Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:25, 31 August 2013

Part of a series on
Science
General
History Literature Method Philosophy
Branches
Formal Natural Physical Life Social Applied
In society
Communication Community Education Funding Policy Pseudoscience Scientist
Science portal Outline Category Article indexes Glossaries
v t e

The relationship between religion and science has been a subject of study since Classical antiquity, addressed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and other commentators. Perspectives from different geographical regions, cultures and historical epochs are diverse. Recent commentators have characterized the relationship in varying categories. Discussions of what is science and what is not science, the demarcation problem in the philosophy of science, have intersected with discourse on religion in some instances and both have had complex relations in their historical interactions.

The conflict thesis, which states that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science, remains generally popular for the public; most historians of science no longer support it. Other contemporary scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould, Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins hold that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between them.

Perspectives

The kinds of interactions that might arise between science and religion have been categorized, according to physicist, theologian and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne are: 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.

This typology is similar to ones used by theologians Ian Barbour and John Haught. More typologies that categorize this relationship can be found among the works of other science and religion scholars such as theologian and biochemist Arthur Peacocke.

Conflict

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 include creationism (see level of support for evolution). A number of scientists including Jerry Coyne 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—Tyson argues that religious scientists, such as Isaac Newton, could have achieved more had they not accepted religious answers to unresolved scientific issues.

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 and Andrew 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:

Most historians today have moved away from a conflict model, which is based mainly on two historical episodes (Galileo and Darwin) for a "complexity" model, because religious figures were on both sides of each dispute and there was no overall aim by any party involved in discrediting religion. 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 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 sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."

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. 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.

According to the Archbishop John Habgood, both science and religion represent distinct ways of approaching experience and these differences are sources of debate. He views science as descriptive and religion as prescriptive. He stated that science and mathematics concentrates on what the world ought to be, like in the way that religion does, may lead to improperly ascribing properties to the natural world as happened among the followers of Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C. In contrast, proponents of a normative moral science take issue with the idea that science has no way of guiding "oughts". Habgood also stated that he believed that 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.

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.

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. Polanyi added that the scientist often merely follows intuitions of "intellectual beauty, symmetry, and 'empirical agreement'". Polanyi held that science requires moral commitments similar to those found in religion.

Two physicists, Charles A. Coulson and Harold K. Schilling, both claimed that "the methods of science and religion have much in common." Schilling asserted that both fields—science and religion—have "a threefold structure—of experience, theoretical interpretation, and practical application." 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." Religious language and scientific language also show parallels (cf. Rhetoric of science).

Dialogue

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 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. 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, and the Faraday Institute. Journals addressing the relationship between science and religion include Theology and Science and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science. Eugenie Scott has written that the "science and religion" movement is, overall, composed mainly of theists who have a healthy respect for science and may be beneficial to the public understanding of science. She contends that the "Christian scholarship" movement is not a problem for science, but that the "Theistic science" movement, which proposes abandoning methodological materialism, does cause problems in understanding of the nature of science.

The modern dialogue between religion and science is rooted in Ian Barbour's 1966 book Issues in Science and Religion. Since that time it has grown into 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. Articles are also sometimes found in mainstream science journals such as American Journal of Physics and Science.

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. 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. 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." 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."

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 under Hinduism 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.

Cooperative

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. From a historical perspective this points out that much of the current-day clashes occur between limited extremists -- both religious and scientistic fundamentalists -- over a very few topics, and that the movement of ideas back and forth between scientific and theological thought has been more usual. The historical perspective would point to the fundamentally common respect for written learning in religious traditions of rabbinical literature, christian theology, and islamic golden age, including a Transmission of the Classics from Greek to Islamic to Christian traditions which helped spark the Renaissance. Religions have also given key participation in development of modern universities and libraries; centers of learning & scholarship were coincident with religious institutions - whether pagan, Muslim, or Christian. Religion also provided direct motivation for producing scientific knowledge by many cleric-scientists such as Copernicus and Mendel, or 17th and 18th century studies by vicars and gentlemen scientist who pursued studies motivated by natural theology mixing theological statements in their works, such as Boyle and Newton.

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.

Buddhism

Buddhism and science have increasingly been discussed as compatible. 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 on materialism.

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."

Christianity

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.

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

Christian philosophers Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and Thomas Aquinas 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. 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.

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".

Many well-known historical figures who influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Boyle.

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.

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.

Roman Catholicism

While refined and clarified over the centuries, the Roman Catholic position on the relationship between science and religion is one of harmony, and has maintained the teaching of natural law as set forth by Thomas Aquinas. For example, regarding scientific study such as that of evolution, the church's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. Catholic schools have included all manners of scientific study in their curriculum for many centuries.

Galileo once stated "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." 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". This statement would reflect the views of many non-Catholic Christians as well. An example of this kind of thinking is theistic evolution.

Influence of a biblical world view on early modern science

H. Floris Cohen argued for a biblical Protestant, but not excluding Catholicism, influence on the early development of modern science. 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. 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. 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". Cohen also noted that Richard S. Westfall "brought out the ultimate paradox" in stating: "Despite the natural piety of the virtuosi , 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. 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.

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. 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). John Dillenberger and Christopher B. Kaiser have written theological surveys, which also cover additional interactions occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. Philosopher of Religion, Richard Jones, has written a philosophical critique of the "dependency thesis" which assumes that modern science emerged from Christian sources and doctrines. Though he acknowledges that modern science emerged in a religious framework, that Christinaity greatly elevated the importance of science by sanctioning and religiously legitimizing it in medieval period, and that Christianity created a favorable social context for it to grow; he argues that direct Christian beliefs or doctrines were not primary source of scientific pursuits by natural philosophers, nor was Christianity, in and of itself, exclusively or directly necessary in developing or practicing modern science.

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 René 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." 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." The sociologist Rodney Stark of Baylor University, a Southern Baptist institution, argued in contrast that "Christian theology was essential for the rise of science."

