Religion

Map of majority religions in the world

A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth.^[1] It may be expressed through prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.

The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"^[2] but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively.

The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures. It considers psychological and social roots, along with origins and historical development.

In the frame of western religious thought,^[3] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.^[4] Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.

Religions by country

Definitions of religion

Further information: Sociology of Religion, Transcendence, Theism, Sacred (comparative religion), Religion and mythology, and Myth and ritual

Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism are one, a painting in the litang style portraying three men laughing by a river stream, 12th century, Song Dynasty.

Religious scholars generally agree that writing a single definition that applies to all religions is difficult or even impossible, because all people examine religion with some kind of critical eye, and the term is therefore fraught with ideological consequences for anyone who might want to construct a universal definition. Talal Asad writes that "there cannot be a universal definition of religion ... because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes"^[5]; Thomas A. Tweed, while defending the idea of religion in general, writes that "it would be foolish to set up an abstract definition of religion's essence, and then proceed to defend that definition from all comers."^[6]

The earliest definition of religion is from Johnson's Dictionary, which simply calls it "a system of faith and worship". Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as das schlechthinnige Abhängigkeitsgefühl, commonly translated as "a feeling of absolute dependence".^[7] His contemporary Hegel disagreed thoroughly, defining religion as "the Divine Spirit becoming conscious of Himself through the finite spirit."^[8] Clifford Geertz's definition of religion as a "cultural system" was dominant for most of the 20th century and continues to be widely accepted today.

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”^[9] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions. Thus religion is considered by some sources to extend to causes, principles, or activities believed in with zeal or conscientious devotion concerning points or matters of ethics or conscience, and not necessarily including belief in the supernatural.^[10]

The English word religion has been in use since the 13th century, loaned from Anglo-French religiun (11th century), ultimately from the Latin religio, "reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety, the res divinae".^[11]

The ultimate origins of Latin religiō are obscure. It is usually accepted to derive from ligare "bind, connect"; probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect." This interpretation is favoured by modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell, but was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius. Another possibility is derivation from a reduplicated *le-ligare. A historical interpretation due to Cicero on the other hand connects lego "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully".^[12]

Specific religious movements

Main article: Major religious groups

In the 19th and 20th centuries, the academic practice of comparative religion divided religious belief into philosophically-defined categories called "world religions." However, some recent scholarship has argued that not all types of religion are necessarily separated by mutually exclusive philosophies, and furthermore that the utility of ascribing a practice to a certain philosophy, or even calling a given practice religious, rather than cultural, political, or social in nature, is limited.^[13]^[14]^[15] The list of religious movements given here is an attempt to summarize the most important regional and philosophical influences, but it is by no means a complete description of every religious community.

Abrahamic religions are practiced throughout the world. They share in common the Jewish patriarch Abraham and the Torah as an initial sacred text, although the degree to which the Torah is incorporated into religious beliefs varies between traditions.

Judaism accepts only the prophets of the Torah, but also relies on the authority of rabbis. It is practiced by the Jewish people, an ethnic group currently centered in Israel but also scattered throughout the Jewish diaspora. Today, Jews are outnumbered by Christians and Muslims.
Christianity is centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the Gospels and the writings of the apostle Paul (1st century CE). The Christian faith is essentially faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and as Savior and Lord. As the religion of Western Europe during the time of colonization, Christianity has been propagated throughout the world. However, Christianity is not practiced as a single orthodoxy but as a mixture of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and many forms of Protestantism. In the United States, for example, African-Americans^[16] and Korean-Americans^[17] usually attend separate churches from Americans of European descent. Many European countries as well as Argentina have established a specific church as the state religion, but this is not the case in the United States nor in many other majority Christian areas.
Islam refers to the religion taught by the Islamic prophet Muhammad, a major political and religious figure of the 7th century CE. Islam is the dominant religion of northern Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. As with Christianity, there is no single orthodoxy in Islam but a multitude of traditions which are generally categorized as Sunni and Shia, although there are other minor groups as well. Wahhabi Islam is the established religion of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There are also several Islamic republics, including Iran which is run by a Shia Supreme Leader.
The Bahá'í Faith was founded in the 19th century in Iran and since then has spread worldwide. It teaches unity of all religious philosophies and accepts all of the prophets of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as well as additional prophets including its founder Bahá'u'lláh.
Smaller Abrahamic groups that are not heterodox versions of the four major groupings include Mandaeism, Samaritanism, the Druze, and the Rastafari movement.

Indian religions are practiced or were founded in the Indian subcontinent. Concepts most of them share in common include karma, caste, reincarnation, mantras, yantras, and darśana. Islam in India has also been influenced by Indian religious practices.

Hinduism is a term introduced by British scholars to describe the similar philosophies of Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and related groups.^[13] Today, proponents of Hindu nationalism sometimes include Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs under the category of Hinduism, but the Dalit Buddhist movement is excluded because of their denial of the caste system.^[18] Hinduism is not a monolithic religion in and of itself but a religious category containing dozens of separate philosophies.
Sikhism is a monotheistic religion founded on the teachings of Guru Nanak and ten successive Sikh Gurus in 15th century Punjab. Sikhs are found mostly in India.
Jainism, taught primarily by Parsva (9th century BCE) and Mahavira (6th century BCE), is an ancient Indian religion that prescribes a path of non-violence for all forms of living beings in this world. Jains are found mostly in India.
There are dozens of new Indian religions and Hindu reform movements, such as Ayyavazhi and Swaminarayan Faith.

Buddhism was founded by Siddhattha Gotama in the 6th century BCE. Buddhists generally agree that Gotama aimed to help sentient beings end their suffering by understanding the true nature of phenomena, thereby escaping the cycle of suffering and rebirth (saṃsāra), that is, achieving Nirvana.

Theravada Buddhism, which is practiced mainly in Southeast Asia alongside folk religion, shares some characteristics of Indian religions. It is based in a large collection of texts called the Pali Canon.
Under the heading of Mahayana (the "Great Vehicle") fall a multitude of doctrines which began their development in China and are still relevant in Vietnam, in Korea, in Japan, and to a lesser extent in Europe and the United States. Mahayana Buddhism includes such disparate teachings as Zen, Pure Land, and Soka Gakkai.
Vajrayana Buddhism, sometimes considered a form of Mahayana, was developed in Tibet and is still most prominent there and in surrounding regions.
Two notable new Buddhist sects are Hòa Hảo and the Dalit Buddhist movement, which were developed separately in the 20th century.

Yazdânism is a non-Abrahamic monotheistic category including the traditional beliefs of the Yazidi, Alevi, and Ahl-e Haqq.

Religious movements centered in the United States are often derived from Christian tradition. They include the Latter Day Saint movement, Christian evangelicalism, and Unitarian Universalism among hundreds of smaller groups.

Folk religion is a term applied loosely and vaguely to disorganized local practices. It is also called paganism, shamanism, animism, ancestor worship, and totemism, although not all of these elements are necessarily present in local belief systems. The category of "folk religion" can generally include anything that is not part of an organization. The modern neopagan movement draws on folk religion for inspiration.

African traditional religion is a category including any type of religion practiced in Africa before the arrival of Islam and Christianity, such as Yoruba religion or San religion. There are many varieties of religions developed by Africans in the Americas derived from African beliefs, including Santería, Candomblé, Umbanda, Vodou, and Oyotunji.
Folk religions of the Americas include Aztec religion, Inca religion, Maya religion, and modern Catholic beliefs such as the Virgin of Guadalupe. Native American religion is practiced across the continent of North America.
Australian Aboriginal culture contains a mythology and sacred practices characteristic of folk religion.
Chinese folk religion, practiced by Chinese people around the world, is a primarily social practice including popular elements of Confucianism and Taoism, with some remnants of Mahayana Buddhism. Most Chinese do not identify as religious due to the strong Maoist influence on the country in recent history, but adherence to religious ceremonies remains common. New religious movements include Falun Gong and I-Kuan Tao.
Traditional Korean religion was a syncretic mixture of Mahayana Buddhism and Korean shamanism. Unlike Japanese Shinto, Korean shamanism was never codified and Buddhism was never made a social necessity. In some areas these traditions remain prevalent, but Korean-influenced Christianity is far more influential in society and politics.
Traditional Japanese religion is a mixture of Mahayana Buddhism and ancient indigenous practices which were codified as Shinto in the 19th century. Japanese people retain nominal attachment to both Buddhism and Shinto through social ceremonies, but irreligion is common.

