| 1. |
- Bigliardi, Stefano
(author)
-
Barbour's Typologies and the Contemporary Debate on Islam and Science
- 2012
-
In: Zygon. - : Wiley. - 0591-2385. ; 47:3, s. 501-519
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Despite various criticisms, Ian Barbour's fourfold classification of the possible relationships between religion and science remains influential. I compare Barbour's taxonomy with the theories of four authors who, in the last four decades, have addressed the relationship between science and religion from a Muslim perspective. The aim of my analysis is twofold. First, I offer a comparative perspective to the debate on science and Islam. Second, following Barbour's suggestion, I test the general applicability of his categories by comparing them with a discourse on science and religion that is not focused on Christianity. In the first section, I reconstruct Barbour's typologies, recalling some major objections to them, and arguing why despite the latter, Barbour's model is employed for the present analysis. I also reconstruct Barbour's parallel model for the relationships between different religions. In the second section, I reconstruct the discourse on science and religion developed by the Palestinian-American scholar Ismail Raji al-Faruqi. The third section is devoted to the ideas of the Persian-American scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr. In the fourth section, I examine the views of the Iranian author Mehdi Golshani. The fifth section reconstructs the theories of the Algerian author Nidhal Guessoum. In the final section, I argue that a generalized use of the integration concept to refer to the entire debate on Islam and science is unhelpful. While these positions do not appear to instantiate Barbourian integration of science and religion, they do move toward what Barbour (skeptically) describes as integration between religions.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bigliardi, Stefano
(author)
-
New religious movements and science: Rael's progressive patronizing parasitism
- 2015
-
In: Zygon. - : Wiley. - 0591-2385. ; 50:1, s. 64-83
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The article examines the concoction of religion and science contained in the revelation that substantiates a new religion: Raelianism, founded and led by the prophet Claude Vorilhon/Rael after having received a revelation in 1974. After a detailed examination both of Rael's prophetic message and his/the Raelians' interpretative practices, an ad hoc model is presented to describe such concoction (progressive patronizing parasitism), and it is compared to other models. It is in particular claimed that Rael, while seemingly talking about science, is actually constructing a science-fictional and even pseudoscientific narrative. The article finally raises the question whether the discussion of the science-religion interaction from the viewpoint of traditional religions can be considered to be immune to the usage of such rhetorical devices.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Bigliardi, Stefano
(author)
-
Testing Latour's app: a user's guide
- 2014
-
In: Zygon. - : Wiley. - 0591-2385. ; 49:4, s. 890-903
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- I reconstruct Bruno Latour's ideas about science and religion and compare them to Ian G. Barbour's and Mikael Stenmark's models, as well as to the discussion of technology and religion developed by John C. Caiazza and Antje Jackelen. I show how using "Latour's App" enlightens some aspects of said models which Barbour and Stenmark themselves were seemingly struggling with, and that Caiazza's and Jackelen's views can be reconciled despite their apparent opposition. The result of such tests is an overall assessment of Latour's proposal. I argue that, under the disguise of a flamboyant and original language, Latour's method is not that distant from those of the other authors analyzed here, and that his discussion might conceal some unwelcome philosophical shortcomings.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Dunér, David
(author)
-
Swedenborg and the Plurality of Worlds : Astrotheology in the Eighteenth Century
- 2016
-
In: Zygon. - : Wiley. - 0591-2385. ; 51:2, s. 450-479
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The possible existence of extraterrestrial life led in the eighteenth century to a heated debate on the unique status of the human being and of Christianity. One of those who discussed the new scientific worldview and its implications for theology was the Swedish natural philosopher and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg. This article discusses Swedenborg's astrotheological transformation, his use of theological arguments in his early cosmology, and his cosmogony that later on ended up in his use of contemporary natural philosophy in his theology, especially concerning the question of the plurality of worlds. I will first sketch the astrotheology found in his natural philosophical works, and then turn to the astrotheology of his later spiritual teachings. In Swedenborg's works we find teleological arguments and a stress on the universality of the divine creation and Christianity, as well as anthropomorphic descriptions of extraterrestrial life. By reconciling contemporary astronomical ideas, among others the concept of the plurality of worlds, with Christian dogmas, Swedenborg refuted deistic conclusions that Jesus was merely a mortal, while at the same time keeping his belief in the modern astronomical worldview.
