Jay Orear, Am. J. Phys. 60, 394 (1992), doi:10.1119/1.16889
    •Religion in an Age of Science Ian G. Barbour and Eugene E. Selk, Am. J. Phys. 59, 1152 (1991), doi:10.1119/1.16630
    •Making sense of experience: Common ground in science and religion Harry D. Powell, Am. J. Phys. 59, 679 (1991), doi:10.1119/1.16767
    •Guest Comment: Preserving and cherishing the Earth—An appeal for joint commitment in science and religion Carl Sagan, Am. J. Phys. 58, 615 (1990),doi:10.1119/1.16418
    •James Clerk Maxwell and religion. Paul Theerman, Am. J. Phys. 54, 312 (1986),doi:10.1119/1.14636
  69. ^ a b c d Science 15 August 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5328, pp. 890 - 893; "Scientific Community: Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Gregg Easterbrookdoi:10.1126/science.277.5328.890
  70. ^ •Science 12 September 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5332, pp. 1589 - 1591; "Letters: Science and Religion" doi:10.1126/science.277.5332.1589a
    •Science 13 December 1957: Vol. 126. no. 3285, pp. 1225 - 1229; "Science and the Citizen" Warren Weaver doi:10.1126/science.126.3285.1225
    •Science 25 April 1958: Vol. 127. no. 3304, pp. 1004+1006; "Letters: Science and Religion"
    •Science, 6 June 1958, 127(3310), pages 1324-1327; "A Human Enterprise: Science as lived by its practitioners bears but little resemblance to science as described in print."doi:10.1126/science.127.3310.1324
    •Science 23 February 2001: Vol. 291. no. 5508, pp. 1472 - 1474; "PAPAL SCIENCE: Science and Religion Advance Together at Pontifical Academy" Charles Seifedoi:10.1126/science.291.5508.1472
  71. ^ Science and Religion, by Alvin Plantinga, 2007, 2010.
  72. ^ Particularly Puritan Protestant, but not excluding Catholicism.
  73. ^ a b The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry, H. Floris Cohen, University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-226-11280-2, pages 308-321
  74. ^ "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
  75. ^ 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."
  76. ^ Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science(Cambridge, 1998).
  77. ^ Peter Harrison, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (Cambridge, 2007); see also Charles Webster, The Great Instauration (London: Duckworth, 1975)
  78. ^ God and nature, Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list; this is noted on page 366 of Science and Religion,John Hedley Brooke, 1991, Cambridge University Press
  79. ^ The Anglican Origins of Modern Science, Isis, Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of Science and Religion, John Hedley Brooke, 1991, Cambridge University Press
  80. ^ John Dillenberger, Protestant Thought and Natural Science (Doubleday, 1960).
  81. ^ Christopher B. Kaiser, Creation and the History of Science (Eerdmans, 1991).
  82. ^ John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, 1991,Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19. See also Peter Harrison, "Newtonian Science, Miracles, and the Laws of Nature", Journal of the History of Ideas56 (1995), 531-53.
  83. ^ Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew, Oxford University Press, 2007, Ronald L. Numbers, p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of Michael B. Foster, Reijer Hooykaas, Eugene M. Klaaren, andStanley L. Jaki
  84. ^ Rodney Stark, For the glory of God: how monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery, 2003, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-11436-6, page 123
  85. ^ Davis, Edward B. (2003). "Christianity, History Of Science And Religion". In Van Huyssteen, Wentzel. Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. Macmillan Reference USA. pp. 123–7. ISBN 978-0-02-865704-2
  86. ^ Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (1126 - 1198 CE), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  87. ^ Grant, Edward (2006). Science and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550 : from Aristotle to Copernicus (Johns Hopkins Paperbacks ed. ed.). John Hopkins Univ. Press. pp. 222.ISBN 0801884012.
  88. ^ Grant 2006, p. 111-114
  89. ^ Grant 2006, p. 105-106
  90. ^ Machamer, Peter (1998). The Cambridge Companion to Galileo. Cambridge University Press. p. 306. ISBN 0-521-58841-3.
  91. ^ Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics"
  92. ^ Peter Harrison, 'Religion, the Royal Society, and the Rise of Science', Theology and Science, 6 (2008), 255-71.
  93. ^ Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal Society (London, 1667)
  94. ^ Frank Turner, 'The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension', Isis, 49 (1978) 356-76.
  95. ^ Albert Einstein:Religion and Science
  96. ^ a b 1997 poll by Edward Larson of the University of Georgia published byNature:Nature 386, 435 - 436 (3 April 1997) Scientists are still keeping the faith, Edward J. Larson & Larry Witham
  97. ^ a b Essay Forum on the Religious Engagements of American Undergraduates
  98. ^ a b Larson, E. J. & Witham, L., "Scientists are still keeping the faith,", Nature 386, 435-436 (1997).
  99. ^ a b Pew Research Center: "Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media",Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion. July 9, 2009.