A variety of new religious movements still practiced today have been founded in many other countries besides the United States and Japan, including Cao Đài in Vietnam.

Shinshūkyō is a general category for a wide variety of religious movements founded in Japan since the 19th century. These movements share almost nothing in common except the place of their founding. The largest religious movements centered in Japan include Soka Gakkai, Tenrikyo, and Seicho-No-Ie among hundreds of smaller groups.

Sociological classifications of religious movements suggest that within any given religious group, a community can resemble various types of structures, including "churches", "denominations", "sects", "cults", and "institutions".

Religion and superstition (And religious ignorance - My remark)

Further information: Superstition, Magical thinking, and Magic and religion

While superstitions and magical thinking refer to nonscientific causal reasoning, applied to specific things or actions, a religion is a more complex system about general or ultimate things, involving morality, history and community. Because religions may include and exploit certain superstitions or make use of magical thinking, while mixing them with broader considerations, the division between superstition and religious faith is hard to specify and subjective. Religious believers have often seen other religions as superstition.^[19] Likewise, some atheists, agnostics, deists, and skeptics regard religious belief as superstition. Religious practices are most likely to be labeled "superstitious" by outsiders when they include belief in extraordinary events (miracles), an afterlife, supernatural interventions, apparitions or the efficacy of prayer, charms, incantations, the meaningfulness of omens, and prognostications.

Greek and Roman pagans, who modeled their relations with the gods on political and social terms scorned the man who constantly trembled with fear at the thought of the gods, as a slave feared a cruel and capricious master. Such fear of the gods (deisidaimonia) was what the Romans meant by superstitio (Veyne 1987, p 211). Early Christianity was outlawed as a superstitio Iudaica, a "Jewish superstition", by Domitian in the 80s AD, and by AD 425, Theodosius II outlawed pagan traditions as superstitious.

The Roman Catholic Church considers superstition to be sinful in the sense that it denotes a lack of trust in the divine providence of God and, as such, is a violation of the first of the Ten Commandments. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states superstition "in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion" (para. #2110).

Superstition is a deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand is to fall into superstition. Cf. Matthew 23:16-22 (para. #2111)

History

This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2009)

Main articles: History of religion and Timeline of religion

Detail from Religion, Charles Sprague Pearce (1896). Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C.

Ideally, a history of religion could include all human religious practices, but archaeological study of religion is a relatively new and undeveloped field.^[20] Therefore, the history of religion is largely limited to those practices which have been described in writing.

Development of religion

Main articles: Evolutionary origin of religions, Development of religion, Anthropology of religion, and Prehistoric religion

Like the definition of religion, the construction of religious history is a task fraught with ideological implications. Early studies of religions were often written to imply that the author's own religion was the most accurate. Even in a secular history, to imply that religion "progresses" towards better understanding of reality makes a value judgment about past religions; likewise, to consider religion an essentially social construction with no transcendent meaning denies the claims of every religious authority.

There is no time or place in human history where religious movements are not being founded, and religious practice is not merely a matter of founding prophets but also of local traditions and reforms. There is not even a single era when the Abrahamic religions were developed; the Jewish prophets lived some centuries before Jesus, Muhammad came six centuries after him, and Bahá'u'lláh founded the Bahá'í Faith over a millennium later.

Middle Ages

A rare Tanjore style painting from the late 19th century depicting the ten gurus of Sikhism with Bhai Bala and Bhai Mardana.

The Middle Ages (800 AD-1500 AD) was a time of philosophical development for several major religions. As Christianity became the focus of scholarship throughout Europe, Buddhist missions were sent to East Asia, and Islam was spread throughout the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, North Africa and parts of Europe and India. Meanwhile, the decline of Buddhism in India led to the flourishing of folk religion there.

Many medieval religious movements emphasized mysticism, such as the Cathars and related movements in the West, the Bhakti movement in India and Sufism in Islam. Monotheism was articulated distinctly in Christian Christology and in Islamic Tawhid. Hindu monotheist notions of Brahman likewise reached their classical form with the teaching of Adi Shankara.

Religion was the dominant ideology behind many conflicts of the Middle Ages. Muslims were in conflict with Zoroastrians during the Islamic conquest of Persia; Christians were in conflict with Muslims during the Byzantine-Arab Wars, Crusades, Spanish Reconquista and Ottoman wars in Europe; Christians were in conflict with Jews during the Crusades, Reconquista and Inquisition; Shamans were in conflict with Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims and Christians during the Mongol invasions; and Muslims were in conflict with Hindus during Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent.

Modern period

European colonisation during the 15th to 19th centuries resulted in the spread of Christianity to Sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, Australia and the Philippines. The 18th century saw the beginning of secularisation in Europe, rising to notability in the wake of the French Revolution. By the 20th century, religion was no longer the dominant ideological force behind international wars, but had generally been unseated by political ideals such as democracy and communism.

In the 20th century, the regimes of Communist Eastern Europe and Communist China were explicitly anti-religious. A great variety of new religious movements originated in the 20th century, many proposing syncretism of elements of established religions. Adherence to such new movements is limited, however, remaining below 2% worldwide in the 2000s. Adherents of the classical world religions account for more than 75% of the world's population, while self-reported alliegance to indigenous folk religions has fallen to 4%. As of 2005, an estimated 14% of the world's population identifies as nonreligious.

Religious belief

Central Asian (Tocharian) and East-Asian Buddhist monks, Bezeklik, Eastern Tarim Basin, 9th-10th century.

Main article: Religious belief

Religious belief usually relates to the existence, nature and worship of a deity or deities and divine involvement in the universe and human life. Alternately, it may also relate to values and practices transmitted by a spiritual leader. Unlike other belief systems, which may be passed on orally, religious belief tends to be codified in literate societies (religion in non-literate societies is still largely passed on orally^[21]). In some religions, like the Abrahamic religions, it is held that most of the core beliefs have been divinely revealed.

Religious belief can also involve causes, principles or activities believed in with zeal or conscientious devotion concerning points or matters of ethics or conscience, not necessarily limited to organized religions.^[22]

Related forms of thought

Religion and science

Main article: Relationship between religion and science

Religious knowledge, according to religious practitioners, may be gained from religious leaders, sacred texts (scriptures), and/or personal revelation. Some religions view such knowledge as unlimited in scope and suitable to answer any question; others see religious knowledge as playing a more restricted role, often as a complement to knowledge gained through physical observation. Some religious people maintain that religious knowledge obtained in this way is absolute and infallible (religious cosmology).

The scientific method gains knowledge by testing hypotheses to develop theories through elucidation of facts or evaluation by experiments and thus only answers cosmological questions about the physical universe. It develops theories of the world which best fit physically observed evidence. All scientific knowledge is subject to later refinement in the face of additional evidence. Scientific theories that have an overwhelming preponderance of favorable evidence are often treated as facts (such as the theories of gravity or evolution).

Early science such as geometry and astronomy was connected to the divine for most medieval scholars. The compass in this 13th century manuscript is a symbol of God's act of creation.

Many scientists have held strong religious beliefs (see List of Christian thinkers in science) and have worked to harmonize science and religion. Isaac Newton, for example, believed that gravity caused the planets to revolve about the Sun, and credited God with the design. In the concluding General Scholium to the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he wrote: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." Nevertheless, conflict has repeatedly arisen between religious organizations and individuals who propagated scientific theories that were deemed unacceptable by the organizations. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, has in the past^[23] reserved to itself the right to decide which scientific theories were acceptable and which were unacceptable. In the 17th century, Galileo was tried and forced to recant the heliocentric theory based on the church's stance that the Greek Hellenistic system of astronomy was the correct one.^[24]^[25]

Many theories exist as to why religions sometimes seem to conflict with scientific knowledge. In the case of Christianity, a relevant factor may be that it was among Christians that science in the modern sense was developed. Unlike other religious groups, as early as the 17th century the Christian churches had to deal directly with this new way to investigate nature and seek truth.