|
|
| 7. |
- Leidenhag, Mikael
(author)
-
The Relevance of Emergence Theory in the Science-Religion Dialogue
- 2013
-
In: Zygon. - : Wiley. - 0591-2385 .- 1467-9744. ; 48:4, s. 966-983
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In this article, I call into question the relevance of emergence theories as presently used by thinkers in the science-religion discussion. Specifically, I discuss theories of emergence that have been used by both religious naturalists and proponents of panentheism. I argue for the following conclusions: (1) If we take the background theory to be metaphysical realism, then there seems to be no positive connection between the reality of emergent properties and the validity of providing reality with a religious interpretation, though one could perhaps construe an argument for the positive ontological status of emergence as a negative case for a religious worldview. (2) To be considered more plausible, religious naturalism should interpret religious discourse from the perspective of pragmatic realism. (3) Panentheistic models of divine causality are unable to avoid ontological dualism. (4) It is not obvious that emergent phenomena and/or properties are nonreducible in the ontological sense of the terms; indeed, the tension between weak and strong emergence makes it difficult for the emergentist to make ontological judgments. My general conclusion is that the concept of emergence has little metaphysical significance in the dialogue between science and theology.
|
|
| 8. |
- Palmqvist, Carl-Johan
(author)
-
Discerning Progress in Schellenberg's Evolutionary Religion
- 2024
-
In: Zygon. - 0591-2385.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- John L. Schellenberg has suggested that we should guide the evolution of religion towards the goal of discovering the truth about transcendent reality. I argue that we need some way of discerning progress if this project is to be practically feasible. I explore what discernible progress would require in some possible future scenarios. Focus lies on scenarios involving improved cognitive contact with the transcendent, but I also consider scenarios involving only cultural change, and scenarios where no transcendent reality exists. I conclude that whether progress can be discerned varies heavily between different versions of these scenarios and I therefore suggest that we are currently too ignorant to get the project started.
|
|
| 9. |
- Skogholt, Christoffer, 1981-
(author)
-
I walk the line : Comment on Mikael Leidenhag on theistic evolution and intelligent design
- 2020
-
In: Zygon. - : WILEY. - 0591-2385 .- 1467-9744. ; 55:3, s. 685-695
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Is theistic evolution (TE) a philosophically tenable position? Leidenhag argues in his article "The Blurred Line between Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design" that it is not, since it, Leidenhag claims, espouses a view of divine action that he labels "natural divine causation" (NDC), which makes God explanatory redundant. That is, in so far as TE does not invoke God as an additional cause alongside natural causes, it is untenable. Theistic evolutionists should therefore "reject NDC and affirm a more robust notion of divine agency." However, this will, Leidenhag claims, have the effect that theistic evolutionists "will move their position significantly closer to Intelligent Design," and so the line between TE and intelligent design is (or ought to be?) blurred. If successful, the criticism by Leidenhag would be bad news for theists who want to take science seriously and good news for those scientistic atheists according to whom there simply is no scientifically respectable way of combining theism and modern natural science in an overarching worldview. So, is TE stuck between a rock (of redundancy) and a hard place (of pseudo-science)? No, at least not due to the criticism offered by Leidenhag-but maybe religious naturalism is?
|
|
| 10. |
- Stenmark, M
(author)
-
An unfinished debate: What are the aims of religion and science?
- 1997
-
In: ZYGON. - : BLACKWELL PUBLISHERS. - 0591-2385. ; 32:4, s. 491-514 Language: English
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- I discuss the kinds of fundamental questions that must be addressed by people who develop theories about how religion and science are (or should be) related. After categorizing these questions as axiological, epistemological, ontological, or semantic, I f
|
|