  100. ^ a b Easton, John. Survey on physicians' religious beliefs shows majority faithfulMedical Center Public Affairs, U of C Chronicle. July 14, 2005.http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith--.shtml accessed:1-February-09
  101. ^ http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/04/science-vs-religion-what-do-scientists-say.html
  102. ^ Larson and Witham, 1998 "Leading Scientists Still Reject God"
  103. ^ Ref to survey at Livescience article from Physorg.com
  104. ^ Scientists May Not Be Very Religious, but Science May Not Be to Blame:Religious upbringing, age, and family size influence religiosity among scientists June 29, 2007
  105. ^ "Scientists and Belief". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2011–04-08. "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."
  106. ^ Neil Gross and Solon Simmons (2009). The religiosity of American college and university professors. Sociology of Religion, v70 n2, pp101-129.doi:10.1093/socrel/srp026 (EISSN 1759-8818, ISSN 1069-4404)
  107. ^ http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/grants/religion-and-spirituality-among-natural-and-social-science-faculty-at-elite-rese
  108. ^ Elaine Howard Ecklund & Christopher P. Scheitle (2007). Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographics. Social Problems, v54 n2, pp289-307. doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289 From May to June 2005, the researchers "randomly selected 2,198 faculty members in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science, and psychology.... [with a] a relatively high response rate of 75 percent or 1,646" (p. 293) (p. 299).
  109. ^ Dr. Lars Farde Ph.D, professor of psychiatry at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden 2003, the study and a vulgarized article
  110. ^ p. 156 of Keith Ward (2007), Is Religion Dangerous? (ISBN 0802845088). Ward citesDavid Myers in a reference that appears intended to refer to Myers' then-forthcoming chapter "Religion and Human Flourishing" (pp. 323-343) in Michael Eid and Randy J. Larsen (2007). The Science of Subjective Well-Being. Guilford Press, ISBN 1-59385-581-8
  111. ^ Ronald Inglehart (2010). "Faith and Freedom: Traditional and Modern Ways to Happiness". In Ed Diener, John F. Helliwell, Daniel Kahneman. International Differences in Well-Being. Oxford University Press. pp. 378–385. ISBN 978-0-19-973273-9.
  112. ^ Smith,Timothy, Michael McCullough, and Justin Poll. 2003: "Religiousness and Depression: Evidence for a Main Effect and Moderating Influence of Stressful Life Events." Psychological Bulletin 129(4):614–36
  113. ^ Bryan Johnson & colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania (2002)
  114. ^ Is Religion Dangerous? cites similar results from the Handbook of Religion and Mental Health Harold Koenig (ed.) ISBN 978-0-12-417645-4
  115. ^ eg a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
  116. ^ Is Religion Dangerous? Ch 9.
  117. ^ quoting Michael Argyle and others
  118. ^ Abramowitz, Jonathan S., J. D. Huppert, A. B. Cohen, D. F. Tolin, and S. P. Cahill, "Religious obsessions and compulsions in a non-clinical sample: the Penn Inventory of Scrupulosity (PIOS)", Behaviour Research and Therapy 40:7 (2002): 825-838.
  119. ^ McNamara, Patrick, "The Frontal Lobes and the Evolution of Cooperation and Religion", in: idem (ed.), Where God and Science meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter our Understanding of Religion, London: Praeger Perspectives 2006, Vol. 2, pp. 189-204.
  120. ^ Evans, John (2011). "Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50 (4): 707–727.
  121. ^ Baker, Joseph O. (2012). "Public Perceptions of Incompatibility Between "Science and Religion"". Public Understanding of Science 21 (3): 340–353.
  122. ^ Scott Keeter, Gregory Smith, David Masci. "Religious Belief and Public Attitudes About Science in the US". Pew Research Center. pp. 1-2, 13.
  123. ^ Christopher P. Scheitle (2011). "U.S. College students' perception of religion and science: Conflict, collaboration, or independence? A research note". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Blackwell) 50 (1): 175–186. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x. ISSN 1468-5906.
  124. ^ Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart (2011). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–68. 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."
  125. ^ Keeter, Scott; Smith, Gregory; Masci, David (2011). "Religious Belief and Attitudes about Science in the United States". The Culture of science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. New York: Routledge. p. 336, 346. ISBN 978-0415873697. "The United States is perhaps the most religious out of the advanced industrial democracies." and "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)."
  126. ^ Religion-and-Science Philip Hefner, pages 562-576 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
  127. ^ a b Hefner, Philip (2008). "Editorial: Religion-and-Science, the Third Community".Zygon 43 (1): 3–7. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00893.x.
  128. ^ Ian Ramsey Centre