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. 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. 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. 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.

Hinduism

In Hinduism, the dividing line between objective sciences and spiritual knowledge (adhyatma vidya) is a linguistic paradox. 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. 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. Hinduism offers methods to correct and transform itself in course of time. For instance, Hindu views on the development of life include a range of viewpoints in regards to evolution, creationism, and the origin of life within the traditions of Hinduism. For instance, it has been suggested that Wallace-Darwininan evolutionary thought was a part of Hindu thought centuries before modern times.

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 –

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. 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.

The incarnations of Vishnu (Dashavatara) is almost identical to the scientific explanation of the sequence of biological evolution of man and animals. 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). 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.

An exception to this acceptance is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), which includes several members who actively oppose "Darwinism" and the modern evolutionary synthesis (see Hindu Creationism).

Hindu scriptures called the give another explanation for the creation based on the five elements: earth, water, fire, air and ether.

Islam

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. In Islam, 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. 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. 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.

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". 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.

However, the colonizing powers of the western world and their destruction of the Islamic scientific tradition forced the discourse of Islam and Science into 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

Perspectives from the scientific community

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. 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. Clerical involvement in the Royal Society remained high until the mid-nineteenth century, when science became more professionalised.

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.

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, and United Church of Christ member Charles Townes, evangelical Christian, and past head of the Human Genome Project Francis Collins, and climatologist John T. Houghton.

Studies on scientists' beliefs

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (March 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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 of scientists are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God (although some might be deistic, for example). 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%).

In 1916, 1,000 leading American scientists were randomly chosen from American Men of Science and 41.8% believed God existed, 41.5% disbelieved, and 16.7% had doubts/did not know; however when the study was replicated 80 years later using American Men and Women of Science in 1996, results were very much the same with 39.3% believing God exists, 45.3% disbelieved, and 14.5% had doubts/did not know. In the same 1996 survey, 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, in terms of belief toward a personal god and personal immortality, about 60% of United States scientists in these fields expressed either disbelief or agnosticism and about 40% expressed belief. This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933.

Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, only 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.

A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York on 1,646 natural and social science professors at 21 elite US research universities found that, in terms of belief in God or a higher power, more than 60% expressed either disbelief or agnosticism and more than 30% expressed belief. More specifically, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answered "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out." In the same study, 28% said they believed in God and 8% believed in a higher power that was not God. Ecklund stated that scientists were often able to consider themselves spiritual without religion or belief in god. Ecklund and Scheitle concluded, from their study, that the individuals from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately had self-selected into scientific professions and that the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable since the study did not strongly support the idea that scientists had dropped religious identities due to their scientific training. Instead, factors such as upbringing, age, and family size were significant influences on religious identification since those who had religious upbringing were more likely to be religious and those who had a non-religious upbringing were more likely to not be religious. The authors also found little difference in religiosity between social and natural scientists.

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." 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."

Another study conducted 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, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power." 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.

Physicians in the United States, by contrast, are much more religious than scientists, with 76% stating a belief in God.

Religious beliefs of US professors were recently examined using a nationally representative sample of more than 1400 professors. They found that in the social sciences: 23.4% did not believe in God, 16% did not know if God existed, 42.5% believed God existed, and 16% believed in a higher power. Out of the natural sciences: 19.5% did not believe in God, 32.9% did not know if God existed, 43.9% believed God existed, and 3.7% believed in a higher power.

In terms of perceptions, most social and natural scientists from 21 American elite universities did not perceive conflict between science and religion, while 36.6% did. However, in the study, scientists who had experienced limited exposure to religion tended to perceive conflict.

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 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. 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. An analysis of over 200 social studies states 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." 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. Surveys suggest a strong link between faith and altruism. Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health. Michael Argyle and others claim that there is little or no evidence that religion ever causes mental disorders.

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

Public perceptions of science

According to a 2007 poll by the Pew Forum, Americans generally respect science, but often "reject science in favor of the teachings of their faith" when evidence contradicts their belief. While the Pew Forum states that specific factual disagreements are "not common today," 74% of Americans do not accept evolution by natural selection, with the "strongest opposition" coming from evangelical Christians. In the US, biological evolution is the only concrete example of conflict where a significant portion of the American public denies scientific consensus for religious reasons. In terms of advanced industrialized nations, the United States is the most religious.

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. 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. Even strict creationists tend to have very favorable views on science. 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 towards a conflict view.

In the US, people who had no religious affiliation were no more likely than the religious population to have New Age beliefs and practices.

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.

Cross-national studies, which have pooled data on religion and science from 1981-2001, 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. The United States is noted there as distinctive because of greater faith in both God and scientific progress. Other research has also observed that America has more favorable public attitudes towards science than Europe, Russia, and Japan despite differences in levels of religiosity in these cultures.

