Notebook per
Are Science and Religion in Conflict?
Citation (APA): Harrison, P. (2016). Are Science and Religion in Conflict? [Kindle Android version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com
Parte introduttiva
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 2
Are Science and Religion in Conflict? By Peter Harrison
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 13
We can divide this question into three components. First, do people generally believe that science and religion are in conflict? Second, does the historical record suggest an enduring or inevitable clash between science and religion? Third, ought science and religion be in conflict?
Nota - Posizione 15
TRE QUESTIONI DISTINTE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 19
Conflict in the PresentThere’s
Nota - Posizione 19
SOCIOLOGIA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 20
Jonathan Hill provides an excellent survey of American attitudes toward science and religion in his essay “Do Americans Believe Science and Religion Are in Conflict?” According to Hill, while the data suggest that a slight majority of Americans believe that science and religion are in conflict, they do so for different reasons.
Nota - Posizione 22
CREDENZA DEL CONFLITTO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 25
According to the latest Pew survey, from October 2015, the primary issue for these people is evolution, with general concerns about belief in God and miracles in second place, and abortion
Nota - Posizione 27
EVOLUZIONE E ABORTO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 32
In sum, very few Americans— seventeen percent of the total sample— believe in a genuine conflict
Nota - Posizione 33
CONFLITTO GENUINO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 34
Conflict in the Past
Nota - Posizione 34
TITOLO. STORIA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 38
Following the pioneering work of British historian John Hedley Brooke and American historians David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, most now believe that what we see in the past is a complex range of relations between science and religion— some negative, many more positive, and others more or less neutral.
Nota - Posizione 42
RELAZIONI DIFFERENTI PER LO PIÙ POSITIVE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 44
If theology is a science, the idea of a conflict between theology and “science” makes a lot less sense.
Nota - Posizione 44
SCIENZA TEOLOGICA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 47
a key difference was that past disciplines such as natural philosophy and natural history were not naturalistic in the same way as modern science today. Indeed, they often included references to God and were directed towards the discovery of God’s design of the natural world. Religion, in short, was to some extent integrated into both natural history and natural philosophy.
Nota - Posizione 49
STORIA E FILOSOFIA NATURALE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 54
Johannes Kepler regarded his astronomy as a form of divine praise, while Robert Boyle characterized scientists as “priests of nature.” Other scientists saw their work as having religious goals, including Isaac Newton, who hoped the principles outlined in his famous Principia Mathematica might promote “belief of a Deity.”
Nota - Posizione 56
SCIENZIATI E RELIGIONE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 57
Francis Bacon, for example, maintained that modern science could help the human race re-establish its God-given dominion
Nota - Posizione 58
DOMINIO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 58
Bacon also insisted that because scientific advances promoted human welfare, science was itself a form of Christian charity.
Nota - Posizione 59
CARITÀ
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 63
this was not a straightforward case of science-religion conflict at all. At the time, there was compelling scientific evidence against the Copernican view defended by Galileo. Moreover, the condemnation of Galileo was quite atypical of the Catholic Church, which had for centuries been the most prominent supporter of astronomical research in Europe.
Nota - Posizione 65
GALILEO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 67
we should remember that Darwin had both religious supporters and scientific detractors, suggesting that there was more going on that just straightforward “conflict.”
Nota - Posizione 68
DARWIN
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 70
Ought Science and Religion Be in Conflict?
Nota - Posizione 70
TITOLO. EPISTEMOLOGIA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 79
Draper and White offer extensive and influential catalogues of putative instances of conflict. The Galileo affair figures prominently in both, along with historical examples now discredited (or complicated) by historical research: Hypatia’s death at the hands of a Christian mob; medieval belief in a flat earth; papal excommunication of a comet; the Church’s ban on dissection; Copernicus’s dethroning of humanity; and Bruno’s execution as a martyr to science.
Nota - Posizione 82
DRAPER
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 84
Draper’s book is less about science and religion than science and Catholicism. It was stimulated in part by contemporary issues concerning Catholicism, not least the promulgation of the controversial and conservative Syllabus of Errors (1864) and the declaration of papal infallibility at the first Vatican Council (1869– 70).
Nota - Posizione 86
MOTIVAZIONI DI DRAPER
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 86
White had been wounded by staunch clerical opposition to the founding of Cornell University,
Nota - Posizione 87
MOTIVAZIONI DI WHITE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 88
a key element of the motivations of Huxley and Tyndall was their desire to professionalize science, advance its social status, and liberate it from the domination of the Anglican clergy.
Nota - Posizione 89
TYNDALL STATUS
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 95
Specific events— such as parochial controversies concerning the teaching of evolution in schools or, on a larger scale, the tragic events of 9/ 11— are supposed to exemplify this larger clash between science and religion.