[edit]References

[edit]Further reading

[edit]External links

[hide] 
Articles Related to the Relationship Between Religion and Science

Categories: 
This page was last modified on 22 September 2012 at 19:23
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AE%97%E6%95%99%E4%B8%8E%E7%A7%91%E5%AD%A6

宗教与科学

维基百科，自由的百科全书

宗教与科学的关系是划界问题关注的焦点。这与科学和宗教获取真理的途径 不同有关，科学方法依赖于理性和经验，而宗教则依赖 于启示、信心和神圣性。在此问题上学术界有不同的观点。有些学者认为科学和宗教是 分离的，而有人则认为二者有内在的联系。

目录

  [隐藏] 

[编辑]观点

[编辑]冲突论

冲突论者中的典 型代表有教父德尔图良，有哲学家、逻辑学家、数学家、历史学家伯特兰•罗素。德尔 图良曾断言“雅典与耶路撒冷，学园与教会有何相干？”罗素则撰写《科学与宗教》、《我为什么不是基督徒》等著述解释基督教信仰的虚假性。两人构成了两个极端。德尔图良代表信仰至上的信徒的立场，罗素代表理性至上的一派科学家的态度。而二 者都认同信仰与理性水火不容。

[编辑]互补论

另一个阵营是宗 教与科学互补论者。他们尝试调和信仰与理性，试图论证信仰与理性是趋向相同真理的不同路径，殊途而同归。伊斯兰教权威教义学 家、哲学家、法学家、教育家，正统苏菲主义的集大成者，安萨里（1058～1111） 就是信仰与理性互补论者之一。[1]

[编辑]巴哈伊观 点

巴哈伊信仰的 基本教义之一就是科学与宗教的和谐。巴哈伊文本坚信，真正的科学和宗教是不相冲突的。阿博都巴哈， 巴哈伊信仰创立者的继承人和儿子说过，脱离了科学的宗教是迷信，脱离了宗教的科学是物质主义。他还告诫说，真正的宗教应和科学结论是一致的。[2][3][4]

[编辑]佛教观点

越来越多的讨论 认为佛教与科学是相容的。.[5] 一些佛教的哲学和心理学教义与启蒙运动以来现代西方的科学和哲学思想有相似之处。例如佛教鼓励无偏见地探索自 然世界。基于随机和经验的哲学原则在佛 家和科学中是共通的。但是，佛教并不关注物质主义。[6][7]

丹增嘉措，曾花很多 时间与科学家共处。在他的书《相对美丽的世界》中说：“我遨游于科学世界中的自信来源于我基本的信念，即在科学和佛学中一样，对现实 本质的了解，是通过批判性探索的方式获得的。”“如果科学分析给出了肯定的结果，显示了某些佛教的主张是错误的，”他说，“我们应该 接受科学结果，放弃那些主张。”[8][9]

[编辑]独立论

关于宗教与科学 的关系，一种现代的观点认为二者探讨的人类生活领域是截然分开的，各司其职的话，就可以和平共处。[10] 史蒂芬·杰伊·古尔德称 之为“互不重叠的领域”。古尔德是从科学的角度，谈二者的相互独立。而W.T.斯塔斯从宗教哲学的角度谈论 独立。斯塔斯认为宗教与科学在各自的领域内都是自洽、完整的。[11]

科学与宗教趋近 经验的方式不同，它们的不同之处就造成了很多争论。[12]科学与数学——一种非常抽象的经验——紧密地绑在一 起。而宗教与生活中的日常经验更为密切相关。[12] 关于对经验的解释，科学是描述性的，宗教是规范 性的。[12] 如果科学和数学像宗教那样规范世界，就是不当作 为，将会像公元前6世纪毕达哥拉斯的 门徒那样将一些属性强加于自然界。[12]与此相反，规范性的伦理科学的支持者对科学不能引领"应然"的论点持有异议。反之亦然，如 果宗教尝试描述性的方式，亦会强加不当属性给自然界。一个典型的例子就是现已过时的关于托勒密的地心说的信条。它一 直被尊奉到伽利略及其支持者引发了科学和宗教思想的变化才被放弃。[12]