See also

Notes

1. Russel, C.A. (2002). Ferngren, G.B. (ed.). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 7. 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
2. Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press. p. 195. 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.
3. 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.
4. Ferngren, G.B. (2002). Ferngren, G.B. (ed.). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. ... while Brooke's view has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind.
5. John Polkinghorne Science and Theology SPCK/Fortress Press, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3153-6 pp20-22, following Ian Barbour
6. Nature, Human Nature, and God, Ian G. Barbour, Fortress Press, 2002, ISBN 0-8006-3477-2
7. Haught, John F. (1995). Science and Religion : From Conflict to Conversation. Paulist Prees. p. 9. ISBN 0809136066. 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 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. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |quote= at position 143 (help)
8. 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
9. "Does The Empirical Nature Of Science Contradict The Revelatory Nature Of Faith? - Jerry Coyne". Edge. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
10. "Holy Wars | Neil deGrasse Tyson". Haydenplanetarium.org. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
11. 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 Brooke's view has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind." (p. x)
12. 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).
13. ^ Jones, Richard H. (2011). For the Glory of God : The Role of Christianity in the Rise and Development of Modern Science Volume 1. University Press of America. pp. 19–22, 139. ISBN 9780761855668. {{cite book}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 21 (help)
14. ^ 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.
15. 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.
16. Stephen Jay Gould. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the fullness of life. Ballantine Books, 1999.
17. W. T. Stace, Time and Eternity: an Essay in the Philosophy of Religion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1952.
18. ^ Religion and Science, John Habgood, Mills & Brown, 1964, pp., 11, 14-16, 48-55, 68-69, 90-91, 87
19. ^ Barbour, Ian G. (1968). "Science and Religion Today". In Ian G. Barbour (ed.) (ed.). Science and Religion: New Perspectives on the Dialogue (1st ed.). New York, Evanston and London: Harper & Row. pp. 3–29. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)
20. 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
21. ^ Hefner, Philip (2008). "Editorial: Religion-and-Science, the Third Community". Zygon. 43 (1): 3–7. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00893.x.
22. "Ian Ramsey Centre". Users.ox.ac.uk. 2013-06-04. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
23. Scott, Eugenie (1998). ""Science and Religion", "Christian Scholarship", and "Theistic Science"". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Vol. 18, no. 2. National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 7 January 2013.
24. ^ 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.
25. 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
26. ^ Science 15 August 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5328, pp. 890 - 893; "Scientific Community: Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Gregg Easterbrook doi:10.1126/science.277.5328.890
27. •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 Seife doi:10.1126/science.291.5508.1472
28. Science and Religion, by Alvin Plantinga, 2007, 2010.
29. Schuessler, Jennifer (13 December 2011). "Philosopher sticks up for God". The New York Times. Retrieved 7 January 2013.
30. Boudry, Maarten (September and October 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. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
31. "Themelios | Review: Where The Conflict Really Lies Science Religion And Naturalism". The Gospel Coalition. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
32. Principe (2006). Science and Religion. The Teaching Company.
33. {{cite book title = Hitory of Science from Antiquity to 1700 publisher = The Teaching Company last = Principe}}
34. {{cite book title = Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica last = Newton date = 5 July 1687}}
35. Hatcher, William (1979). "Science and the Bahá'í Faith". Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science. 14 (3): 229–253. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
36. Smith, P. (1999). A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications. pp. 306–307. ISBN 1-85168-184-1.
37. Mehanian, Courosh (2003). "Religion and Evolution Reconciled: 'Abdu'l-Bahá's Comments on Evolution". The Journal of Bahá'í studies. 13 (1–4): 55–93. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
38. Yong, Amos. (2005) Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground (review) Buddhist-Christian Studies - Volume 25, 2005, pp. 176-180
39. Wallace, B. Alan. (2003) " Buddhism & science: breaking new ground" Columbia University Press, pp 328
40. Hamilton, Jon. (2005) "The Links Between the Dalai Lama and Neuroscience" www.NPR.org, November 11, 2005
41. Dalia Lama. (2005) "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality" Broadway.
42. Davis, Edward B. (2003). "Christianity, History Of Science And Religion". In Van Huyssteen, Wentzel (ed.). Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. Macmillan Reference USA. pp. 123–7. ISBN 978-0-02-865704-2Template:Inconsistent citations{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
43. Russell, Robert John (2008). Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. p. 344. ISBN 978-0-8006-6273-8.
44. 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.
45. 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. p. 222. ISBN 0801884012. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
46. Grant 2006, p. 111-114
47. Grant 2006, p. 105-106
48. "Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
49. 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
50. 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.
51. "Catholic Encyclopedia". New Advent. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
52. Machamer, Peter (1998). The Cambridge Companion to Galileo. Cambridge University Press. p. 306. ISBN 0-521-58841-3.
53. Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics"
54. ^ The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry, H. Floris Cohen, University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-226-11280-2, pages 308-321
55. "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
56. 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."
57. Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge, 1998).
58. Peter Harrison, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (Cambridge, 2007); see also Charles Webster, The Great Instauration (London: Duckworth, 1975)
59. 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
60. 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
61. John Dillenberger, Protestant Thought and Natural Science (Doubleday, 1960).
62. Christopher B. Kaiser, Creation and the History of Science (Eerdmans, 1991).
63. 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 Ideas 56 (1995), 531-53.
64. 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, and Stanley L. Jaki
65. 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
66. Cua, Antonio S. "The Quasi-Empirical Aspect of Hsün-tzu's Philosophy of Human Nature." PEW 28 (1978), 3-19.
67. 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.
68. 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
69. 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)
70. ^ Carl Mitcham (2005). Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Macmillan Reference USA. p. 917. ISBN 0-02-865831-0.
71. "A Hindu Primer by Shukavak N. Dasa". Sanskrit.org. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
72. 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.
73. Sarma, Deepak (2011) "Classical Indian Philosophy: A Reader" p.167 Columbia University Press
74. Samkhya Karika, śloka4
75. "Religion & Ethics-Hinduism". BBC. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
76. 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.
77. ^ Rastogi, V.B. (1988). Organic Evolution. Kedar Nath Ram Nath, New Delhi.
78. Cvancara, A.M. (1995). A field manual for the amateur geologist. John Wiley & sons, Inc. New York.
79. Similarities in concept of evolution of life on earth in Dashavatar and modern Geology. Dr. Nitish Priyadarshi, American Chronicle
80. ^ Dr Kutty (2009). Adam's Gene and the Mitochondrial Eve. Xlibris Corporation. p. 136. ISBN 978-1-4415-0729-7.
81. "Opinions on evolution from ten countries". NCSE. 2009-06-30. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
82. Hamilton, Fiona. "One in seven Britons believe in creationism over evolution". The Times. London.
83. Upanishads Upanishads
84. ^ Muzaffar Iqbal (2007). Science & Islam. Greenwood Press.
85. 2. Toshihiko Izutsu (1964). God and Man in the Koran. Weltansckauung. Tokyo.
86. 3. Situating Arabic Science: Locality versus Essence (A.I. Sabra)
87. 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.
88. Robert Briffault (1928). The Making of Humanity, p. 190-202. G. Allen & Unwin Ltd.
89. ^ Seyyid Hossein Nasr. "Islam and Modern Science"
90. Nayanar (2005b), p.190, Gāthā 10.310
91. *Soni, Jayandra (1998). "Jain Philosophy". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved 2008-06-27. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
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". Sacred-texts.com. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
96. ^ Larson, E. J. & Witham, L., "Scientists are still keeping the faith,", Nature 386, 435-436 (1997).
97. Wuthnow, Robert (2005-05-21). "Essay Forum on the Religious Engagements of American Undergraduates". Religion.ssrc.org. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
98. ^ Pew Research Center: "Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media", Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion. July 9, 2009.
99. Larson and Witham, 1998 "Leading Scientists Still Reject God"
100. ^ Ecklund, Elaine. "Religion and Spirituality among University Scientists" (PDF). Social Science Research Council.
101. Ecklund, Elaine Howard (2010). Science vs. Religion : What Scientists Really Think. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 16. ISBN 9780195392982.
102. article from Physorg.com "Natural scientists are less likely to believe in God than are social scientists". Physorg.com. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help) "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."
103. ^ Donovan, Patricia. "Scientists May Not Be Very Religious, but Science May Not Be to Blame". University at Buffalo New York.
104. Elaine Howard Ecklund & Christopher P. Scheitle (2007). Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographics. Social Problems, 54(2):289-307. 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.... a relatively high response rate of 75 percent or 1,646" (p. 293) (p. 299).
105. ^ Easton, John. Survey on physicians' religious beliefs shows majority faithful Medical Center Public Affairs, U of C Chronicle. July 14, 2005. http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith--.shtml accessed:1-February-09
106. "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. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
107. Neil Gross and Solon Simmons (2009). The religiosity of American college and university professors. Sociology of Religion, 70(2):101-129. doi:10.1093/socrel/srp026, (p. 117).
108. Ecklund, Elaine Howard. "Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists?". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 48 (2): 276–292. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01447.x. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
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 cites David 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 (ed.). International Differences in Well-Being. Oxford University Press. pp. 378–385. ISBN 978-0-19-973273-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
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. e.g. 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. ^ "Science in America: Religious Belief and Public Attitudes". The Pew Forum. 18 December 2007. Retrieved 16 January 2012.
121. ^ Keeter, Scott (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. 336,345–347. ISBN 978-0415873697. 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). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
122. Evans, John (2011). "Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 50 (4): 707–727.
123. Baker, Joseph O. (2012). "Public Perceptions of Incompatibility Between "Science and Religion"". Public Understanding of Science. 21 (3): 340–353.
124. Scott Keeter, Gregory Smith, David Masci. "Religious Belief and Public Attitudes About Science in the US" (PDF). Pew Research Center. pp. 1–2, 13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
125. 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. 50 (1). Blackwell: 175–186. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x. ISSN 1468-5906.
126. "Nones on the Rise" (PDF). Pew Research Center. p. 24.
127. Francis, Leslie J. (1 May 2001). "Shaping Adolescents' Attitudes towards Science and Religion in Northern Ireland: The role of scientism, creationism and denominational schools". Research in Science & Technological Education. 19 (1): 39–53. Bibcode:2001RSTEd..19...39J. doi:10.1080/02635140120046213. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
128. Norris, Pippa (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. Interestingly, again the United States displays distinctive attitudes compared with similar European nations, showing greater faith in both God and scientific progress. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

