To read books written in good English On Page 262 on one single paragraph we have the following wordsconversionismactivismbiblicismcrucicentrismpietismskepticismrevivalismevangelicalism9 As a general point the authors of these essays strive mightily to say that there really wasn t that much of a conflict between religion and science But then they have to honestly report that well on a
number of occasions there ind of was10 Creationists have been uite creative They came up with several zany anti of occasions there ind of was10 Creationists have been uite creative They came up with several zany anti theories One was that there has been TWO creations an original one which formed the planet and mountains and seas and stuff hence the Earth is very extremely uite old much older than 6000 years but then God made Life in six days so the Bible is also true Now that s clever stuff Also finding fossils of sea creatures on the top of mountains is not proof that the mountains were once the sea floor but an indication of
the high water mark of Noah s flood EvidentlyAnyway a nice collection of high water mark of Noah s flood EvidentlyAnyway a nice collection of could have been a bit sexier tried to be a little too nice to everyone but I liked it a lot This is one of numerous recently published books on the topic of the history of the war between science and religion This book is a collection of no less than 30 separate essays on the historical conflict The chapters range all the way from Aristotle and the early Christian period to medieval writers such as St Augustine and Thomas Auinas to the Copernican revolution Galileo and Newton and o I read this anthology of introductory essays in conjunction with John Hedley Brooke s Science and Religion Some Historical Perspectives and the comparison between the two is interesting Brooke s book which replaces conflict and convergence models of the science religion relationship with a complexity thesis is certainly the important contribution academically But as my GR review indicated it freuently bogs down a bit in detail and will scare off all but truly dedicated readers In contrast Ferngren s anthology which includes essays by major scholars including David Lindberg Owen Gingrich Richard Westfal Ronald Numbers and Brooke himself is reasonably accessible For the most part its approach is based on Brooke s you won t find many grand pronouncements and all of the writers are aware of the dangers of generalization It s divided into seven sections the first five chronological the last two addressing themes that cross eras and contemporary issues The contemporary issues chapters on Gender the Social Construction of Science and Postmodernism haven t aged well since 2002 Readers who don t now the turf are probably better off skipping them The chronological chapters address intellectual issues such as Natural Theology Mechanical Philosophy and evolutionism as well focusing on major figures Aristotle Galileo Newton Darwin Almost all of the chapters are solid some of them very good But the anthology doesn t read particularly well as an overview There s a huge amount of repetition a side effect probably inevitable of the editorial decision to make each chapter stand alone Reading them with Brooke fresh in mind also makes it clear when complexities are elided again an inevitable by product of the format The best use for Ferngren s book is probably as a uick reference for those familiar with the issues or as a source of brief introductions to particular topics for students just entering the field. Ism which are at the center of current debates in the historiography understanding and application of scienceContributors Colin A Russell David B Wilson Edward Grant David C Lindberg Alnoor Dhanani Owen Gingerich Richard J Blackwell Edward B Davis Michael P Winship John Henry Margaret J Osler Richard S Westfall John Hedley Brooke Nicolaas A Rupke Peter M Hess James Moore Peter J Bowler Ronald L Numbers Steven J Harris Mark A Noll Edward J Larson Richard Olson Craig Sean McConnell Robin Collins William A Dembski David N Livingstone Sara Miles and Stephen P Weldo. Good general introduction A book I considered using for a course on
and Religion my first time teaching a course on religion and science I perused several introductory texts and settled on this one to assignscience and religion
For Historical Background It Is Not Anhistorical background It is not an read most of the articles were written for an encyclopedia and are thus meant for a academic audience My freshmen weathered the articles and perhaps picked up some info here and there I described it as our meat and potatoes in a course mostly full of deserts However the collection is better for professors like me hoping to catch up in a new area of study The text takes issue with the conflict theory of religion and science and admirably shows how religious institutions have been engines for scientific inuiry than a hindrance While there are chapters on gender and postmodernism the glaring deficiency is that the rest of the text besides a short chapter on Islam are all Western sources I d love to see an introductory text with pictures narrative and geographic diversity This book was a reuired reading for one of my freshman year classes at NYU Thoroughly uninteresting and dry Excellent scholarly work surveying science and religion interactions through history The book has a strong historical slant to it providing background and circumstances regarding the origin of various conflicts between science and religion The essays also explore philosophical reasons and challenges but do not delve too deeply into the philosophical implications The authors are diverse in their experience and perspectives going each chapter a fresh look at different topicsDefinitely a must read for someone interested in science and religion The authors challenge the reader with insi OK before you read When Science Meets Religion Enemies Strangers or Partners you need to read this one to get a historical perspective Why read this stuff you ask Well consider that you won t live on this planet for than ohhh 75 years at best if you live in