Bøger udgivet af Grandviaduct

Joseph Hinman develops the notion that belief in God, while not absolutely provable, is rationally warranted and that the experience is life-transforming and vital. He utilizes a body of empirical scientific studies that go back fifty years and draws upon sociological experts including Abraham Maslow, Robert Wuthnow, and Andrew Greeley. The huge body of work includes many important advances in this scientific work (such as the M scale) this allow for carefully study of mystical experience and offers a range of evidence that warrants belief. Arguments for God based upon personal religious experience have always been considered weak by both apologists and skeptics. This has been the case due to prejudices and misconceptions about the nature of religious experiences... A vast body of data demonstrates that religious experiences, what some call "mystical" and others refer to as "peak," have positive, long term effects so dramatic it can only be described as "transformative"... Religious experience is the effect of God has upon the human heart, thus, the Trace of God. Hinman establishes that the Trace of God and religious experience -far from being caused by or related to mental or emotional instability- has an impact that is not just positive and life-transforming but vital: that belief in God is rationally warranted. A fine exploration of the meaningfulness of arguments from human experience to the reality of God. - Ralph Hood, Jr., The Psychology of Religion and Handbook of Religious Experience some much-needed scientific rigour on the subject of mysticism and religious experience - James Hannam God's Philosophers (shortlisted, Royal Society Prize for Science Books 2010) Hinman's book will give you something to think about. - Nick Peters, Christian Answers to This Generation's Questions (with J. P. Holding) presents an important argument in a strong and forceful way... a great contribution to discussions of the rationality of belief in God. - William S. Babcock, Professor Emeritus of Church History, Southern Methodist University

"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.