The perceived conflict between science and Christianity may also be partially explained by a literal interpretation of the Bible adhered to by many Christians, both currently and historically. The Catholic Church has always held with Augustine of Hippo who explicitly opposed a literal interpretation of the Bible whenever the Bible conflicted with Science. The literal way to read the sacred texts became especially prevalent after the rise of the Protestant reformation, with its emphasis on the Bible as the only authoritative source concerning the ultimate reality.^[26] This view is often shunned by both religious leaders (who regard literally believing it as petty and look for greater meaning instead) and scientists who regard it as an impossibility.

Some Christians have disagreed or are still disagreeing with scientists in areas such as the validity of Keplerian astronomy, the theory of evolution, the method of creation of the universe and the Earth, and the origins of life. On the other hand, scholars such as Stanley Jaki have suggested that Christianity and its particular worldview was a crucial factor for the emergence of modern science. In fact, most of today's historians are moving away from the view of the relationship between Christianity and science as one of "conflict" — a perspective commonly called the conflict thesis.^[27]^[28] Gary Ferngren in his historical volume about Science & Religion states:

While some historians had always regarded the [conflict] thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.^[29

In the Bahá'í Faith, the harmony of science and religion is a central tenet.^[30] The principle states that that truth is one, and therefore true science and true religion must be in harmony, thus rejecting the view that science and religion are in conflict.^[30] `Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, asserted that science and religion cannot be opposed because they are aspects of the same truth; he also affirmed that reasoning powers are required to understand the truths of religion and that religious teachings which are at variance with science should not be accepted; he explained that religion has to be reasonable since God endowed humankind with reason so that they can discover truth.^[31] Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith, described science and religion as "the two most potent forces in human life."^[32]

Proponents of Hinduism claim that Hinduism is not afraid of scientific explorations, nor of the technological progress of mankind. According to them, there is a comprehensive scope and opportunity for Hinduism to mold itself according to the demands and aspirations of the modern world; it has the ability to align itself with both science and spiritualism. This religion uses some modern examples to explain its ancient theories and reinforce its own beliefs. For example, some Hindu thinkers have used the terminology of quantum physics to explain some basic concepts of Hinduism such as Maya or the illusory and impermanent nature of our existence.

The philosophical approach known as pragmatism, as propounded by the American philosopher and psychologist William James, has been used to reconcile scientific with religious knowledge. Pragmatism, simplistically, holds that the truth of a set of beliefs can be indicated by its usefulness in helping people cope with a particular context of life. Thus, the fact that scientific beliefs are useful in predicting observations in the physical world can indicate a certain truth for scientific theories; the fact that religious beliefs can be useful in helping people cope with difficult emotions or moral decisions can indicate a certain truth for those beliefs. (For a similar postmodern view, see grand narrative).

Religion, metaphysics, and cosmology

This section requires expansion.

Being both forms of belief system, religion and philosophy meet in several areas - notably in the study of metaphysics and cosmology. In particular, a distinct set of religious beliefs will often entail a specific metaphysics and cosmology. That is, a religion will generally have answers to metaphysical and cosmological questions about the nature of being, of the universe, humanity, and the divine.

Mysticism and esotericism

Man meditating

Mysticism focuses on methods other than logic, but (in the case of esoteric mysticism) not necessarily excluding it, for gaining enlightenment. Rather, meditative and contemplative practices such as Vipassanā and yoga, physical disciplines such as stringent fasting and whirling (in the case of the Sufi dervishes), or the use of psychoactive drugs such as LSD, lead to altered states of consciousness that logic can never hope to grasp. However, regarding the latter topic, mysticism prevalent in the 'great' religions (monotheisms, henotheisms, which are perhaps relatively recent, and which the word 'mysticism' is more recent than,) includes systems of discipline that forbid drugs that can damage the body, including the nervous system.

Mysticism (to initiate) is the pursuit of communion with, or conscious awareness of ultimate reality, the divine, spiritual truth, or Deity through direct, personal experience (intuition or insight) rather than rational thought. Mystics speak of the existence of realities behind external perception or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible through personal experience. They say that such experience is a genuine and important source of knowledge.

Esotericism is often spiritual (thus religious) but can be non-religious/-spiritual, and it uses intellectual understanding and reasoning, intuition and inspiration (higher noetic and spiritual reasoning,) but not necessarily faith (except often as a virtue,) and it is philosophical in its emphasis on techniques of psycho-spiritual transformation (esoteric cosmology). Esotericism refers to "hidden" knowledge available only to the advanced, privileged, or initiated, as opposed to exoteric knowledge, which is public. All religions are probably somewhat exoteric, but most ones of ancient civilizations such as Yoga of India, and the mystery religions of ancient Egypt, Israel (Kabbalah,) and Greece are examples of ones that are also esoteric.

Spirituality

Main article: Spirituality

A sadhu performing namaste in Madurai, India.

Members of an organized religion may not see any significant difference between religion and spirituality. Or they may see a distinction between the mundane, earthly aspects of their religion and its spiritual dimension.

Some individuals draw a strong distinction between religion and spirituality. They may see spirituality as a belief in ideas of religious significance (such as God, the Soul, or Heaven), but not feel bound to the bureaucratic structure and creeds of a particular organized religion. They choose the term spirituality rather than religion to describe their form of belief, perhaps reflecting a disillusionment with organized religion (see Major religious groups), and a movement towards a more "modern" — more tolerant, and more intuitive — form of religion. These individuals may reject organized religion because of historical acts by religious organizations, such as Christian Crusades and Islamic Jihad, the marginalisation and persecution of various minorities or the Spanish Inquisition. The basic precept of the ancient spiritual tradition of India, the Vedas, is the inner reality of existence, which is essentially a spiritual approach to being.

Myth

Main article: Mythology

Urarina shaman, 1988

The word myth has several meanings.

A traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon;
A person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence; or
A metaphor for the spiritual potentiality in the human being.^[33]

Ancient polytheistic religions, such as those of Greece, Rome, and Scandinavia, are usually categorized under the heading of mythology. Religions of pre-industrial peoples, or cultures in development, are similarly called "myths" in the anthropology of religion. The term "myth" can be used pejoratively by both religious and non-religious people. By defining another person's religious stories and beliefs as mythology, one implies that they are less real or true than one's own religious stories and beliefs. Joseph Campbell remarked, "Mythology is often thought of as other people's religions, and religion can be defined as mis-interpreted mythology."^[34]

In sociology, however, the term myth has a non-pejorative meaning. There, myth is defined as a story that is important for the group whether or not it is objectively or provably true. Examples include the death and resurrection of Jesus, which, to Christians, explains the means by which they are freed from sin and is also ostensibly a historical event. But from a mythological outlook, whether or not the event actually occurred is unimportant. Instead, the symbolism of the death of an old "life" and the start of a new "life" is what is most significant. Religious believers may or may not accept such symbolic interpretations.

Cosmology

Main articles: Religious cosmology, Philosophy, Metaphysics, Esotericism, and Mysticism

Main articles: Spirituality, Mythology, and Philosophy of religion

Humans have many different methods which attempt to answer fundamental questions about the nature of the universe and our place in it (cosmology). Religion is only one of the methods for trying to answer one or more of these questions. Other methods include philosophy, metaphysics, astrology, esotericism, mysticism, and forms of shamanism, such as the sacred consumption of ayahuasca among Peruvian Amazonia's Urarina. The Urarina have an elaborate animistic cosmological system,^[35] which informs their mythology, religious orientation and daily existence. In many cases, the distinction between these means are not clear. For example, Buddhism and Taoism have been regarded as schools of philosophies as well as religions.

Given the generalized discontents with modernity, consumerism, over-consumption, violence and anomie, many people in the so-called industrial or post-industrial West rely on a number of distinctive religious worldviews. This in turn has given rise to increased religious pluralism, as well as to what are commonly known in the academic literature as new religious movements, which are gaining ground across the globe.

