Episode 77: Science & Religion Model of Ian G. Barbour

Loading...

Del curso dictado por University of Alberta

Science & Religion 101

34 calificaciones

University of Alberta

Science & Religion 101

34 calificaciones

This course examines the nature of both science and religion and attempts to explore the possible relationships between them. The primary purpose is to dispel the popular myth that science and religion are entrenched in a never-ending conflict. As a result, this course argues that if the limits of both science and religion are respected, then their relationship can be complementary. Topics include: Science and Religion Categories and Foundational Principles, Definitions of Science and Religion, Science-Religion Models and Relationships, Intelligent Design and Natural Revelation, the Galileo Affair, Geology and Noah’s Flood, Evolution and Darwin’s Religious Beliefs, the Modern “Evolution” vs. “Creation” Debate, the Problem of Evil, and Interpretations of the Biblical Accounts of Origins in Genesis 1-11. The course employs a Constructive Teaching Style in order that students can develop their personal views on the relationship between science and religion and on each of the topics listed above. St. Joseph's College is a Catholic, undergraduate, liberal arts college on the University of Alberta campus. It is an independent institution that is affiliated with the University of Alberta.

De la lección

Models on the Relationships between Science & Religion

This is one of the most important weeks in the course. We outline the Science and Religion models of two of the founding members of this new academic discipline. Their models each include four different relationships between Science and Religion. John Haught’s model incorporates the relationships of Conflict, Contrast, Contact, and Confirmation. Ian Barbour has Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration relationships in his model. During this week, we will consider the hermeneutical principle of Historical Criticism. This is the notion that ancient Near Eastern motifs of origins—De Novo Creation, Lost Idyllic Age, Great Flood, and Tribal Formation—have been re-cycled and re-interpreted in the biblical accounts of origins (Genesis 1-11).

Episode 67: Key Thoughts: Science & Religion Model of John F. Haught. (1) Conflict Relationship5:25

Episode 68: Conflict Relationship & Scientific Skeptics4:12

Episode 69: Conflict Relationship & Biblical Literalists. (2) Contrast Relationship4:45

Episode 70: Science Conflated with Religious Belief: Concordism4:22

Episode 71: Excursus: God-of-the-Gaps4:57

Episode 72: Science Conflated with Secular Belief: Scientism4:49

Episode 73: (3) Contact Relationship5:37

Episode 74: Contact Relationship (Continued)5:49

Episode 75: (4) Confirmation Relationship4:44

Episode 76: Confirmation Relationship (Continued) Conclusion: Haught’s Science & Religion Model5:46

Episode 77: Science & Religion Model of Ian G. Barbour4:03

Episode 78: (1) Conflict Relationship. Scientific Materialists4:15

Episode 79: Scientific Materialists (Continued)5:16

Episode 80: Biblical Literalists3:37

Episode 81: Biblical Literalists (Continued)5:03

Episode 82: (2) Independence Relationship3:59

Episode 83: (3) Dialogue Relationship4:38

Episode 84: Dialogue Relationship (Continued). (4) Integration Relationship4:42

Episode 85: Examples of Natural Theology (Intelligent Design Arguments)4:41

Episode 86: Natural Theology & Intelligent Design (Continued)6:58

Episode 87: Excursus: Intelligent Design Theory. Theology of Nature6:31

Episode 88: Theology of Nature: Examples of Reformation5:03

Episode 89: Conclusion to Barbour’s Model. Toward a Working Model of Science & Religion (Lamoureux)7:36

Hermeneutics 8: Scope of Cognitive Competence14:53

Hermeneutics 9: Historical Criticism6:20

Conoce a los instructores

Denis Lamoureux
Associate Professor
St. Joseph's College

Episode 77.

Let's now examine the second well-known science and religion model,

that of Ian Barbour.

Ian Barbour is often considered to be the dean of science religion dialogue.

In fact, he began his work on this topic in the 1960s.

His most important book is the classic Religion in an Age of Science,

published in 1990.

Barbour holds a PhD in physics and also has a master of divinity.

He is a Protestant Christian.

Barbour's model of Science & Religion features for

relationships between science and religion.

Again, I want to emphasize that the model includes

as many relationships as possible, including those we do not accept.

I also want to point out that Barbour's fourth categories have had a huge impact

on science religion dialogue.

Because we often see them reappear in some form.

Barbour's four relationships, include number one, conflict.

Number two, independence.

Number three, dialogue and number four, integration.

Regarding Barbour's position on science and religion.

And to recall a position is a personal and

specific view on the relationship between science and religion.

Barbour rejects conflict, starts with independence and

then he integrates dialogue and aspects of integration.

Barbour described his position in Quote 21.

He writes, I will argue that none of the options considered above.

He's referring here to conflict and independence, is adequate to the task.

I will suggest reasons for supporting dialogue and

with some qualifications, certain versions of integration.

In light to this passage, I will again suggest the following tip.

As you proceed through Barbour's model, select &

combine the different relationships to develop your own personal position.

In his famous book, Religion in Age of Science,

Ian Barbour begins by dealing directly with the challenge to religion.

Simply stated it is the success of science.

Quote 22 is the opening sentence of his book.

The first major challenge to religion in an age of science is the success of

the methods of science.

Barbour's observation aligns with John Pokehorn's psychological effect argument.

Whereby the success of science blinds us from seeing other approaches to truth

such as religion.

Barbour gets even more specific.

He contends that the problem with science and religion is epistemological.

Science appears to be the only way to find capital T truth.

In Quote 23 he writes,

science seems to provide the only reliable path to knowledge.

Many people view science as objective, universal, rational, and

based on solid evidence.

Religion by contrast seems to be subjective, parochial, emotional and

based on traditions or authorities that disagree with each other.

As we have seen previously,

this is the common perception of the relationship between science and religion.

Many people view science to be objective,

universal, rational and based on solid evidence.

In contrast to science, religion is subjective, parochial, emotional and

based on disagreeing traditions.

But as we've noted before, this common understanding of science and

religion is trapped in simple dichotomies and conflations.

And entrenched in black and white and either or thinking.

End of episode.

Explora nuestro catálogo

Inscríbete de manera gratuita y obtén recomendaciones personalizadas, actualizaciones y ofertas.

Coursera brinda acceso universal a la mejor educación del mundo, al asociarse con las mejores universidades y organizaciones, para ofrecer cursos en línea.

© 2019 Coursera Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.

Descargar en la App Store

Consíguelo en Google Play