Nota - Posizione 97
EVENTI SPECIFICI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 102
Thus “Science Must Destroy Religion” is the mantra of Sam Harris and the new atheists. This is a moral imperative: Harris urges scientists to relinquish their sentimental religious
Nota - Posizione 104
IMPERATIVO ETICO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 118
There are many reasons to resist this tendency. As philosopher Ray Monk reminds us, there are many questions that do not have scientific answers because they were not legitimate scientific questions to begin with. Many of these questions concern the things that are most important of all: faith, hope, love, truth, beauty, and goodness
Nota - Posizione 122
LE QUESTIONI PIÙ IMPORTANTI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 130
Discussion Summary
Nota - Posizione 130
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 153
More broadly, this discussion leads us to two further sets of exploratory questions. One has to do with the nature of science, how scientific theories change over time, and the justification of scientific theories. The other concerns the more general question of the foundation of and warrant for beliefs:
Nota - Posizione 155
NATIRA DELLA SCIENZA E DELLA GIUSTIFICA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 161
2 reasons: Science depends on propositions being falsifiable. Religion is based on revelation and its propositions cannot be falsified.
Nota - Posizione 162
D. 2 DEMARCAZIONI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 190
1. The idea that falsifiability is a criterion of scientific knowledge was proposed in the middle of the last century by Karl Popper, who was seeking to find a way of distinguishing science from pseudoscience. This was the so-called “demarcation” issue, for which Popper relied upon some of the ruling trends in contemporary logical positivism. But while falsificationism represents an improvement over naive inductivism, and while many scientists still believe that if offers a distinguishing mark of genuine scientific knowledge, most philosophers of science have long since abandoned it— and for good reason.
Nota - Posizione 194
POPPER SUPERATO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 195
(Lakatos spoke about “research programs,” and Thomas Kuhn spoke about “paradigms.”)
Nota - Posizione 196
LAKATOS KUHN
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 197
Copernican hypothesis, for example, should have been falsified by the apparent lack of stellar parallax at the time. But the hypothesis had other things going for it, and, eventually, a way was found to account for this and other anomalies.
Nota - Posizione 198
FALSIFICAZIONE DI COPERNICO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 198
Finally, there are many instances of what philosophers call the “underdetermination,” which arise when the empirical data simply do not provide information
Nota - Posizione 199
QUINE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 200
2. Science is not “based” on logic either. Many sciences do rely on logical induction, but there are numerous problems with naive versions of inductivism (as Popper realized).
Nota - Posizione 202
LA SCIENZA NN È LOGICA. LIMITI DELL INDUTTIVISMO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 220
Often they will invent ad hoc placeholders to fend off falsification. Postulating the existence of “dark matter” and “dark energy” is an instance of this.
Nota - Posizione 221
ENTITÀ METAFISICHE DELLA SCIENZA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 230
any evidentialist framework must rest upon premises that are themselves ultimately not capable of justification— otherwise the process of justification would never end. Call these “foundational beliefs” or “basic beliefs.” Some theistic philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, have suggested that belief in God is one such properly basic belief. It would then be true that this belief was not subject to the principle of falsification.
Nota - Posizione 233
PLANTINGA E LE CREDENZE DI FONDO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 264
Typically, advocates of inherent conflict will define science and religion in global terms. For example, science = falsifiable claims and religion = non-falsifiable claims; or science = reason, religion = faith.
Nota - Posizione 265
I CONFLITTUALI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 292
I provide a body of evidence in The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge, 1998) that shows how medieval and patristic exegetes typically read Genesis in a non-literal way.
Nota - Posizione 293
GENESI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 293
On the modernity of young earth creationism, go no further than Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists
Nota - Posizione 294
CREAZIONISMO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 378
I’m not pointing this out to claim that Judaism is somehow “better,” but that Christianity’s *modern expression* (take careful note of that) includes a large number of non-college educated priests, pastors and ministers.
Nota - Posizione 379
L EDUCAZIONE DEI PRETI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 411
Now, through all of this I’m NOT defending the religious views of the bible, or of its adherents. What I’m attempting to do is to show that, properly understood, the cultural origins of this text should have no conflict whatsoever with science.
Nota - Posizione 413
BIBBIA RETTAMENTE INTESA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 415
The Republican “Contract with America” of the 90’ s had a tremendous impact, especially on evangelical voters, precisely because of their fundamental orientation towards a social contract as a template for how life should be. In the bible, the mode of social contract between God and man evolved tremendously over time.
Nota - Posizione 417
CONTRACT
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 432
Yuval Levin’s book “Fractured Republic,” hits upon these same themes. The Left views the social contact between government and man through the filter of the 60’ s and seeks a return to that golden age, whereas the Right views the social contract between government and man through the filter of the Reagan era.
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 456