References

• Barbour, Ian. When Science Meets Religion. SanFrancisco: Harper, 2000.
• Barbour, Ian. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. SanFrancisco: Harper, 1997. ISBN 0-06-060938-9
• Drummond, Henry. Natural Law in the Spiritual World. London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, 29th Edition, 1890
• Haught, John F. Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation. Paulist Press, 1995. 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 – 436 (3 April 1997)
• Larson, Edward J. and Larry Witham. "Leading scientists still reject God," Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691 (1998), p. 313. online version
• 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

• Brooke, John H., Margaret Osler, and Jitse M. van der Meer, editors. "Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions," Osiris, 2nd ser., vol. 16(2001), ISBN 0-226-07565-6.
• Brooke, John H., Science And Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991, ISBN 0-521-23961-3
• Haisch, Bernard. The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What's Behind It All, Red Wheel/Weiser, 2006, ISBN 1-57863-374-5
• Bunge, Mario, Chasing Reality: Strife over Realism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• Harper, Sharon M.P. (ed.) (2000). The Lab, the Temple, and the Market: Reflections at the Intersection of Science, Religion, and Development. International Development Research Centre. ISBN 0889369208.
• Harrison, Peter, The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (Cambridge, 2010).
• Huxley, Thomas Henry, Science and Hebrew Tradition: Essays, D. Appleton and Company, 1897, 372 pages
• Lenaers, Roger. Nebuchadnezzar's Dream or The End of a Medieval Catholic Church. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007. ISBN 978-1-59333-583-0.
• Oord,Thomas Jay, ed., Divine Grace and Emerging Creation: Wesleyan Forays in Science and Theology of Creation, Pickwick Publications, 2009, ISBN 1-60608-287-6
• Oord,Thomas Jay, Science of Love: The Wisdom of Well-Being, Templeton, 2003, 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
• J.B. Stump 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
• Walsh, James J., The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time, Kessinger Publishing, 1908, reprinted 2003. ISBN 0-7661-3646-9 from WorldCat Review excerpts:
• Waters, F. W. The Way in and the Way out: Science and Religion Reconciled. Toronto: Oxford University Press, Canadian Branch, 1967. x, , 269 p.
• Wilber, Ken, The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion, Broadway; Reprint edition, 1999, 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
• 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 RealMedia software)
• 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
• Robert M. Young (1985). "Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's Place in Victorian Culture". Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 2007-08-31. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Zygon Journal of Religion and Science
• Science and Religion by Archbishop Luke of Crimea, an Eastern Orthodox perspective
• Victorian Science and Religion The Victorian Web: Literature, History, and Culture in the Age of Victoria
• SCIENCE and RELIGION: DIALOG OF PHYSICISTS AND THEOLOGIANS SCIENCE and RELIGION: DIALOG OF PHYSICISTS AND THEOLOGIANS
• The Metaphysical Foundations of Buddhism and Sciences

