RUMINATIONS ON RUSE AND RELIGION

Abstract. I am in general agreement with Ruse on most religious and scientific issues but find little justification in his partial return to Christianity. His rejection of the literal interpretation of certain "Jewish myths," once started, can logically end only with the rejection of all the important content of both Old and New Testaments. His recognition that religious establishments have been responsible for much personal stress and many of history's great tragedies is understated.     

EXPLORING OLD AND NEW PATHS IN THEODICY

Christopher Southgate's work raises questions about God, evolution, and suffering. In this article, I begin by contributing an alternative to Southgate's “only way” argument and by offering a third option in speculations about the nature of nonhuman animals in heaven. The second half of the article starts with Southgate's approach of evolutionary theodicy as “an adventure in theology” and proposes a new path branching off his work. “Compassionate theodicy” is a reworking of the method and audience of traditional theodicy in the hope that it might become something that could offer theological resources to those who suffer.     

PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY,ETHICS, AND LOVE: TOWARD A NEW RELIGION AND SCIENCE DIALOGUE

Religion and science dialogues that orbit around rational method, knowledge, and truth are often, though not always, contentious. In this article, I suggest a different cluster of gravitational points around which religion and science dialogues might usefully travel: philosophical anthropology, ethics, and love. I propose seeing morality as a natural outgrowth of the human desire to establish and maintain social bonds so as not to experience the condition of being alone. Humans, of all animals, need to feel loved—defined as a compassionate present‐with in dynamic dyadic relation such that one experiences the sense of mattering—but that need has an equally natural tendency to be met by creating biased us‐and‐them distinctions. A “critical” natural ethics, then, is one in which we become aware of and work to undermine our tendency to reify in‐group distinctions between “us” and “them.” Religious communities that work intentionally on this can be seen, to some extent, as laboratories of love—or as sites for co‐creating knowledge in perilous times.     

试论宗教与民族的关系

宗教与民族的关系,不论在中国还是全世界,在历史文化还是现实生活中,都是一个引人注目的重大问题。本文旨在从理论上澄清二者的基本关系。文章先从理论和现实两方面提出了研究二者关系的必要性,再从宗教与民族关系的根源、宗教对民族形成的作用、宗教与民族特性的区别、宗教与民族发展的相互作用、宗教对民族之间关系的正负影响等方面,进行了兼顾问题两面的理论澄清,指出在宗教与民族二者之中,任一方的道德或理性成分的发展都会有利于另一方的道德或理性成分的发展,任一方的狂热或反理性倾向都会加剧另一方的狂热或反理性倾向;最后从世界各国宗教与民族关系的历史与现状着眼,概括了宗教与民族各自面对的问题,并从中尽力总结出七条经验教训,以期有利于我国在宗教与民族关系上的理论研究和实际工作。     

A NEOPRAGMATIST PERSPECTIVE ON RELIGION AND SCIENCE

Abstract. Pragmatists, most notably John Dewey and Richard Rorty, propose overcoming the modern split between science and values with a new image of ourselves as language users. In this new self-understanding, both our scientific and evaluative vocabularies are integral parts of self-reliant human problem solving and coping with the larger natural environment. Our language is not the medium of any higher power from which it derives its legitimacy. On this view, the principal matter at issue between pragmatists and realists so far as interaction between religion and science is concerned is the moral one of human self-reliance.     

COSMOLOGY, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY

Abstract. It is a mistake to assume that science and religion are competing accounts of the same subject matter, so that either science supersedes religion or religion anticipates science. Using the question of cosmic origins as an example, I argue that the basic task of religion is not the scientific one of establishing the most accurate acccunt of the origin of the universe. Rather, as illustrated from Jewish, Hindu, Chinese, and Buddhist thought, religion uses a variety of cosmologies to help specify the necessary terms and conditions on which human social life is possible in particular ecological niches.     

PRAGMATISM,REALISM, AND RELIGION

Pragmatism is often thought to be incompatible with realism, the view that there are knowable mind‐independent facts, objects, or properties. In this article, I show that there are, in fact, realist versions of pragmatism and argue that a realist pragmatism of the right sort can make important contributions to such fields as religious ethics and philosophy of religion. Using William James's pragmatism as my primary example, I show (1) that James defended realist and pluralist views in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and philosophy of religion, and (2) that these views not only cohere with his pragmatism but indeed are basic to it. After arguing that James's pragmatism provides a credible and useful approach to a number of basic philosophical and religious issues, I conclude by reflecting on some ways in which we can apply and potentially improve James's views in the study of religion.