1 / 13

RELATING SCIENCE AND RELIGION

RELATING SCIENCE AND RELIGION. Making Models. 2b: Models in Science and Religion. ON THE MAKING OF MODELS. Both science and theology make models of what they believe to be reality or some aspect of it.

bday
Download Presentation

RELATING SCIENCE AND RELIGION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RELATING SCIENCE AND RELIGION Making Models 2b: Models in Science and Religion

  2. ON THE MAKING OF MODELS • Both science and theology make models of what they believe to be reality or some aspect of it. • All models are inherently limited - otherwise they would not be models - they would be reality itself. • The watchword with models is therefore that they are provisional. No one model is the final word.

  3. MODELS STIMULATE FURTHER REFLECTION • One of the major benefits of developing models within a subject area is to enable further reflection on what is going on in reality. • A good model is fruitful - it suggests further lines of enquiry. It enables fresh thinking to take place. • A poor model is limited and often results in stagnation with no new thinking emerging from it.

  4. SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE BOTH HUMAN ENTERPRISES • There is a common myth which suggests that • science is totally objective and that religion is completely subjective. • But both science and religion are concerned about the real world. Both are obviously human activities. This is sometimes underemphasised in discussions about the relationship between science and religion. • At the heart of both science and religion is the issue of how we relate to everything else that we encounter.

  5. A MODEL OF RELATIONSHIPS GOD With God With Oneself With Living Things With Other People With the Planet

  6. FACTS AND VALUES GOD Science on its own cannot tell us about the value of things. This is an ethical and religious issue. Science enables us to Discover how the various parts of the universe operate and interconnect. We need knowledge to help to inform our ethical choices. We need wisdom to decide what to do and what not to do.

  7. ETHICAL QUESTIONS Is everyone/everything included in the “moral community” Do all have rights? Do all have responsibilities? GOD Connectedness between the participants leads to genuine moral concern for all. Trust, care, justice and love will characterise a healthy moral community.

  8. MODELS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION • There have been many attempts to describe possible relationships between science and religion. Some prefer to say ‘between science and theology’. • Subtle commentators have noted that there are many sciences. The same is true of religion. We ought to remember the differences between them and the differences within any one of them. • So there will be many different relationships in the dialogue between sciences, religions and theologies.

  9. MODELS WITHIN DISCIPLINES AND MODELS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM The nature of the relationship between specific sciences and particular religions will vary. We need to describe both what these relationships are as well as trying to decide what they should be. M2 m2 m1 M1 ? m3 M3 m4 M4 m5 M5 VARIOUS MODELS WITHIN VARIOUS MODELS WITHIN A GIVEN SCIENCE A GIVEN RELIGION

  10. BARBOUR’S MODEL OF FOUR POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION. • CONFLICT often because of a prior commitment by the scientist to a materialistic interpretation of science and by the religious person to Biblical literalism. • INDEPENDENCE because of the contrasting methods of science and theology, their different languages, presuppositions and limits of enquiry. • DIALOGUE which is possible because there are some parallels in methodology, natural theology and a sense of spirituality in the natural world. • INTEGRATION, for example in a theology of nature or some other systematic synthesis of the two disciplines.

  11. BARBOUR’S TYPOLOGY IN DIAGRAMMATIC FORM WHICH ONE IS WHICH? S R CONFLICT R S DIALOGUE S R INDEPENDENCE S R INTEGRATION

  12. OTHER TYPOLOGIES • John Haught suggests conflict, contrast, contact and confirmation as preferred categories. • Ted Peters offers eight categories covering a range from ‘pitched battle to an uneasy truce.’ • Mikael Stenmark has developed a sophisticated multidimensional matrix of relationships and probably represents the best model to date.

  13. THE SUBTLE STENMARK Stenmark has written about “… the idea of seeing science and religion as social practices … complex and fairly coherent socially established cooperative human activities through which the practitioners try to obtain certain goals by means of particular strategies… Science and religion can, therefore, be related at least in terms of the goals (teleology), the methodology (or means) and the result of applying these methods to achieve these goals (the theoretical output), which includes the formation of beliefs, stories or theories.” (European Society for the Study of Science and Theology conference 2004)

More Related