Articles Related to the Relationship Between Religion and Science

v t e Religion Religious groups and denominations Western Abrahamic Judaism Orthodox Haredi Hasidic Modern Zionist Conservative Reform Karaite Haymanot Reconstructionist Renewal Humanistic list Christianity Catholicism Latin Eastern Eastern Orthodoxy Oriental Orthodoxy Nestorianism Ancient Assyrian Proto-Protestantism Hussites/Moravians Waldensians Protestantism Adventism Anabaptism Amish Brethren Hutterites Mennonites Schwenkfelder Church Anglicanism Baptists Calvinism Congregationalism Presbyterianism Reformed Charismatic Christianity Pentecostal Charismatic Neo-charismatic Evangelicalism Irvingism Lutheran Methodist Holiness Nondenominational Plymouth Brethren Quakerism Restorationism Esoteric The Christian Community Independent Catholicism Old Catholic Judaizers Nontrinitarianism Bible Students Associated Bible Students Free Bible Students Friends of Man Jehovah's Witnesses Kitawala Laymen's Home Missionary Movement Christadelphians Mormonism Oneness Pentecostalism Spiritual Swedenborgianism Tolstoyan Unitarianism list Islam Sunnism Ash'arism Maturidism Atharism Salafism Wahhabism Modernist Salafism Shi'ism Alawism Ali-Illahism Isma'ilism Twelver Shi'ism Zaydism Sufism Khawarij Ibadism Alevism Ishikism Kurdish Alevism Ahmadi Mahdavism Quranism Milah Abraham Non-denominational list Other Bábism Azalism Baháʼí Druze Mandaeism Rastafari Samaritanism Iranian Zoroastrian Blagovery Ilm-e-Khshnoom Mazdaznan Zurvanism Kurdish Shabakism Yarsanism Other Assianism/Uatsdin Roshani Manichaeism Chinese Manichaeism Yazdânism Yazidism Eastern East Asian Chinese Chinese folk religion Confucianism Luoism Nuo Salvationist Xiantiandao Yiguandao Taoism Folk Taoism Yao Taoism Japonic Shinto list Shugendō Tenrikyo Ryukyuan Korean Korean shamanism Cheondoism Jeungsanism Vietnamese Vietnamese folk religion Đạo Mẫu Caodaism Hoahaoism Đạo Bửu Sơn Kỳ Hương Indian Hinduism Vaishnavism Krishnaism Sri Vaishnavism Brahma Sampradaya Nimbarka Sampradaya Pushtimarg Mahanubhava Ramanandi Warkari Swaminarayan Shaivism Shaiva Siddhanta Ganapatya Kashmiri Kapalika Kaumaram Lingayatism Nath Balinese Shaktism Smartism Sauraism Śrauta Sant Mat Neo-Hinduism list Buddhism Theravada Mahayana Chan/Zen/Thiền Amidism Nichiren Vajrayana Tibetan Neo-Buddhism list Other Ayyavazhi Kalash Jainism Digambara Śvetāmbara Sarnaism Kirat Mundhum Vedda religions Ravidassia Sikhism Khalsa Sects Ethnic Altaic Turko-Mongolic Burkhanism Tengrism Vattisen Yaly Tungusic Evenki Manchu Austroasiatic Sarnaism Austronesian Batak Parmalim Dayak Kaharingan Traditional Sabahan religions Indonesian Aliran Kepercayaan Kejawèn Kapitayan Karo Pemena Malaysian Philippine Dayawism Tagalog Polynesian Hawaiian Māori Sumbese Marapu Sundanese Wiwitan Native American Abenaki Alaskan Anishinaabe Ojibwe Midewiwin Wabunowin Apache Blackfoot Californian Kuksu Miwok Ohlone Pomo Chilote Choctaw Crow Ghost Dance/Sun Dance Guarani Haida Ho-Chunk Iroquois Cherokee Four Mothers Society Keetoowah Society Longhouse Mohawk Muscogee Creek Seneca Wyandot Jivaroan Kwakwakaʼwakw Lenape Mapuche Mesoamerican Aztec Maya Purépecha Muisca Native American Church Navajo Nuu-chah-nulth Pawnee Pueblo Acoma Pueblo Hopi Zuni Sioux Lakota Wocekiye Tsimshian Ute Washat Dreamers Yaqui Tai and Miao Ahom Hmongism Mo Satsana Phi Tibeto-Burmese Bon Burmese Benzhuism Bimoism Bathouism Bongthingism Dongba Donyi-Polo Gurung Heraka Kiratism Qiang Sanamahism Traditional African North African Berber Guanche church Sub-Saharan African Akamba Akan Baluba Bantu Kongo Zulu Bushongo Dinka Dogon Efik Fon and Ewe Ik Lotuko Lozi Lugbara Maasai Mbuti Odinala San Serer Tumbuka Urhobo Waaqeffanna Yoruba Ifá Diasporic: Candomblé Bantu Jejé Ketu Comfa Convince Espiritismo Kumina Obeah Palo Quimbanda Santería Tambor de Mina Trinidad Orisha Umbanda Vodou Voodoo Winti Other ethnic Aboriginal Australian Inuit Papuan Siberian New religious movements Syncretic Blagovery Brahmoism Chinese Falun Gong Coconut Religion Japanese Meivazhi Modekngei New Acropolis New Age New Thought Rajneesh Rastafari Sant Mat Radha Soami Spiritualism Subud Tensegrity Thelema Theosophy Neo-Theosophy Agni Yoga and Roerichism Transcendental Meditation Unitarian Universalism White Brotherhood Modern paganism African Godianism Armenian Baltic Dievturība Romuva Caucasian Abkhaz Circassian Celtic Druidry Germanic Hellenism (modern religion) Neoshamanism Ossetian Polytheistic reconstructionism Italo-Roman Kemetism Romanian Slavic Authentism Uralic Estonian Finnish Hungarian Mari Erzya Sámi Udmurt Wicca Zalmoxianism list De novo Anthroposophy The Christian Community Discordianism Eckankar Fourth Way Goddess Jediism Satanism Scientology UFO religion Raëlism Historical religions Prehistoric Paleolithic Ainu Arabian Armenian Baltic Latvian Lithuanian Old Prussian Basque Celtic Druidism Irish Cook Islands Dravidian Egyptian Atenism Etruscan Finnish Fuegian Selk'nam Georgian Germanic Anglo-Saxon Continental Frankish Norse Greek Gnosticism Greco-Buddhism Hermeticism Mysteries Orphism Guanche Harappan Hittite Hungarian Hurrian Illinois Inca Jamaican Maroon Manichaeism Mazdakism Melanesian Mesopotamian Babylonian Sumerian Micronesian Nauruan Indigenous religion Olmec Paleo-Balkan Albanian Dacian Illyrian Thracian Proto-Indo-Iranian Iranian Vedic Ancestral Pueblo Pueblo II Pueblo III Pueblo IV Rapa Nui Roman Cult of Magna Mater Gallo-Roman Imperial cult Mithraism Mysteries of Isis Semitic Canaanite Punic Yahwism Scythian Slavic Somali Tongan