Science vs Religion
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 as one of 4 categories: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. 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, though most historians of science no longer support it anymore.[1][2][3][4] 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.
he 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.[5]
This typology is similar to ones used by theologians Ian Barbour[6] and John Haught.[7] 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.[8]
A modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), is that science and
The conflict thesis, which states that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science, remains generally popular for the public, though most historians of science no longer support it anymore.[1][2][3][4] 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.
he 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.[5]
This typology is similar to ones used by theologians Ian Barbour[6] and John Haught.[7] 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.[8]
A modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), is that science and