Criticism of religious belief

Main articles: Criticism of religion, Antireligion, Secularism, Agnosticism, and Atheism

The most widely known Western criticism of religious constructs and their social consequences has come from atheists and agnostics. Anti-Catholic/anti-Christian sentiment first gathered force during the 18th century European Enlightenment through pioneering critics such as Voltaire and his fellow Encyclopedists, who were for the most part deists. The French Revolution then instituted what later became known as secularism, a constitutional declaration of the separation of church and state. In addition to being adopted by the new French and United States republics, secularism soon came to be adopted by a number of nation states, both revolutionary and post-colonial. Marx famously declared religion to be the "opium of the people".^[36] This conception was applied in the state atheism of social systems inspired by Marx's writings, most notably in the Soviet Union and China, and most notoriously in Cambodia, although Marx himself believed that religion would disappear by itself once the perceived social ills of capitalism were eliminated, therefore requiring no actual repression of religion.^[36] Systematic criticism of the philosophical underpinnings of religion paralleled the upsurge of scientific discourse within industrial society. T.H. Huxley in 1869 coined the term "agnostic," a term subsequently adopted by such figures as Robert Ingersoll. Later, Bertrand Russell told the world Why I Am Not a Christian.

Many contemporary critics fault religion as being irrational.^[37]^[38]^[39] Some assert that dogmatic religions are in effect morally deficient, elevating to moral status ancient, arbitrary, and ill-informed rules—taboos on eating pork, for example, as well as dress codes and sexual practices^[40]—possibly designed for reasons of hygiene or even mere politics in a bygone era.

In North America and Western Europe the social fallout of the 9/11 attacks contributed in part to the appearance of numerous pro-secularist books, such as The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, The End of Faith by Sam Harris, and God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens. This criticism is largely, but not entirely, focused on the monotheistic Abrahamic traditions.

Memetic theory of religion

See also: Evolutionary psychology of religion

Although evolutionists had previously sought to understand and explain religion in terms of a cultural attribute which might conceivably confer biological advantages to its adherents, Richard Dawkins called for a re-analysis of religion in terms of the evolution of self-replicating ideas apart from any resulting biological advantages they might bestow. He argued that the role of key replicator in cultural evolution belongs not to genes, but to memes replicating thought from person to person by means of imitation. These replicators respond to selective pressures that may or may not affect biological reproduction or survival.^[41]

In her book, The Meme Machine, Susan Blackmore regards religions as particularly tenacious memes. Many of the features common to the most widely practiced religions provide built-in advantages in an evolutionary context, she writes. For example, religions that preach of the value of faith-based belief over evidence from everyday experience or reason inoculate societies against many of the most basic tools people commonly use to evaluate their ideas. By linking altruism with religious affiliation, religious memes can proliferate more quickly because people perceive that they can reap societal as well as personal rewards. The longevity of religious memes improves with their documentation in revered religious texts.^[42]

Aaron Lynch attributed the robustness of religious memes in human culture to the fact that they incorporate multiple modes of meme transmission. Religious memes pass down the generations from parent to child and across a single generation through proselytism. Most will hold the religion taught them by their parents throughout their life. Many religions feature adversarial elements, punishing apostasy, for instance, or demonizing infidels. In Thought Contagion Lynch identifies the memes of transmission in Christianity as especially powerful in scope. Believers view the conversion of non-believers both as a religious duty and as an act of altruism. The promise of eternity in heaven to believers or hell to non-believers provides a strong incentive to accept and retain Christian faith. Lynch asserts that belief in the crucifixion in Christianity amplifies each of its other replication advantages through the indebtedness believers have to their Savior for sacrifice on the cross. The image of the crucifixion recurs in religious sacraments, and the proliferation of symbols of the cross (itself a meme) in homes and churches potently reinforces the wide array of Christian memes.^[43]

Criticism of the concept of "religion"

The Canadian scholar of comparative religion Wilfred Cantwell Smith argued that religion, rather than being a universally valid category as is generally supposed, is a peculiarly European concept of comparatively recent origin. His work has been enlarged upon by E.J. Sharpe, C.F. Keyes, and Timothy Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald especially notes in The Ideology of Religious Studies that the concept of religion as a study irreducible to sociology, history, etc., is a fallacy caused by a desire to protect the transcendent ideals of world cultures. He claims that writers cannot define a single concept called "religion" that applies to all cultures, because all definitions of religion have the dual effect of setting up an imaginary ideal onto which real practices are merely mapped, and serializing individual identity to include a separate aspect called "religion." In short, "there is no coherent non-theological theoretical basis for the study of religion as a separate academic discipline."^[44] The implication of Smith's and Fitzgerald's work is that religion, rather than being a special category which can be criticized or praised as a group, is merely one type of ideology, alongside humanism, Marxism, nationalism and so forth.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Religion

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Religion

IACSR - International Association for the Cognitive Science of Religion
Studying Religion - Introduction to the methods and scholars of the academic study of religion
A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right - Marx's original reference to religion as the opium of the people.
The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of “Religion” in International Law Harvard Human Rights Journal article from the President and Fellows of Harvard College(2003)
Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents by Adherents.com (August 28, 2005) Retrieved December 22, 2005
Religion Statistics from UCB Libraries GovPubs
Religion at the Open Directory Project

Religion topics

Major groups

Abrahamic	Bahá'í Faith · Christianity · Gnosticism · Islam · Judaism · Rastafari · Samaritanism

Indian	Ayyavazhi · Buddhism · Hinduism · Jainism · Sikhism

Iranian	Ahl-e Haqq · Manichaeism · Mazdak · Yazidi · Zoroastrianism

East Asian	Confucianism · Taoism

Recent	Cao Dai · Chondogyo · I-Kuan Tao · Neopaganism · New Age · Seicho-No-Ie · Tenrikyo · Unitarian Universalism

Folk	African · Afro-American · Chinese · Eurasian · Indigenous Australian · Javanese · Native American · Philippine · Polynesian · Shinto

Ancient religions

Prehistoric	Paleolithic

Near East	Egyptian · Semitic · Mesopotamian

Indo-European	Celtic · Germanic · Illyro-thracian · Greek (Gnosticism · Neoplatonism) · Mithraism · Roman · Slavic · Vedic Hinduism

Sorts

Animism · Polytheism · Monotheism

Religious studies

Anthropology · Comparison · Development · History · Origin · Philosophy · Psychology · Sociology · Theology · Theories · Timeline

Religion and
society

Demographics · Education · Fanaticism · Fundamentalism · Growth · Minorities · National church · Neo-Fascism · Conversion (Proselytism · Evangelism · Missionary) · Religious freedom (Toleration · Pluralism · Syncretism · Universalism) · Religion and politics · Religion and homosexuality · Schism · State religion · Theocracy · Violence (persecution · terrorism · war)

Secularism and
non-religion

Atheism · Criticism of religion · Deconstruction · Irreligion · Nontheism · Religion and science · Secular theology · Secularization · Separation of church and state

Lists

Topics (basic topics) · Deities · Deification · Denominations · Founders · Mass gatherings · New religious movements · Scholars

Religion portal
List of religions and spiritual traditions

v • d • e Philosophy of religion

Relationship between religion and science

By the shear amount of the contents on this page, it really shows the modern difficulties of really understanding both Religion and Science. Of course there is no real differences - maybe except form the fact that the Mythological World Picture are more holistic and cyclic whereas the modern traditionally has split up in several ranches that works very linear and divided.

If not knowing from where the World Religion and Mythology origin, no one can of course agree on anything and it all become speculative discussions and the essence of Religion and Mythology even get ridiculed as superstitious mumbo jumbo by those who are ignorant to the native and intuitive ancient knowledge.

Before even reading these Wikipedia explanations and link, I suggest you to browse the several content on this website that deals with the very origin of the Earth Religion and Mythological telling, where the Story of Creation tell a real creation story of our common Milky Way galaxy.

