The 3rd Generation of Science-Religion Theories: New Prospects for the Interactive Approach

Document Type : Original Research

Author
Zahra Zargar
Researcher at the Center of Theology and Science, Institute for Science and Technology Studies, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
10.30497/prr.2022.242553.1742
Abstract
The science-religion relationship has been investigated more systematically since the middle of the 20th century. Many theories of different kinds were suggested in order to figure out this relation via analyzing the content and history of science and religion. The first generation of these theories presumed a constant determined essence for both science and religion. Thus, they described an inherent relationship of either conflict or coherence between them. While the second-generation theories found these essentialist views too simplistic, they articulated and categorized various possible relations between science and religion in a taxonomic manner. Still, in these theories, the cognitive and propositional dimensions of science and religion were dominant. In the 90s, by prioritizing the sociological and historical approaches in both science and religion studies, some new aspects of these studies emerged. Applied to science-religion relationship debates, these approaches criticized the former theories for denying dynamic, contextual, and non-epistemic aspects of both science and religion. As a response to the critiques, the third-generation theories were developed, in which the contextuality of science-religion relation took a focal place. In this paper, three cases of 3rd generation theories (Stenmark’s, Lee’s, and Cantor’s) are discussed. It is claimed that these recent theories have a better consonance with the relevant facts. Also, due to being grounded on the two principles of “Continuity of Human Experience” and “the Existence of Common Actors in Science and Religion”, these theories provide strong implications in favor of the possibility and importance of the science-religion interactive relationship.
Keywords
Science-Religion Relationship
Conflict
Independence
Interaction
Sociology of Science and Religion  
باربور، ایان. 1393. علم و دین. ترجمه بهاءالدین خرمشاهی. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی
Bagir, ZainalAbidin. 2015. “The Relation between Science and Religion in the Pluralistic Landscape of Today’s World”. Zygon 50(2).
Barbour, Ian. 1990. Religion in an Age of Science. SCM Press: University of Michigan.
Barbour, Ian. 2002. “On Typology for Relating Science and Religion”. Zygon 37(2).
Bloor, David. 1979. Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brooke, John Hedley. 2014. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Burdett, Michael. 2017. “Assessing the Field of Science and Religion”. Zygon 52(3).
Clayton, Philip. 2012. Religion and Science the Basics. NY: Routledge.
Draper, John. 1878. History of the Conflict between Science and Religion. Project Gutenberg.
Drees, William. 1996. Religion Science and Naturalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gould, Stephan J. 1999. Rocks of Ages. New York: Ballantine Pub Group.
Haught, John. 1995. Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation. New York: Paulist Press.
Kaiser, Christopher. 2007. Toward a Theology of Scientific Endeavour. Burlington: Ashgate.
Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Lee, Amy. 2019. “Science and Religion as Languages”. Zygon 54(4).
Legenhausen, Hajj Muhammad. 2002. "Why I am not a Traditionalist." Religioscope. Available online: http://www. religioscope. com/pdf/esotrad/legenhausen. pdf (accessed on 10 June 2017).
Lindbeck, George. 1984. The Nature of Doctrine. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Merton, Robert. 1973. The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Morowitz, Harold. 2005. “The Debate Between Science and Religion: Exploring Roads Less Traveled”. Zygon 40(1).
Nasr, S. Hussein. 1989. Knowledge and the Sacred. NY: State University of New York Press.
Oliver, Harold. 2005. “The Complementarity of Science and Religion”. In James Proctor (ed.), Science Religion and Human Experience. NY: Oxford University Press.
Olson, Richard. 2011. “A Dynamic Model for Science and Religion: Interacting Cultures”. Zygon 46(1).
Plantinga, Alvin. 1993. Warrant and Proper Function. NY: Oxford University Press.
Plantinga, Alvin. 2011. Where the Conflict Really Lies. NY: Oxford University Press.
Peters, Ted. 2003. Science, Theology and Ethics. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. The Philosophical Review 60(1): 20-43.
Stanley, Mathew. 2011. “The Uniformity of Natural Laws in Victorian Britain: Naturalism”. Zygon 46(3).
Shapin, Steven. 1998. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stenmark, Mikael. 2004. How to Relate Science and Religion: a Multidimensional Model. Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing.
White, Andrew Dickinson. 1896. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. New York: Appleton and Company.
Philosophy of Religion Research
Volume 20, Issue 2 - Serial Number 40
September 2022
Pages 153-176