Bøger af Joseph Hinman

"Religion is not a primitive thing that science is in the process of defeating. Science is neither the only form of knowledge nor a plot by Satan; it's a tool of human knowledge that enables us to understand the physical workings of the world." This is how Joseph Hinman describes in a nutshell the philosophical "war" between religion and science. Both of these things would be better referred to in the plural: "the sciences" and "religions," because neither is a monolith, but rather a group of disciplines on the one hand, and a set of approaches to the big questions about the human condition, on the other. But we have a tendency to refer to them both in the singular, as two ways of viewing reality that are in conflict. Which of them gets to be the "umpire of reality"? In this era, when a strident religious ideology cries out for political power and a return to a nostalgic time of dominance, the claims of what is called "new atheism"- that religion is a destructive force that needs to be overcome by the pure rationality of science- can seem persuasive. But is new atheism actually scientific? Or does it also reflect an ideology, in its insistence that scientific findings allow no place for personal, metaphysical faith? Hinman approaches this debate from the perspective of a faith that is neither strident nor domineering, but that seeks to defend religion against atheistic attacks that use "science" as a reductionistic tool of anti-religious ideology. Addressing such topics as the historical development of science, the nature of religious experience, the influence of underlying assumptions on human perception, and the sort of evidence that supports belief in God, Hinman (also author of The Trace of God: a Rational Warrant for Belief), requests that we set aside ideology in pursuit of what science and religion, each in its own sphere, can bring to enrich our lives. Joseph Hinman's fresh, innovative and comprehensive contribution to the ongoing scientific-religious debate assures the reader that we really don't need to choose between science and belief.

"Religion is not a primitive thing that science is in the process of defeating. Science is neither the only form of knowledge nor a plot by Satan; it's a tool of human knowledge that enables us to understand the physical workings of the world." This is how Joseph Hinman describes in a nutshell the philosophical "war" between religion and science. Both of these things would be better referred to in the plural: "the sciences" and "religions," because neither is a monolith, but rather a group of disciplines on the one hand, and a set of approaches to the big questions about the human condition, on the other. But we have a tendency to refer to them both in the singular, as two ways of viewing reality that are in conflict. Which of them gets to be the "umpire of reality"? In this era, when a strident religious ideology cries out for political power and a return to a nostalgic time of dominance, the claims of what is called "new atheism"- that religion is a destructive force that needs to be overcome by the pure rationality of science- can seem persuasive. But is new atheism actually scientific? Or does it also reflect an ideology, in its insistence that scientific findings allow no place for personal, metaphysical faith? Hinman approaches this debate from the perspective of a faith that is neither strident nor domineering, but that seeks to defend religion against atheistic attacks that use "science" as a reductionistic tool of anti-religious ideology. Addressing such topics as the historical development of science, the nature of religious experience, the influence of underlying assumptions on human perception, and the sort of evidence that supports belief in God, Hinman (also author of The Trace of God: a Rational Warrant for Belief), requests that we set aside ideology in pursuit of what science and religion, each in its own sphere, can bring to enrich our lives. Joseph Hinman's fresh, innovative and comprehensive contribution to the ongoing scientific-religious debate assures the reader that we really do not need to choose between science and belief.