Nature of Evidence in Religion and Natural Science
Regardless of the model for identifying the relationship between science and religion-conflict, independence, dialogue, integration-insufficient attention has been given to the way evidence is processed in each field. Whereas religious claims are based on experiential evidence, scientific claims are...
| Auteurs: | ; ; ; |
|---|---|
| Collaborateurs: | |
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Routledge
2020
|
| Dans: |
Theology and science
Année: 2020, Volume: 18, Numéro: 3, Pages: 448-474 |
| RelBib Classification: | AB Philosophie de la religion AE Psychologie de la religion CF Christianisme et science ZD Psychologie |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
testimonial
B ignosticism B religion–science models B hyperactive agent-detection device B igtheism B Evidence B Confirmation bias B falsification |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Résumé: | Regardless of the model for identifying the relationship between science and religion-conflict, independence, dialogue, integration-insufficient attention has been given to the way evidence is processed in each field. Whereas religious claims are based on experiential evidence, scientific claims are based on experimental evidence. Recognizing this difference, the independence or two-language model along with the ethical alliance model would be the most fitting basis for future religion-science interaction. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1474-6719 |
| Référence: | Kritik in "Bias in the Science and Religion Dialogue? A Critique of “Nature of Evidence in Religion and Natural Science” (2021)"
|
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Theology and science
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2020.1786221 |