Kuhn and the science of religion

Ever since the challenge to the ‘received’ view of the philosophy of science—a view epitomized by Karl Popper and Carl Hempel—the status of science has been questioned. If radical critics of the received view—critics including Kuhn, Laudan, Feyerabend, the Edinburgh Strong Programme, and Latour—are right, can science, which means natural science, still be considered objective? Can it still be deemed the model of objectivity to be emulated by the social sciences and even by the humanities? Because religious studies is commonly assumed to fall short of the standards of objectivity of the natural sciences and even of the social sciences, what bearing does criticism of conventional philosophy of science have on it? Specifically, can the religionist approach to religion, the approach that purports to be the sole appropriate one for religious studies, be defended? Does radical philosophy of science, by challenging the objectivity of scientific claims, make the world safe for religious ones? This article will focus on the philosophy of Thomas Kuhn and will seek to determine what use defenders of religious studies can make of it.     

Reflections on change in science and religion

Science and the Catholic church are both conservative, slow-to-change institutions. However, science has institutionalized procedures that ensure that ample amounts of criticism of currently accepted theories and methodologies will always be present. This arrangement of continuous conjectures and refutation in science ensures often slow but steady change. Because supporters often think of religions as trafficking in timeless truths, criticism of church beliefs and practices (even when intended to stimulate reflection and improvement) is frequently seen as being disloyal to the institution. Because of the growing crises caused by world overpopulation, I argue that the Catholic church's opposition to all artificial methods of birth control now lacks whatever moral force it might have had when originally promulgated. By highlighting theological perspectives that might be appropriate for the ecological realities of the 21st century, I hope the church will see the wisdom of reevaluating many of its positions in the light of rapidly approaching ecological imperatives.     

科学与宗教合作的危险探求

宗教与科学正在联手探寻自然界的真相吗？事实并非如此。当今有神学界的基金会支持这样的研究。这样的研究很难称得上客观公允。此外,“宗教教义”（Religio）这一古老词汇也常被今人误读。本文通过考察概念的流变发现,区分科学与宗教是探究真理的两个不同途径的努力,其本质仍是中世纪宗教概念的延续与复兴。中世纪发展起来的宗教概念是将超自然和科学相融合,来阐明世界和人类的种种论述。如果放弃使用“宗教”这个术语,取而代之以“超自然主义”的说法,也许就能澄清目前的争议。     

关于科学与宗教关系的一些思考

近来，科学与宗教关系研究越来越受到国内外重视，这不仅具有学术意义．还有重大的现实意义。不过，至今的讨论还多是比较宽泛的，须要进一步深入研究。应当深入了解科学包括哪些内涵，宗教包括哪些内涵，弄清自己所讨论的是科学哪一部分和宗教哪一部分之间的关系，这样才不致产生歧义，而有利于达成共识。本文着重阐述了科学与宗教最基本的关系；还就如何看待科学与宗教其他方面的关系，以伽利略笃信天主教为例．进行了典型分析。     

Philosophy of science and the study of religion

This paper responds to the six papers from the Tokyo IAHR session.     

Non-instrumental roles of science

Nowadays, science is treated an instrument of policy, serving the material interests of government and commerce. Traditionally, however, it also has important non-instrumental social functions, such as the creation of critical scenarios and world pictures, the stimulation of rational attitudes, and the production of enlightened practitioners and independent experts. The transition from academic to 'post-academic' science threatens the performance of these functions, which are inconsistent with strictly instrumental modes of knowledge production. In particular, expert objectivity is negated by entanglement with political and commercial interests. We cannot go back to the old academic model for science, but need to consider how to maintain its vital non-instrumental roles.     

论科技发达的今天宗教热何以可能

一、宗教热的表现现代宗教热是指始于20世纪70年代,一直延续至今的一场全球性的宗教信仰狂潮。它主要表现     

Bridging science and religion in China: Emerging opportunities for global dialogue 1

The development of the science and religion dialogue in the past two decades has been phenomenal. Until now, the dialogue between science and religion has mainly been a dialogue within the Abrahamic faith traditions, but in the spirit of true dialogue, it should also extend to worldviews from other cultures. Scientism has one of its strongest footholds in China and has dominated Chinese intellectual culture for nearly a century. In fact, science and technology still rule supreme today. An atheistic communist rule, together with a humanistic Confucianist tradition that leaves little room for religious values, has suppressed religion in China for a long while. The introduction of science and religion dialogue will inevitably help Chinese scholars reflect upon the development of science and technology in China, and in the process, rediscover China's religious heritage and gain new grounds in its scientific and religious life. A meaningful science and religion dialogue is necessary for a pluralistic, postmodern world—and for China.