Then it should be possible to grasp the roots of every Religion and Mythological telling on the Earth and also to read what is essential and true or not on this Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

The relationship between religion and science has been a focus of the Demarcation problem. Statements about the world made by science and religion rely on different methodologies. Religions rely on revelation while science relies on observable, repeatable experiences. Some scholars say the two are separate, as in John William Draper's conflict thesis and Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria, while others (Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme, Ken Wilber, et al.) propose an interconnection. The Pew Forum has published data on attitudes to religion and science.^[1]

[hide]

1 Perspectives on the relationship between religion and science
2 Influence of a biblical world view on early modern science
3 Religious community's perspective
- 3.1 Historical Judeo-Christian-Islamic view
- 3.2 Non-fundamentalist religious views
4 The scientific community's perspective
- 4.1 The attitudes of scientists towards religion
- 4.2 Scientific study of religion
5 Religion and science community
6 Notes
7 References
8 Further reading
9 See also
10 External links

Perspectives on the relationship between religion and science

Medieval artistic illustration of the spherical Earth in a 13th century copy of L'Image du monde (ca. 1246).

The kinds of interactions that might arise between science and religion have been classified using the following typology:^[2]

Conflict when either discipline threatens to take over the legitimate concerns of the other
- For example, John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White's conflict thesis
Independence treating each as quite separate realms of enquiry.
- For example, Stephen Jay Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA)
Dialogue suggesting that each field has things to say to each other about phenomena in which their interests overlap.
- For example, William G. Pollard's studies in Physicist and Christian: A dialogue between the communities
Integration aiming to unify both fields into a single discourse.
- For example, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's Omega point and Ian Barbour's sympathy towards process philosophy/process theology^[3]

This typology is similar to ones found in Ian Barbour^[4] and John Haught ^[5]. More typologies that categorize this relationship can be found among the works of other science and religion scholars such as Arthur Peacocke^[6]

Conflict

A variety of historical, philosophical, and scientific arguments have been put forth in favor of the idea that science and religion are in conflict. Historical examples of religious individuals or institutions promoting claims that contradict both contemporary and modern scientific consensus include Creationism, the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to Heliocentrism from 1616 to 1757 ^[7] including the Galileo affair, and more recently, Pope Benedict XVI's 2009 statements claiming that the use of condoms to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa was ineffective and counterproductive ^[8]. Additionally, long held religious claims have been challenged by scientific studies such as STEP ^[9], which examined the efficacy of prayer. A number of scientists including Jerry Coyne ^[10] have made an argument for a philosophical incompatibility between religion and science. An argument for the conflict between Religion and Science that combines the historical and philosophical approaches has been presented by Neil Degrasse Tyson^[11] -- Tyson argues that religious scientists, such as Newton, could have achieved more had they not accepted religious answers to unresolved scientific issues.

Conflict thesis

The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history, was popularized in the 19th century by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. Most contemporary historians of science now reject the conflict thesis in its original form, arguing instead that it has been superseded by subsequent historical research indicating a more nuanced understanding:^[12]^[13]

Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.

– Gary Ferngren, Science & Religion^[14]

Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was originally based is considered to be inaccurate. For instance, the claim that people of the Middle Ages widely believed that the Earth was flat was first propagated in the same period that originated the conflict thesis^[15] and is still very common in popular culture. This claim is mistaken, as the contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."^[15]^[16] Other misconceptions such as: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages," "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science," and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of the natural sciences," are all reported by Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though they are not supported by current historical research. They help maintain the popular image of "the warfare of science and religion."^[17]

While H. Floris Cohen states that most scholars reject crude articulations of the conflict thesis, such as Andrew D. White's, he also states that milder versions of this thesis still hold some sway. This is because "it remains an incontrovertible fact of history that, to say the least, the new science was accorded a less than enthusiastic acclaim by many religious authorities at the time." Cohen therefore considers it paradoxical "that the rise of early modern science was due at least in part to developments in Christian thought — in particular, to certain aspects of Protestantism" (a thesis first developed as what is now known as the Merton thesis).^[18] A review of alternatives to the White/Draper conflict thesis has been composed by Ian G. Barbour.^[19]^[20]

Independence

A modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), is that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully.^[21] Gould's view can also be seen as an attitude of neglect towards religion. It has been compared with a similar attitude of neglect towards evolutionary science, which has been seen in the works of theologians Karl Barth (who fails to mention evolution in his major work Church Dogmatics), Emil Brunner, and Hans Kung (whose Theology for the Third Millennium (1988) has a chapter on the relationship between religion and science yet never mentions evolution).^[22]

While Gould spoke of independence from the perspective of science, W. T. Stace viewed independence from the perspective of the philosophy of religion. Stace felt that science and religion, when each is viewed in its own domain, are both consistent and complete.^[23]

Two takes on experience

Both science and religion represent distinct ways of approaching experience and these differences are sources of debate.^[24] Science is closely tied to mathematics—a very abstract experience, while religion is more closely tied to the ordinary experience of life.^[24] As interpretations of experience, science is descriptive and religion is prescriptive.^[24] For science and mathematics to concentrate on what the world ought to be like in the way that religion does can be inappropriate and may lead to improperly ascribing properties to the natural world as happened among the followers of Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C.^[24] The reverse situation where religion attempts to be descriptive can also lead to inappropriately assigning properties to the natural world. A notable example is the now defunct belief in the Ptolemy planetary model that held sway until changes in scientific and religious thinking were brought about by Galileo and proponents of his views.^[24]

Parallels in method

Many language philosophers (e.g., Ludwig Wittgenstein) and religious existentialists (e.g., those who ascribe to neo-orthodoxy) accepted Ian Barbour and John Polkinghorne's type II categorization of Independence.^[25] On the other hand, many philosophers of science have thought otherwise. Thomas S. Kuhn asserted that science is made up of paradigms that arise from cultural traditions, which is similar to the secular perspective on religion.^[25] Michael Polanyi asserted that it is merely a commitment to universality that protects against subjectivity and has nothing at all to do with personal detachment as found in many conceptions of the scientific method. Polayni further asserted that all knowledge is personal and therefore the scientist must be performing a very personal if not necessarily subjective role when doing science.^[25] Polanyi added that the scientist often merely follows intuitions of "intellectual beauty, symmetry, and 'empirical agreement'".^[25] Polayni held that science requires moral commitments similar to those found in religion.^[25] Two physicists Charles A. Coulson and Harold K. Schilling both claimed that "the methods of science and religion have much in common."^[25] Schilling asserted that both fields—science and religion—have "a threefold structure—of experience, theoretical interpretation, and practical application."^[25] Coulson asserted that science, like religion, "advances by creative imagination" and not by "mere collecting of facts," while stating that religion should and does "involve critical reflection on experience not unlike that which goes on in science."^[25] Religious language and scientific language also show parallels (cf. Rhetoric of science).

Dialogue

Clerks studying astronomy and geometry.
France, early 15th century.

A degree of concord between science and religion can be seen in religious belief and empirical science. The belief that God created the world and therefore humans, can lead to the view that he arranged for humans to know the world. This is underwritten by the doctrine of imago dei. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, "Since human beings are said to be in the image of God in virtue of their having a nature that includes an intellect, such a nature is most in the image of God in virtue of being most able to imitate God".^[26]

Many well-known historical figures who influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Boyle.

Concerns over the nature of reality

Science in the Enlightenment and Colonial eras was conceived as ontological investigation which uncovered 'facts' about physical nature. This was often explicitly opposed to Christian Theology and the latter's assertions of truth based on doctrine. This particular perspective on science faded in the early 20th century with the decline of Logical Empiricism and the rise of linguistic and sociological understandings of science. Modern scientists are less concerned with establishing universal or ontological truth (which is seen, and dismissed, as the pursuit of philosophy), and more inclined towards the creation of pragmatic, functional models of physical systems. Christian Theology - excluding those fundamentalist churches whose aim is to reassert doctrinal truths - has likewise softened many of its ontological claims, due to increased exposure to both scientific insights and the contrasting theological claims of other faiths.