a developed country like the US Elsewhere much less If you re not asking uestions about your existence then you are dumb Sorry I don t hold back the punches Want lovin go see your boyfriend girlfriend significant other The Hindu says we all begin selfish It s expected Just think of the infant what do they think about all day Themselves Then as you grow you see siblings peers community town state country world worlds and it is here where most turn to religion or spirituallity It s a natural progression If you resist that s your call But if you go with the natural inclination that s your call But if you go with the natural inclination most do then you need to read Read books on science and religion and get uestioning Because there s nothing worse than getting to the Big Cul de sac of life and going Whoops This sucks Should have researced this after life thing Poof 1 Science and religion Conflict or ComplexityThis book s answer Complexity Most def PB s answer Conflict what medication are you on2 Islam the cliche is that their science flourished brilliantly until around 1200 then fell into steep decline for reasons we do not fully comprehend This book concludes cliche is still true Okay don t hold the front page3 Heliocentricity the first big showdown between the god suad in the red corner and the wise guys in the blue corner It was Copernicus that did it He first said the earth goes round the sun And the Pope decreed as long as he discusses this. Written by distinguished historians of science and religion the thirty essays in this volume survey the relationship of Western religious traditions to science from the beginning of the Christian era to the late twentieth century This wide ranging collection also introduces a variety of approaches to understanding their intersection suggesting a model not of inalterable conflict but of complex interactionTracing the rise of science from its birth in the medieval West through the scientific revolution the contributors describe major shifts that were marked by di.
Gary B. Ferngren · 3 read & downloadIn purely hypothetical terms that s okay A ey contemporary phrase attributed to
Cardinal Baronius was The Bible tells us how to go to heaven notBaronius was The Bible tells us how to go to heaven not the heavens goNow give that guy a job at Saatchi and Saatchi He could sell sand to the Saudis Anyway Copernicus didn t get fried he died a peaceful death in his own bed and frightful demons did not drag him down to hell Science 1 God 04 Then Galileo came along shortly thereafter The famous dispute is not you say the earth moves God says it doesn t you are hereby plagued with boils Copernicus invented the heliocentric theory and Galileo stuck a couple of nobs on it and promoted it So the dispute was specific The Church was saying can you prove heliocentricity So Galileo tried but couldn t Okay then the bishops said if you can t prove it you must only ever describe this theory once again hypothetically If you ever prove your theory we will re interpret the ey Biblical passages which indicate a geocentric reality as figurative Deal Here we have a possibly unintentional stab of deadpan comedy in this otherwise unfunny book Despite these complications Galileo s views in the Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina 1615 have since become commonplace in biblical exegesis and were accepted by the Catholic Church in 1983So surprisingly the score for the Galileo game was God 1 Science 15 Readers of certain sections of this book have to contend with sentences like Deism can be seen therefore as an extreme version of the tradition of attributing natural efficacy to secondary causes at the opposite end of the potentia absoluta et ordinata spectrum from occasionalismSo you have been warned6 Onward to geology this really threw down the gauntlet Or did it Because Bill Bryson s chapter on geology in A Short History of Nearly Everything a rather tiresome volume tells us that a great number of people in 18th century ie pre geology cheerfully accepted the great age of the earth7 The second Big One was of course Evolution How interesting that Christians both Protestant and Catholic managed to make some accommodation with Darwin s theories by the turn of the 20th century aside from local flareups like the Monkey Trial and everything was pretty cool until the evangelical insurrection in the Midwest and Southern States in the last 20 years which revived a literalist tradition last heard of in 1830 Essentially the big religious stumbling block with evolution is not especially the origin and mutability of species ie the mechanics of it but clear corollary of it all which is that the whole process is unguided and purposeless That all of creation is not evolving towards some some greater reality it s not going from somewhere to somewhere morally or spiritually better It just is No divine plan And one further thing no human soul This is what really stuck in the craw of everyone but the radicals But here s Pope John Paul
II in October 1996 new nowledge has led to the recognition of the theory ofin October 1996 new Integrity Restored: Helping Catholic Families Win the Battle Against Pornography knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of as than a hypothesis It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields ofnowledge The convergence neither sought nor fabricated of the results of the work that was condusted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theoryThat surprised me8 And now a short note on why academics should be idnapped and tortured by being made. Scoveries such as those of Copernicus Galileo and Isaac Newton and the Catholic and Protestant reactions to them They assess changes in scientific understanding brought about by eighteenth and nineteenth century transformations in geology cosmology and biology together with the responses of both mainstream religious groups and such newer movements as evangelicalism and fundamentalism The book also treats the theological implications of contemporary science and evaluates recent approaches such as environmentalism gender studies social construction and postmodern. ,