[编辑]方法的平行

托马斯·库 恩认为，科学是由范式构成的，而范式 根植于文化传统，这和世俗视角的宗教观很相似。 [13] 迈克尔·波兰伊宣称对于普遍性的承诺有助于防范主观性，而不是科学领域里很多关 于个人超脱的概念。波兰伊进一步宣称到，所有的知识都是个人的，从事科学研究的科学家的角色虽然不一定是主观的，却一定是很个人的。[13]他补充说，科学家遵循的常常只是“理智之美、对称和 ‘经验性的共识’。”[13] 他认为从事科学需要道德约束。[13] 科学家查尔斯 A. 库尔森和哈罗德·Schilling都 声称“科学和宗教的方法有很多共同之处。”[13] 后者称科学与宗教都有三重结构——经验、理论解 释和实际应用。[13]库尔森认为“科学像宗教一样受到创造性想象的推动”， “科学不是仅仅收集事实”。他认为宗教应该而且确实“包含了类似于科学中的批判性反思。”[13]宗教语言与科学语言之间也表现有相似性（参见《科学的 修辞》）。

[编辑]对话

宗教信条与经验 科学之间具有某种程度的一致性。上帝创世、造人的信条，可以引向一个观点——上帝安排人以认识世界。这一观点隐含在关于上帝形象的教 义中。托马斯·阿 奎那说：“由于人具有理智，人被认为是按照上帝的形象造的。理智这一天赋使人可以模仿上帝，因此也是最像上帝形象的地 方。”[14]

西方科学界许多 鼎鼎大名的历史人物自认是基督徒，其中包括哥白尼、伽利略、开普勒和波义耳。 Pew Forum有对于宗教与科学态度的数据参考。[15]

[编辑]宗 教与科学的分离史

弗朗西斯·培根
哥白尼

人类学家弗雷泽认为人类认识自然的漫长历程依次经过了巫术、宗教与科学的阶段。巫术是基 于想象的对于大自然的一种因果解释，因此无法 掌控自然规律。宗教是通过对自然的膜拜和拟人化的供奉来取悦自然。而科学是对自然的基于观察试验的因果解释，借此，人类终于可以有效 地驾驭自然。

在漫长的历史长 河中，宗教扮演着自然的解释者和知识权威的角色。人们满足于用宗教传说解释自然起源和自然现象，以及社会的律法和秩序。

十六、十七世 纪，宗教对知识的垄断被以培根、笛卡尔等近代科学的开创者们所倡导的观察、试验、归纳、以及演绎、预测等科学方法所打破，哥白尼的日心说、牛顿的经典物理学撼 动了教会的宇宙观。现代意义上的物理学、数学蓬勃发展起来。 而神学逐渐退出对自然的研究领域。在稍后的世纪中，人文科学开始效法自然科学的实证之风，努力建立独立、严谨的经济、社会、心理、 政治学等学科。宗教对于自然和社会的解释力和对于一般知识分子的公信力进一步被削弱。在科学方兴未艾的潮流之下，宗教确实经历一段落 莫的被放逐的时期。

[编辑]争论的焦点

在宗教与科学、信仰与理性的辩论中，争论 的焦点是宗教或信仰能否为人们提供可靠的知识。宗教理解的对象是不可见的精神实在，而科学的研究对象是可观察的物质实在。宗教描述其 对象的语言是诗化的、模糊的；科学描述其对象的语言是力求简明、准确的。站在二元论的非此即彼的立场上，人们容易被误导以为必须在科 学与宗教之间进行正误的选择。在这种二元论主导的判断下，有些人拿着科学的标准衡量宗教，认为神灵、天国、死后生命等观念不具有可验证性，不能够证实也不能够证伪，所以，将它们当作无效的概念搁置起来，进而对整个的宗教传统的丰富遗产敬 而远之。