Scientific and theological perspectives often coexist peacefully. Non-Christian faiths have historically integrated well with scientific ideas, as in the ancient Egyptian technological mastery applied to monotheistic ends, the flourishing of logic and mathematics under Hinduism and Buddhism, and the scientific advances made by Muslim scholars during the Ottoman empire. Even many 19th century Christian communities welcomed scientists who claimed that science was not at all concerned with discovering the ultimate nature of reality.^[24]

Integration

Christianity and science

Science and Religion are portrayed to be in harmony in the Tiffany window Education (1890).

The reconciliation of Christianity with science has had at least three attempted solutions that have proven themselves quite problematic.^{[citation
needed]} These three problematic solutions are biblical literalism, religious experience, and the evolving consensus of scientific truth.^{[citation
needed]} Each of these methods of reconciliation have various historical and present-day examples. Respective examples include creationism, liberal Christianity, and scientific imperialism.^{[citation
needed]} Earlier attempts at reconciliation of Christianity with Newtonian mechanics appear quite different from later attempts at reconciliation with the newer scientific ideas of evolution or relativity.^[24] Many early interpretations of evolution polarized themselves around a struggle for existence. These ideas were significantly countered by later findings of universal patterns of biological cooperation. According to John Habgood, all man really knows here is that the universe seems to be a mix of good and evil, beauty and pain, and that suffering may somehow be part of the process of creation. Habgood holds that Christians should not be surprised that suffering may be used creatively by God, given their faith in the symbol of the Cross. Habgood states that Christians have for two millennia believed in the love of God because he revealed "Himself as Love in Jesus Christ," not because the physical universe does or does not point to the value of love.^[24]

Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century

In Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain, historian of biology Peter J. Bowler argues that in contrast to the conflicts between science and religion in the U.S. in the 1920s (most famously the Scopes Trial), during this period Great Britain experienced a concerted effort at reconciliation, championed by intellectually conservative scientists, supported by liberal theologians but opposed by younger scientists and secularists and conservative Christians. These attempts at reconciliation fell apart in the 1930s due to increased social tensions, moves towards neo-orthodox theology and the acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis.^[27]

Buddhism

Main article: Buddhism and science

Buddhism and science have increasingly been discussed as compatible.^[28] Some philosophic and psychological teachings within Buddhism share commonalities with modern Western scientific and philosophic thought. For example, Buddhism encourages the impartial investigation of nature (an activity referred to as Dhamma-Vicaya in the Pali Canon) - the principal object of study being oneself.

Hinduism

Hindu views on evolution include a range of viewpoints in regards to evolution, creationism, and the origin of life within the traditions of Hinduism. The accounts of the emergence of life within the universe vary in description, but classically the deity called Brahma, from a Trimurti of three deities also including Vishnu and Shiva, is described as performing the act of 'creation', or more specifically of 'propagating life within the universe' with the other two deities being responsible for 'preservation' and 'destruction' (of the universe) respectively.^[29] In this respect some Hindu schools do not treat the scriptural creation myth literally and often the creation stories themselves do not go into specific detail, thus leaving open the possibility of incorporating at least some theories in support of evolution. Some Hindus find support for, or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in scriptures, namely the Vedas.^[30] An exception to this acceptance is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), which includes several members who actively oppose "Darwinism" and the modern evolutionary synthesis (see Hindu Creationism).

Bahá'í view

Main article: Bahá'í Faith and science

A fundamental principle of the Bahá'í Faith is the harmony of religion and science. Bahá'í scripture asserts that true science and true religion can never be in conflict. `Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, stated that religion without science is superstition and that science without religion is materialism. He also admonished that true religion must conform to the conclusions of science.^[31]^[32]^[33]

Current scholarship

The modern dialogue between religion and science is rooted in Ian Barbour's 1966 book Issues in Science and Religion.^[34] Since that time it has grown in to a serious academic field, with academic chairs in the subject area, and two dedicated academic journals, Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science and Theology and Science.^[34] Articles are also sometimes found in mainstream science journals such as American Journal of Physics^[35] and Science.^[36] ^[37]

Influence of a biblical world view on early modern science

H. Floris Cohen argued for a biblical^[38] influence on the early development of modern science.^[39] Cohen presented Dutch historian R. Hooykaas' argument that a biblical world-view holds all the necessary antidotes for the hubris of Greek rationalism: a respect for manual labour, leading to experimentation and a greater level of empiricism and a supreme God that left nature "de-deified" and open to emulation and manipulation.^[39] This argument gives support to the idea that the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought.^[40] Cohen summarised Hooykaas' conclusion as attributing the rise of modern science to the combination of the "Greek powers of abstract reasoning and of thinking up idealized constructions" in combination with "the biblical humility toward accepting the facts of nature as they are, combined with a view of man as fitted out by God with the power to take nature on".^[41] Cohen also noted that Richard S. Westfall "brought out the ultimate paradox" in stating: "Despite the natural piety of the virtuosi [English 17th-century scientists], the skepticism of the Enlightenment was already present in embryo among them. To be sure, their piety kept it in check, but they were unable to banish it. ... They wrote to refute atheism, but where were the atheists? The virtuosi nourished the atheists within their own minds."

Historian and professor of religion Eugene M. Klaaren holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher Michael Foster has published analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences.^[42] Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have argued for a linkage between seventeenth century Anglican intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton).^[43] John Dillenberger and Christopher B. Kaiser have written theological surveys, which also cover additional interactions occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.^[44]^[45]

Oxford University historian and theologian John Hedley Brooke wrote that "when natural philosophers referred to laws of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."^[46] Historian Ronald L. Numbers stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead's Science and the Modern World (1925). Numbers has also argued, "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves."^[47] The sociologist Rodney Stark of Baylor University, a Southern Baptist institution, argued in contrast that "Christian theology was essential for the rise of science."^{[citation
needed]}

Religious community's perspective

Historical Judeo-Christian-Islamic view

Science, and particularly geometry and astronomy, was linked directly to the divine for most medieval scholars. The compass in this 13th century manuscript is a symbol of creation.

In the early days of Christianity, science was at best seen as a waste of time. The church father Athanasius, for example, celebrated the fact that the early church leaders were "men of little intellect."^[48] Similarly, the church father John Chrysostom instructed people to "empty your minds of secular knowledge," and in 448 Theodosius II ordered all non-Christian books to be burned.

In the Medieval era, some leading thinkers in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, undertook a project of synthesis between religion, philosophy, and natural sciences. For example, the Islamic philosopher Averroes,^[49] the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, and the Christian philosopher Augustine of Hippo, held that if religious teachings were found to contradict certain direct observations about the natural world, then it would be obligatory to re-evaluate either the interpretation of the scientific facts or the understanding of the scriptures. The best knowledge of the cosmos was seen as an important part of arriving at a better understanding of the Bible, but not yet equal with the authority of the Bible.

This approach has continued down to the present day; Henry Drummond, for example, was a 19th century Scot who wrote many articles, some of which drew on scientific knowledge to tease out and illustrate Christian ideas.

From the 11th century, however, scientific methods were being applied by both Muslim scientists and Christian scientists to domains such as optics and planetary orbits, with results which threatened some of the Church's doctrines. Christianity asserted religious certainty at the expense of scientific knowledge, by giving more explicit sanction to officially correct views of nature and scripture. Similar developments occurred in other religions. This approach, while it tended to temporarily stabilize doctrine, was also inclined toward making philosophical and scientific orthodoxy less open to correction, as accepted philosophy became the religiously sanctioned science. Observation and theory became subordinate to dogma. In Europe, scientists and scholars of the Enlightenment responded to such restrictions with increasing skepticism.