Urartu Vainakh Zapotec Topics Aspects Apostasy / Disaffiliation Behaviour Beliefs Call to prayer Laicism / Laity Covenant Conversion Deities Denomination Entheogens Faith God Goddess Meditation Monasticism Monk Novice Nun Mysticism Mythology Ordination Orthodoxy Orthopraxy Paganism Prayer Prophecy Religious experience Ritual Liturgy Purification Sacrifice Sacred space Bodies of water Groves Mountains Trees Soul Spirituality Supernatural Symbols Text Truth Water Worship Astral Fire Nature Place Theism Animism Deism Dualism Henotheism Monotheism Nontheism Panentheism Pantheism Polytheism Transtheism Religious studies Anthropology Cognitive science Comparative Demographics Ethnic Folk Indigenous Major World Evolutionary origin of religion Evolutionary psychology History Neurotheology Philosophy Psychology Sociology Soteriology Salvation Theology Theories about religion Women Religion and society Agriculture Business Clericalism / Clergy Monasticism Ordination Priest Conversion Assimilation Missionary Proselytism Disability Education Fanaticism Freedom Pluralism Syncretism Toleration Universalism Fundamentalism Growth Happiness Homosexuality Minorities National church National religiosity levels Politics Populations Religiocentrism Schism Science State Theocracy Vegetarianism Video games Violence Persecution Terrorism War Sectarian Wealth Secularism and irreligion Agnosticism Antireligion Atheism Criticism Deconstruction Objectivism Secular humanism Secular theology Secularization Separation of church and state Unaffiliated Overviews and lists Abrahamic prophets Deification Deities Founders Index Mass gatherings Names of God New religious movements Organizations Outline Religions and spiritual traditions Scholars Timeline Religion by country Africa Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Eswatini Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Ivory Coast Kenya Lesotho Liberia Libya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa South Sudan Sudan Tanzania Togo Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Asia Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Cambodia China Cyprus East Timor Georgia Hong Kong India Indonesia Iran Iraq Israel Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Korea North Korea South Korea Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Macau Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Myanmar Nepal Oman Pakistan Palestine Philippines Qatar Saudi Arabia Singapore Sri Lanka Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Thailand Turkey Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Vietnam Yemen Europe Albania Andorra Austria Belarus Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Czechia Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Kosovo Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Moldova Monaco Montenegro Netherlands North Macedonia Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia San Marino Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom England Northern Ireland Scotland Wales North America Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Barbados Belize Canada Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic El Salvador Grenada Guatemala Haiti Honduras Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua Panama Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Trinidad and Tobago United States Oceania Australia Fiji Kiribati Marshall Islands Micronesia Nauru New Zealand Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu South America Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Guyana Paraguay Peru Suriname Uruguay Venezuela Category Portal v t e Philosophy of science Concepts Analysis Analytic–synthetic distinction A priori and a posteriori Causality Mill's Methods Commensurability Consilience Construct Correlation function Creative synthesis Demarcation problem Empirical evidence Experiment design Explanatory power Fact Falsifiability Feminist method Functional contextualism Hypothesis alternative null Ignoramus et ignorabimus Inductive reasoning Intertheoretic reduction Inquiry Nature Objectivity Observation Paradigm Problem of induction Scientific evidence Evidence-based practice Scientific law Scientific method Scientific pluralism Scientific Revolution Testability Theory choice ladenness scientific Underdetermination Unity of science Variable control dependent and independent more... Theories Coherentism Confirmation holism Constructive empiricism Constructive realism Constructivist epistemology Contextualism Conventionalism Deductive-nomological model Epistemological anarchism Evolutionism Fallibilism Foundationalism Hypothetico-deductive model Inductionism Instrumentalism Model-dependent realism Naturalism Physicalism Positivism / Reductionism / Determinism Pragmatism Rationalism / Empiricism Received view / Semantic view of theories Scientific essentialism Scientific formalism Scientific realism / Anti-realism Scientific skepticism Scientism Structuralism Uniformitarianism Verificationism Vitalism Philosophy of... Biology Chemistry Physics Space and time Social science Archaeology Economics‎ Geography History Linguistics Psychology Related topics Criticism of science Descriptive science Epistemology Exact sciences Faith and rationality Hard and soft science History and philosophy of science Non-science Pseudoscience Normative science Protoscience Questionable cause Relationship between religion and science Rhetoric of science Science studies Sociology of scientific ignorance Sociology of