Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves areclearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between thetwo strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion maybe that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science,in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment ofthe goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who arethoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. Thissource of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To thisthere also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations validfor the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. Thesituation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame,religion without science is blind.
The purpose of the Award is to honor and publicize annually creative and constructive insights into the relationship between human beings and the divine, and ways in which this relationship may inspire or empower human beings to attain wholeness, integrity or meaning, either individually or in community.This award is granted by both the Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and the University of Louisville to those who have presented ideas with the potential to bring about change in the world through religion.Prize Amount
The Grawemeyer Award in Religion is accompanied by a prize of $100,000, which is presented in full during the awards ceremony.Eligibility
Any work (book, address, essay, etc.) presented or published in 2012 or subsequently will be eligible for consideration for the 2019 Award.
Free science vs. religion Essays and Papers - 123HelpMe
This entry provides an overview of the topics and discussions inscience and religion. Section 1 outlines the scope of both fields, andhow they are related. Section 2 looks at the relationship betweenscience and religion in three religious traditions, Christianity,Islam, and Hinduism. Section 3 discusses contemporary topics ofscientific inquiry in which science and religion intersect, focusingon creation, divine action, and human origins. Section 4 concludes bylooking at a few future directions of the study of science andreligion.
Human Knowledge: Foundations and Limits
The systematic study of science and religion started in the 1960s,with authors such as Ian Barbour (1966) and Thomas F. Torrance (1969)who challenged the prevailing view that science and religion wereeither at war or indifferent to each other. Barbour’s Issuesin Science and Religion (1966) set out several enduring themes ofthe field, including a comparison of methodology and theory in bothfields. Zygon, the first specialist journal on science andreligion, was also founded in 1966. While the early study of scienceand religion focused on methodological issues, authors from the late1980s to the 2000s developed contextual approaches, including detailedhistorical examinations of the relationship between science andreligion (e.g., Brooke 1991). Peter Harrison (1998) challenged thewarfare model by arguing that Protestant theological conceptions ofnature and humanity helped to give rise to science in theseventeenth century. Peter Bowler (2001, 2009) drew attention to abroad movement of liberal Christians and evolutionists in thenineteenth and twentieth centuries who aimed to reconcileevolutionary theory with religious belief.
Energy and the Human Journey: Where We Have Been; …
Several typologies characterize the interaction between science andreligion. For example, Mikael Stenmark (2004) distinguishes betweenthree views: the independence view (no overlap between science andreligion), the contact view (some overlap between the fields), and aunion of the domains of science and religion; within those views herecognizes further subdivisions, e.g., the contact can be in the formof conflict or harmony. The most influential model of therelationships between science and religion remains Barbour’s(2000): conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. Subsequentauthors, as well as Barbour himself, have refined and amended thistaxonomy. However, others (e.g., Cantor and Kenny 2001) have arguedthat it is not useful to understand past interactions between bothfields. For one thing, it focuses on the cognitive content ofreligions at the expense of other aspects, such as rituals and socialstructures. Moreover, there is no clear definition of what conflictmeans (evidential or logical). The model is not as philosophicallysophisticated as some of its successors, such as Stenmark’s(2004). Nevertheless, because of its enduring influence, it is stillworthwhile to discuss this taxonomy in detail.