Non-fundamentalist religious views

In between these positions lies that of non-fundamentalist religious believers. A great many Christians and Jews still accept some or many traditional religious beliefs taught in their respective faith communities, but they no longer accept their tradition's teachings as unquestionable and infallible (indeed this is a basic tenet of mainstream Protestant Christian thought and of other faith perspectives open to dialogue with science). Liberal religious believers do believe in god, and believe that in some way their god revealed their will to humanity. They differ from religious fundamentalists in that they accept that even if their religious texts were divinely inspired, they are also human documents which reflect the cultural and historic limitations and biases of their authors. Many support allegorical interpretations of Genesis. Such believers are often comfortable with the findings of archaeological and linguistic research and historical-critical study. They will often make use of literary and historical analysis of religious texts to understand how they developed, and to see how they might be applied in our own day. This approach developed among Protestant scholars in the 18th and 19th centuries, and is now found among other Christians, Liberal Jewish communities and others.

Some religious approaches acknowledge the historical relationship between modern science and ancient doctrines. For example, John Paul II, leader of the Roman Catholic Church, in 1981 spoke of the relationship this way: "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer".^[50] This statement would reflect the views of many non-Catholic Christians as well. An example of this kind of thinking is Theistic evolution.

This understanding of the role of scripture in relation to science is captured by the phrase: "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."^[51] Thomas Jay Oord said: "The Bible tells us how to find abundant life, not the details of how life became abundant."

The scientific community's perspective

The attitudes of scientists towards religion

In the 17th century, founders of the Royal Society largely held conventional and orthodox religious views, and a number of them were prominent Churchmen.^[52] While theological issues that had the potential to be divisive were typically excluded from formal discussions of the early Society, many of its fellows nonetheless believed that their scientific activities provided support for traditional religious belief.^[53] Clerical involvement in the Royal Society remained high until the mid-nineteenth century, when science became more professionalised.^[54]

Among contemporary scientists—physicists and biologists—about 40% hold strong religious beliefs, which closely matched those of a similar 1916 poll.^[36]^[55] Prominent scientists advocating disbelief in religion include evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and Nobel prize winning physicist Stephen Weinberg. For a more complete list, see List of atheists (science and technology). Prominent scientists advocating belief include Nobel prize winning physicist Charles Townes and climatologist John T. Houghton. For a more complete list, see List of Christian thinkers in science.^[36]

According to a 1996 survey, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and belief in "personal immortality" are most popular among mathematicians^[specify] and least popular among biologists.^[specify] In total, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god.^[56] This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933. Among leading scientists — defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences — 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998.^[57]

A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York and funded by the Templeton Foundation found that over 60% of natural and social science professors are atheists or agnostics. When asked whether they believed in God, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answering "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out,"^[58] According to the same survey, "[m]any scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition."^[59] In further analysis, published in 2007, Ecklund and Christopher Scheitle conclude that "the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable" and that "[i]t appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists."^[60]

A explanation has been offered by Farr Curlin, a University of Chicago Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, that science-minded religious people instead elect to study medicine. He helped author a study that "found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife." and "90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults." He reasoned, "The responsibility to care for those who are suffering and the rewards of helping those in need resonate throughout most religious traditions."^[61]

Prominent scientist Albert Einstein supported the compatibility of some interpretations of religion with science. In an article originally appearing in the New York Times Magazine in 1930, he wrote:

Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgements of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.^[62]

Scientific study of religion

Religion and science community

The religion and science community consists of those scholars who involve themselves with what has been called the "religion-and-science dialogue" or the "religion-and-science field."^[73]^[74] The community belongs to neither the scientific nor the religious community, but is said to be a third overlapping community of interested and involved scientists, priests, clergymen, and theologians.^[74] Institutions interested in the intersection between science and religion include the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, and the Faraday Institute. Journals addressing the relationship between science and religion include Theology and Science and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science