scientific knowledge Philosophers of science Precursors Roger Bacon Francis Bacon Galileo Galilei Isaac Newton David Hume Auguste Comte Henri Poincaré Pierre Duhem Rudolf Steiner Karl Pearson Charles Sanders Peirce Wilhelm Windelband Alfred North Whitehead Bertrand Russell Otto Neurath C. D. Broad Michael Polanyi Hans Reichenbach Rudolf Carnap Karl Popper Carl Gustav Hempel W. V. O. Quine Thomas Kuhn Imre Lakatos Paul Feyerabend Ian Hacking Bas van Fraassen Larry Laudan Category Philosophy portal Science portal v t e Philosophy of religion Concepts in religion Afterlife Euthyphro dilemma Faith or religious belief Intelligent design Miracle Problem of evil Soul Spirit Theodicy Theological veto Conceptions of God Brahman Demiurge Divine simplicity Egoism Holy Spirit Misotheism Pandeism Personal god Process theology Supreme Being Unmoved mover God in Abrahamic religions Buddhism Christianity Hinduism Islam Jainism Judaism Mormonism Sikhism Baháʼí Faith Wicca Existence of God For Beauty Christological Consciousness Cosmological Kalam Contingency Degree Desire Experience Fine-tuning of the universe Love Miracles Morality Necessary existent Ontological Pascal's wager Proper basis and Reformed epistemology Reason Teleological Natural law Watchmaker analogy Transcendental Against 747 gambit Atheist's Wager Evil Free will Hell Inconsistent revelations Nonbelief Noncognitivism Occam's razor Omnipotence Poor design Russell's teapot Theology Acosmism Agnosticism Animism Antireligion Atheism Creationism Dharmism Deism Demonology Divine command theory Dualism Esotericism Exclusivism Existentialism Christian Atheistic Feminist theology Thealogy Womanist theology Fideism Fundamentalism Gnosticism Henotheism Humanism Religious Secular Christian Inclusivism Theories about religions Monism Monotheism Mysticism Naturalism Metaphysical Religious Humanistic New Age Nondualism Nontheism Pandeism Panentheism Pantheism Perennialism Polytheism Possibilianism Process theology Religious skepticism Spiritualism Shamanism Taoic Theism Transcendentalism more... Religious language Eschatological verification Language game Logical positivism Apophatic theology Verificationism Problem of evil Augustinian theodicy Best of all possible worlds Euthyphro dilemma Inconsistent triad Irenaean theodicy Natural evil Theodicy Philosophers of religion (by date active) Ancient and medieval Anselm of Canterbury Augustine of Hippo Avicenna Averroes Boethius Gaudapada Gaunilo of Marmoutiers Pico della Mirandola Heraclitus King James VI and I Marcion of Sinope Maimonides Adi Shankara Thomas Aquinas William of Ockham Early modern Augustin Calmet René Descartes Blaise Pascal Desiderius Erasmus Baruch Spinoza Nicolas Malebranche Gottfried W Leibniz William Wollaston Thomas Chubb David Hume Baron d'Holbach Immanuel Kant Johann G Herder 1800 1850 Friedrich Schleiermacher Karl C F Krause Georg W F Hegel Thomas Carlyle William Whewell Ludwig Feuerbach Søren Kierkegaard Karl Marx Albrecht Ritschl Afrikan Spir 1880 1900 Ernst Haeckel W K Clifford Friedrich Nietzsche Harald Høffding William James Vladimir Solovyov Ernst Troeltsch Rudolf Otto Lev Shestov Sergei Bulgakov Pavel Florensky Ernst Cassirer Joseph Maréchal 1920 postwar George Santayana Bertrand Russell Martin Buber René Guénon Paul Tillich Karl Barth Emil Brunner Rudolf Bultmann Gabriel Marcel Reinhold Niebuhr Charles Hartshorne Mircea Eliade Frithjof Schuon J L Mackie Walter Kaufmann Martin Lings Peter Geach George I Mavrodes William Alston Antony Flew 1970 1990 2010 William L Rowe Dewi Z Phillips Alvin Plantinga Anthony Kenny Nicholas Wolterstorff Richard Swinburne Robert Merrihew Adams Ravi Zacharias Peter van Inwagen Daniel Dennett Loyal Rue Jean-Luc Marion William Lane Craig Ali Akbar Rashad Alexander Pruss Related topics Criticism of religion Desacralization of knowledge Ethics in religion Exegesis History of religion Religion Religious language Religious philosophy Relationship between religion and science Faith and rationality more... Portal Category v t e Philosophy Branches Branches Applied philosophy Logic Metaphilosophy Philosophy of information Philosophy of language Philosophy of mathematics Philosophy of religion Philosophy of science Political philosophy Practical philosophy Social philosophy Theoretical philosophy Aesthetics Aesthetic response Formalism Institutionalism Epistemology Empiricism Fideism Naturalism Particularism Rationalism Skepticism Solipsism Ethics Consequentialism Deontology Virtue Free will Compatibilism Determinism Hard Incompatibilism Hard Libertarianism Metaphysics Atomism Dualism Idealism Monism Naturalism Realism Mind Behaviorism Eliminativism Emergentism Epiphenomenalism Functionalism Objectivism Subjectivism Normativity Absolutism Particularism Relativism Nihilism Skepticism Universalism Ontology Action Event Process Reality Anti-realism Conceptualism Idealism Materialism Naturalism Nominalism Physicalism Realism By era By era Ancient Western Medieval Renaissance Early modern Modern Contemporary Ancient Chinese Agriculturalism Confucianism Legalism Logicians Mohism Chinese naturalism Taoism Yangism Greco-Roman Presocratic Ionians Pythagoreans Eleatics Atomists Sophists Cyrenaics Cynicism Eretrian school Megarian school Academy Peripatetic school Hellenistic philosophy Pyrrhonism Stoicism Epicureanism Academic Skepticism Middle Platonism School of the Sextii Neopythagoreanism Second Sophistic Neoplatonism Church Fathers Indian Hindu Samkhya Nyaya Vaisheshika Yoga Mīmāṃsā Ājīvika Ajñana