[编辑]注释

  1. ^ 安萨里, 萨里赫·艾哈迈德·沙米. 圣学复苏精义. 北京: 商务印书馆. 2001.ISBN 9787100031974.
  2. ^ Hatcher, William. Science and the Bahá'í Faith. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science. September 1979, 14 (3): 229–253.
  3. ^ Smith, P.. A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications. 1999:  306–307. ISBN 1-85168-184-1.
  4. ^ Mehanian, Courosh; Friberg, Stephen R.. Religion and Evolution Reconciled: 'Abdu'l-Bahá's Comments on Evolution. The Journal of Bahá'í studies. 2003, 13 (1–4): 55–93.
  5. ^ Yong, Amos. (2005) Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground (review) Buddhist-Christian Studies - Volume 25, 2005, pp. 176-180
  6. ^ Kalupahana,David J. (1975) "Causality—the central philosophy of Buddhism" University Press of Hawaii.
  7. ^ Wallace, B. Alan. (2003) "Buddhism & science: breaking new ground" Columbia University Press, pp 328
  8. ^ Hamilton, Jon. (2005) "The Links Between the Dalai Lama and Neuroscience" www.NPR.org, November 11, 2005 [1]
  9. ^ Dalia Lama. (2005) "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality" Broadway.
  10. ^ Stephen Jay Gould. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the fullness of life. Ballantine Books, 1999.
  11. ^ W.T.Stace, Time and Eternity: an Essay in the Philosophy of Religion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1952.
  12. ^ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Religion and Science, John Habgood, Mills & Brown, 1964, pp., 11, 14-16, 48-55, 68-69, 90-91, 87
  13. ^ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 Barbour, Ian G.. Science and Religion Today//Ian G. Barbour (ed.). Science and Religion: New Perspectives on the Dialogue. 1st. New York, Evanston and London:Harper & Row. 1968:  3–29.
  14. ^ Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  15. ^ Science in America: Religious Belief and Public Attitudes.

[编辑]参考来源

  1. 沙 伦•M.P.哈珀. 实验室、庙宇、市场——对科学、宗教和发展的交互作用的反思. 广东人民出版社. 2006. ISBN 7218052193.
  2. 迈 尔威利•斯图沃德. 当代西方宗教哲学. 北京. 2001. ISBN 9787301047316. .
  3. 安 萨里, 萨里赫·艾哈迈德·沙米. 圣学复苏精义. 北京: 商务印书馆. 2001. ISBN 9787100031974.
  4. 彼 得•亚当森. 阿拉伯哲学. 北京: 生活•读书•新知三联书店. 2006. ISBN 9787108024824.
  5. 弗 雷泽. 金枝. 大众文艺出版社. 1998. ISBN 9787800941818.
  6. 全 球繁荣研究所. 科学、宗教与发展——若干初步思考. 澳门: 新纪元国际出版社. 2009. ISBN 978-99937-20-72-0.

[编辑]外部连接

3个分类：
本页面最后修订于2012年6月13日 (星期三) 12:08

喜欢这篇文章吗？欢迎发空信给 lihlii+s...@googlegroups.com 订阅《童言无忌》邮件组 发空信给 jrzl+su...@googlegroups.com 订阅《今日知录邮件组》。

lihlii

unread,
Sep 25, 2012, 4:46:14 PM9/25/12
to lihlii-g, posterous, Salon Friends
http://bbs.seu.edu.cn/wForum/elite.php?file=%2Fgroups%2FGROUP_4%2FSalon%2FD81C138E1%2FD50BC4ADB%2FM.1016242130.A
发信人: lihlii (立里), 信区: Salon
标  题: 科学史及其与哲学和宗教的关系
发信站: 虎踞龙蟠 BBS 站 (2002年03月16日09:29:05 星期六), 转信

非常好非常好的一本书。:)

http://read.cnread.net/lszl/d/danpier/kxs/index.html
科学史及其与哲学和宗教的关系 
A HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND ITS RELATIOS WITH PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION 
作者：W.C.丹皮尔(Sir William Dampier) 
李珩 译    张今 校

　　　　序 
　　　　绪论 
　　　　起源 
第01章　古代世界的科学 
第02章　中世纪 
第03章　文艺复兴 
第04章　牛顿时代 
第05章　十八世纪 
第06章　十九世纪的物理学 
第07章　十九世纪的生物学 
第08章　十九世纪的科学与哲学思想 
第09章　生物学与人类学的进一步发展 
第10章　物理学的新时代 
第11章　恒星宇宙 
第12章　科学的哲学及其展望 


天生奴才必有用
※ 来源:·虎踞龙蟠 BBS 站 sbbs.seu.edu.cn·[FROM: 202.119.21.35]
※ 修改:·lihlii 於 03月16日09:30:18 修改本文·[FROM: 202.119.21.35]
光伟正教，千秋万载，一统江湖! 法轮邪教，鸡犬不留!
神圣核心，寿比南山，福如东海!                        --《哭熬江糊》
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages