edited by Anna L. Peterson, Manual A. Vasquez, and Philip J. Williams (Rutgers University Press) Excerpt: Christianity wears many faces in Latin America and U.S. Latino communities today: Pentecostal preachers in central plazas and black-robed priests in cavernous cathedrals, peasants leading "celebrations of the word," and teenagers singing rock-and-roll anthems to Christ. Amidst this diversity, certain common themes are evident. First, religion is changing but not disappearing. Greater religious pluralism has not led to secularization or religion's retreat from public life. If anything, religion has become more central to struggles around collective and individual identity and to the rearticulation of damaged civil societies. Second, while pluralism has challenged established religious institutions and elites, especially in the Catholic Church, it has also provided additional resources that help people manage severe crises in personal identity, in family stability, in neighborhood well-being, and in national civic life. Many of these crises are sparked or exacerbated by globalizing processes in economics, politics, and culture. As these pressures are felt in everyday life, people often turn to an increasingly diverse religious sphere. This book explores some of the complex links between religion and contemporary cultural, economic, and political changes in the Americas.
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.
Social Change and Religion essay - Sociology
A major impetus for Arabic science was the patronage of the Abbasidcaliphate (758–1258), centered in Baghdad. Early Abbasid rulers,such as Harun al-Rashid (ruled 786–809) and his successorAbū Jaʿfar Abdullāh al-Ma’mūn (ruled813–833), were significant patrons of Arabic science. The formerfounded the Bayt al-Hikma (House of Wisdom), whichcommissioned translations of major works by Aristotle, Galen, and manyPersian and Indian scholars into Arabic. It was cosmopolitan in itsoutlook, employing astronomers, mathematicians, and physicians fromabroad, including Indian mathematicians and Nestorian (Christian)astronomers. Throughout the Arabic world, public libraries attached tomosques provided access to a vast compendium of knowledge, whichspread Islam, Greek philosophy, and Arabic science. The use of acommon language (Arabic), as well as common religious and politicalinstitutions and flourishing trade relations encouraged the spread ofscientific ideas throughout the empire. Some of this transmission wasinformal, e.g., correspondence between like-minded people (see Dhanani2002), some formal, e.g., in hospitals where students learned aboutmedicine in a practical, master-apprentice setting, and inastronomical observatories and academies. The decline and fall of theAbbasid caliphate dealt a blow to Arabic science, but it remainsunclear why it ultimately stagnated, and why it did not experiencesomething analogous to the scientific revolution in WesternEurope.
Relationship Between Religion And Morality Essay
Because “science” and “religion” defydefinition, discussing the relationship between science (in general)and religion (in general) may be meaningless. For example, Kelly Clark(2014) argues that we can only sensibly inquire into the relationshipbetween a widely accepted claim of science (such as quantum mechanicsor findings in neuroscience) and a specific claim of a particularreligion (such as Islamic understandings of divine providence orBuddhist views of the no-self).
Relationship Between Religion And Morality ..
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.
Difference between talking dating and relationship / Giftsjo
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.