Cārvāka Jain Anekantavada Syādvāda Buddhist Abhidharma Sarvāstivadā Pudgalavada Sautrāntika Madhyamaka Svatantrika and Prasangika Śūnyatā Yogacara Tibetan Persian Mazdakism Mithraism Zoroastrianism Zurvanism Medieval East Asian Neotaoism Tiantai Huayan Chan Zen Neo-Confucianism Korean Confucianism European Christian Augustinianism Scholasticism Thomism Scotism Occamism Renaissance humanism Indian Vedanta Acintya bheda abheda Advaita Bhedabheda Dvaita Nimbarka Sampradaya Shuddhadvaita Vishishtadvaita Navya-Nyāya Islamic Aristotelianism Averroism Avicennism Illuminationism ʿIlm al-Kalām Sufi Jewish Judeo-Islamic Modern Anarchism Classical Realism Collectivism Conservatism Determinism Dualism Edo neo-Confucianism Empiricism Existentialism Foundationalism Historicism Holism Humanism Anti- Idealism Absolute British German Objective Subjective Transcendental Individualism Kokugaku Liberalism Materialism Modernism Monism Naturalism Natural law Nihilism New Confucianism Neo-scholasticism Pragmatism Phenomenology Positivism Reductionism Rationalism Social contract Socialism Transcendentalism Utilitarianism People Cartesianism Kantianism Neo Kierkegaardianism Krausism Hegelianism Marxism Newtonianism Nietzscheanism Spinozism Contemporary Analytic Applied ethics Analytic feminism Analytical Marxism Communitarianism Consequentialism Critical rationalism Experimental philosophy Falsificationism Foundationalism / Coherentism Internalism and externalism Logical positivism Legal positivism Meta-ethics Moral realism Quinean naturalism Normative ethics Ordinary language philosophy Postanalytic philosophy Quietism Rawlsian Reformed epistemology Systemics Scientism Scientific realism Scientific skepticism Transactionalism Contemporary utilitarianism Vienna Circle Wittgensteinian Continental Critical theory Deconstruction Existentialism Feminist Frankfurt School Hermeneutics Neo-Marxism New Historicism Phenomenology Posthumanism Postmodernism Post-structuralism Social constructionism Structuralism Western Marxism Miscellaneous Kyoto School Objectivism Postcritique Russian cosmism more... By region By region African Bantu Egyptian Ethiopian Africana Eastern Buddhist Chinese Indian Indonesian Japanese Korean Taiwanese Vietnamese Middle Eastern Iranian Islamic Jewish Pakistani Turkish Western American Australian British Scottish Canada Czech Danish Dutch Finland French German Greek Italian Maltese Polish Slovene Spanish Miscellaneous Amerindian Aztec Romanian Russian Yugoslav Philosophy portal Category v t e Positivism Perspectives Antihumanism Empiricism Rationalism Scientism Declinations Legal positivism Logical positivism Positivist school Postpositivism Sociological positivism Machian positivism (empirio-criticism) Rankean historical positivism Polish positivism Russian Machism Principal concepts Consilience Demarcation Evidence Induction Justification Pseudoscience Critique of metaphysics Unity of science Verificationism Antitheses Antipositivism Confirmation holism Critical theory Falsifiability Geisteswissenschaft Hermeneutics Historicism Historism Human science Humanities Metaphysics Methodological dualism Problem of induction Reflectivism Related paradigm shifts in the history of science Non-Euclidean geometry (1830s) Uncertainty principle (1927) Related topics Behavioralism Post-behavioralism Critical rationalism Criticism of science Epistemology anarchism idealism nihilism pluralism realism Holism Instrumentalism Modernism Naturalism in literature Nomothetic–idiographic distinction Objectivity in science Operationalism Phenomenalism Philosophy of science Deductive-nomological model Ramsey sentence Sense-data theory Qualitative research Relationship between religion and science Sociology Social science Philosophy Structural functionalism Structuralism Structuration theory Positivist-related debate Method Methodenstreit (1890s) Werturteilsstreit (1909–1959) Positivismusstreit (1960s) Fourth Great Debate in international relations (1980s) Science wars (1990s) Contributions The Course in Positive Philosophy (1830) A General View of Positivism (1848) Critical History of Philosophy (1869) Idealism and Positivism (1879–1884) The Analysis of Sensations (1886) The Logic of Modern Physics (1927) Language, Truth, and Logic (1936) The Two Cultures (1959) The Universe in a Nutshell (2001) Proponents Richard Avenarius A. J. Ayer Alexander Bogdanov Percy Williams Bridgman Auguste Comte Eugen Dühring Émile Durkheim Stephen Hawking Ernst Laas Ernst Mach C. P. Snow Berlin Circle Vienna Circle Criticism Materialism and Empirio-criticism (1909) History and Class Consciousness (1923) The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934) The Poverty of Historicism (1936) World Hypotheses (1942) Two Dogmas of Empiricism (1951) Truth and Method (1960) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) Conjectures and Refutations (1963) One-Dimensional Man (1964) Knowledge and Human Interests (1968) The Poverty of Theory (1978) The Scientific Image (1980) The Rhetoric of Economics (1986) Critics Theodor W. Adorno Gaston Bachelard Mario Bunge Wilhelm Dilthey Paul Feyerabend Hans-Georg Gadamer Jürgen Habermas Thomas Kuhn Vladimir Lenin György Lukács Herbert Marcuse Deirdre McCloskey Stephen Pepper Karl Popper Willard Van Orman Quine E. P. Thompson Bas van Fraassen Max Weber Concepts in contention Knowledge Objectivity Phronesis Truth Verstehen Category

• Religion and science
• History of science
• History of religion
• Philosophy of religion
• Philosophy of science