Why science & religion think differently
Date
2012
Authors
Rolston, Holmes, 1932-, interviewee
Kuhn, Robert Lawrence, interviewer
The Kuhn Foundation; Getzels Gordon Productions, producer
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Abstract
Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviews four theologians at Helsingør, Denmark, and an atheist in London. Niels Henrik Gregersen, theologian, University of Copenhagen. Science is more analytical, religion is more synthetic, comprehensive. The two are not at war, but religion cuts a wider path through all of human experience. Holmes Rolston, III, philosopher, theologian, Colorado State University (Rolston interview starts at 6 minutes, 30 seconds). Science is good at empirical questions, but does not touch the deeper value questions. After four hundred years of science, the deeper value questions are as sharp and as painful as ever. Christopher Southgate, theologian, University of Exeter. Science focuses on limited questions, but most aspects of life go beyond to questions of personal experience and transcendent truth, the answers to which are far more difficult. Celia Deane-Drummond, theologian, Notre Dame University. The study of nature in science can point to God, but religion confronts ethical questions. The goal of the religious search is a transcendent God, who cannot be subject to the scientific analysis appropriate for the physical world. Anthony A. C. Grayling, philosopher, atheist, New College of the Humanities, London. Science has demands for rationality and is powerfully self-correcting. Religion has faith and suppresses doubt. Conclusions: Science cannot judge values and meaning, but it does not follow that the diverse religions can. The truth or falsity of religion must stand or fall on its own merits. Each should be assessed in its own light. The ultimate question is whether any transcendent reality exists beyond the reach of science.
Description
Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviews four theologians at Helsingør, Denmark, and an atheist in London. Niels Henrik Gregersen, theologian, University of Copenhagen. Science is more analytical, religion is more synthetic, comprehensive. The two are not at war, but religion cuts a wider path through all of human experience. Holmes Rolston, III, philosopher, theologian, Colorado State University (Rolston interview starts at 6 minutes, 30 seconds). Science is good at empirical questions, but does not touch the deeper value questions. After four hundred years of science, the deeper value questions are as sharp and as painful as ever. Christopher Southgate, theologian, University of Exeter. Science focuses on limited questions, but most aspects of life go beyond to questions of personal experience and transcendent truth, the answers to which are far more difficult. Celia Deane-Drummond, theologian, Notre Dame University. The study of nature in science can point to God, but religion confronts ethical questions. The goal of the religious search is a transcendent God, who cannot be subject to the scientific analysis appropriate for the physical world. Anthony A. C. Grayling, philosopher, atheist, New College of the Humanities, London. Science has demands for rationality and is powerfully self-correcting. Religion has faith and suppresses doubt.
Conclusions: Science cannot judge values and meaning, but it does not follow that the diverse religions can. The truth or falsity of religion must stand or fall on its own merits. Each should be assessed in its own light. The ultimate question is whether any transcendent reality exists beyond the reach of science.
Conclusions: Science cannot judge values and meaning, but it does not follow that the diverse religions can. The truth or falsity of religion must stand or fall on its own merits. Each should be assessed in its own light. The ultimate question is whether any transcendent reality exists beyond the reach of science.
Rights Access
Subject
Rolston, Holmes, 1932-