Notes

^ "Science in America: Religious Belief and Public Attitudes". http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=275.
^ John Polkinghorne Science and Theology SPCK/Fortress Press, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3153-6 pp20-22, following Ian Barbour
^ Creation and double chaos: science and theology in discussion, Sjoerd Lieuwe Bonting, 2005, Fortress Press, ISBN 0-8006-3759-3, page 5
^ Nature, Human Nature, and God, Ian G. Barbour, Fortress Press, 2002, ISBN 0800634772
^ Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation, 1995, p. 9 Paulist Press, ISBN 0-8091-3606-6
Throughout these pages we shall observe that there are at least four distinct ways in which science and religion can be related to each other: Religion in an Age of Science (1990), ISBN 0-06-060383-6 1) Conflict — the conviction that science and religion are fundamentally irreconcilable; 2) Contrast — the claim that there can be no genuine conflict since religion and science are each responding to radically different questions; 3) Contact — an approach that looks for dialogue. interaction. and possible "consonance" between science and religion. and especially for ways in which science shapes religious and theological understanding. 4) Confirmation — a somewhat quieter but extremely important perspective that highlights the ways in which, at a very deep level, religion supports and nourishes the entire scientific enterprise.
^ The Sciences and theology in the twentieth century, Arthur R. Peacocke (ed), University of Notre Dame press, 1981 ISBN 0-268-01704-2, p. xiii-xv
^ http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Geocentrism.pdf
^ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5923927.ece
^ Benson H, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, et al. (2006). "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer". Am. Heart J. 151 (4): 934–42. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2005.05.028. PMID 16569567. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002-8703(05)00649-6.
^ http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472
^ http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/essays/nathist/holywars
^ Quotation from Ferngren's introduction at "Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0."
"...while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind." (p. x)
^ Quotation from Colin A. Russell in "The Conflict Thesis" the first essay of "Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0."
"The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science." (p. 7, followed by a list of the basic reasons why the conflict thesis is wrong).
^ Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
^ ^a ^b Jeffrey Russell. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback; New Ed edition (January 30, 1997). ISBN 027595904X; ISBN 978-0275959043.
^ Quotation from David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers in Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science. Studies in the History of Science and Christianity.
^ Ronald Numbers (Lecturer).. Myths and Truths in Science and Religion: A historical perspective. [Video Lecture]. University of Cambridge (Howard Building, Downing College): The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Lectures.php.
^ Cohen(1994) pp 310-311
^ Ian G. Barbour, "Ways of relating science and theology" in Physics, philosophy, and theology: a common quest for understanding (Editors: Robert John Russell, William R. Stoeger, and George V. Coyne; Vatican City and Notre Dame Press, 1988).
^ John Hedley Brooke, Bibliographic Essay (pages 348-403) in Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, 1991, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-23961-3, pages 349-350.
^ Stephen Jay Gould. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the fullness of life. Ballantine Books, 1999.
^ Creation and double chaos: science and theology in discussion, Sjoerd Lieuwe Bonting, 2005, Fortress Press, ISBN 0-8006-3759-3, page 2
^ W. T. Stace, Time and Eternity: an Essay in the Philosophy of Religion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1952.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Religion and Science, John Habgood, Mills & Brown, 1964, pp., 11, 14-16, 48-55, 68-69, 90-91, 87
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Barbour, Ian G. (1968). "Science and Religion Today". in Ian G. Barbour (ed.). Science and Religion: New Perspectives on the Dialogue (1st ed.). New York, Evanston and London: Harper & Row. pp. 3–29.
^ Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
^ Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain, Peter J. Bowler, 2001, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-2260-6858-7. Front dustcover flap material
^ Yong, Amos. (2005) Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground (review) Buddhist-Christian Studies - Volume 25, 2005, pp. 176-180
^ "Religion & Ethics-Hinduism" (in English). BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/beliefs/intro_1.shtml. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
^ Moorty, J.S.R.L.Narayana (May 18-21, 1995). "Science and spirituality: Any Points of Contact? The Teachings of U.G.Krishnamurti: A Case Study". Krishnamurti Centennial Conference. http://www.well.com/user/jct/science.html. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
^ Hatcher, William (September 1979). "Science and the Bahá'í Faith". Zygon: Journal of Religion of Science 14 (3): 229–253.
^ Smith, P. (1999). A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications. pp. 306–307. ISBN 1851681841.
^ Mehanian, Courosh; Friberg, Stephen R. (2003). "Religion and Evolution Reconciled: `Abdu'l-Bahá's Comments on Evolution". The Journal of Bahá'í studies 13 (1-4): 55–93.
^ ^a ^b Smedes, Taede A. (2008). "Beyond Barbour or Back to Basics? The Future of Science-and-Religion and the Quest for Unity". Zygon 43 (1): 235 58. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00910.x.
^ •Theerman, Paul "James Clerk Maxwell and religion", American Journal of Physics, 54 (4), April 1986, p.312–317
•What is truth? A course in science and religion Peter J. Brancazio, Am. J. Phys. 62, 893 (1994)
•The stifling grip of religion Romard Barthel Am. J. Phys. 68, 785 (2000)
•Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology, Max Jammer Author Jeremy Bernstein and Reviewer, Am. J. Phys. 68, 676 (2000), DOI:10.1119/1.19513
•Science, religion, and skepticism, Dwight E. Neuenschwander, Am. J. Phys. 66, 273 (1998), DOI:10.1119/1.19024
•Copernicus and Martin Luther: An encounter between science and religion Donald H. Kobe, Am. J. Phys. 66, 190 (1998), DOI:10.1119/1.18844
•Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation John F. Haught and Eugene E. Selk, Am. J. Phys. 64, 1532 (1996), DOI:10.1119/1.18441
•Science and Religion---A Comment M. A. Vandyck, Am. J. Phys. 64, 110 (1996), DOI:10.1119/1.18125
•Religion versus science? Eduardo Segre, Am. J. Phys. 62, 296 (1994), DOI:10.1119/1.17567
•Does religion contradict science? Mehmet Pakdemirli, Am. J. Phys. 61, 201 (1993), DOI:10.1119/1.17287
•Religion versus science? Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., Am. J. Phys. 60, 871 (1992), DOI:10.1119/1.17004
•A response to ``Religion vs. Science?, by Jay Orear Allen C. Dotson, Am. J. Phys. 60, 778 (1992), DOI:10.1119/1.17057
•Religion vs. science? Jay Orear, Am. J. Phys. 60, 394 (1992), DOI:10.1119/1.16889
•Religion in an Age of Science Ian G. Barbour and Eugene E. Selk, Am. J. Phys. 59, 1152 (1991), DOI:10.1119/1.16630
•Making sense of experience: Common ground in science and religion Harry D. Powell, Am. J. Phys. 59, 679 (1991), DOI:10.1119/1.16767
•Guest Comment: Preserving and cherishing the Earth---An appeal for joint commitment in science and religion Carl Sagan, Am. J. Phys. 58, 615 (1990), DOI:10.1119/1.16418
•James Clerk Maxwell and religion. Paul Theerman, Am. J. Phys. 54, 312 (1986), DOI:10.1119/1.14636
^ ^a ^b ^c Science 15 August 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5328, pp. 890 - 893; "Scientific Community: Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Gregg Easterbrook
^ •Science 12 September 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5332, pp. 1589 - 1591; "Letters: Science and Religion"
•Science 13 December 1957: Vol. 126. no. 3285, pp. 1225 - 1229; "Science and the Citizen" Warren Weaver
•Science 25 April 1958: Vol. 127. no. 3304, pp. 1004+1006; "Letters: Science and Religion"
•Science, 6 June 1958, 127(3310), pages 1324-1327; "A Human Enterprise: Science as lived by its practitioners bears but little resemblance to science as described in print."
•Science 23 February 2001: Vol. 291. no. 5508, pp. 1472 - 1474; "PAPAL SCIENCE: Science and Religion Advance Together at Pontifical Academy" Charles Seife
^ Particularly Puritan Protestant, but not excluding Catholicism.
^ ^a ^b The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry, H. Floris Cohen, University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321
^ "Finally, and most importantly, Hooykaas does not of course claim that the Scientific Revolution was exclusively the work of Protestant scholars." Cohen(1994) p 313
^ Cohen(1994) p 313. Hooykaas puts it more poetically: "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been Greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical."
^ God and nature, Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list; this is noted on page 366 of Science and Religion, John Hedley Brooke, 1991, Cambridge University Press
^ The Anglican Origins of Modern Science, Isis, Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of Science and Religion, John Hedley Brooke, 1991, Cambridge University Press
^ John Dillenberger, Protestant Thought and Natural Science (Doubleday, 1960).
^ Christopher B. Kaiser, Creation and the History of Science (Eerdmans, 1991).
^ John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, 1991, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19.
^ Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew, Oxford University Press, 2007, Ronald L. Numbers, p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of Michael B. Foster, Reijer Hooykaas, Eugene M. Klaaren, and Stanley L. Jaki
^ Athanasius, On the Incarnation 47
^ Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (1126 - 1198 CE), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
^ Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics"
^ Machamer, Peter (1998). The Cambridge Companion to Galileo. Cambridge University Press. pp. 306. ISBN 0521588413.
^ Peter Harrison, ‘Religion, the Royal Society, and the Rise of Science’, Theology and Science, 6 (2008), 255-71.
^ Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal Society (London, 1667)
^ Frank Turner, ‘The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension’, Isis, 49 (1978) 356-76.
^ 1997 poll by Edward Larson of the University of Georgia published by Nature:Nature 386, 435 - 436 (3 April 1997) Scientists are still keeping the faith, Edward J. Larson & Larry Witham
^ Larson, E. J. & Witham, L., "Scientists are still keeping the faith,", Nature 386, 435-436 (1997).
^ Larson and Witham, 1998 "Leading Scientists Still Reject God"
^ Essay Forum on the Religious Engagements of American Undergraduates
^ Ref to survey at Livescience article from Physorg.com
^ Scientists May Not Be Very Religious, but Science May Not Be to Blame:Religious upbringing, age, and family size influence religiosity among scientists June 29, 2007
^ Easton, John. Survey on physicians’ religious beliefs shows majority faithful Medical Center Public Affairs, U of C Chronicle. July 14, 2005. http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith--.shtml accessed:1-Feb-09
^ Albert Einstein:Religion and Science
^ Dr. Lars Farde Ph.D, professor of psychiatry at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden 2003, the study and a vulgarized article
^ Is Religion Dangerous? p156, citing David Myers The Science of Subjective Well-Being Guilford Press 2007
^ Smith,Timothy, Michael McCullough, and Justin Poll. 2003: “Religiousness and Depression: Evidence for a Main Effect and Moderating Influence of Stressful Life Events.” Psychological Bulletin 129(4):614–36.
^ Bryan Johnson & colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania (2002)
^ Is Religion Dangerous? cites similar results from the Handbook of Religion and Mental Health Harold Koenig (ed.) ISBN 978-0124176454
^ eg a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
^ Is Religion Dangerous? Ch 9.
^ quoting Michael Argyle and others
^ Abramowitz, Jonathan S., J. D. Huppert, A. B. Cohen, D. F. Tolin, and S. P. Cahill, “Religious obsessions and compulsions in a non-clinical sample: the Penn Inventory of Scrupulosity (PIOS)”, Behaviour Research and Therapy 40:7 (2002): 825-838.
^ McNamara, Patrick, “The Frontal Lobes and the Evolution of Cooperation and Religion”, in: idem (ed.), Where God and Science meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter our Understanding of Religion, London: Praeger Perspectives 2006, Vol. 2, pp. 189-204.
^ Religion-and-Science Philip Hefner, pages 562-576 in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science Philip Clayton(ed.), Zachary Simpson(associate-ed.)--Hardcover 2006, paperback July 2008-Oxford University Press, 1023 pages
^ ^a ^b Hefner, Philip (2008). "Editorial: Religion-and-Science, the Third Community". Zygon 43 (1): 3–7. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00893.x.

References

Barbour, Ian. When Science Meets Religion. SanFrancisco: Harper, 2000.
Barbour, Ian. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. SanFrancisco: Harper, 1997. ISBN 0-06-060938-9
Drummond, Henry. Natural Law in the Spiritual World. London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, 29th Edition, 1890[1]
Haught, John F. Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation. Paulist Press, 1995. ISBN 0-8091-3606-6
Larson, Edward J. and Larry Witham. "Scientists are still keeping the faith" Nature Vol. 386, pp. 435 – 436 (3 April 1997)
Larson, Edward J. and Larry Witham. "Leading scientists still reject God," Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691 (1998), p. 313. online version
Einstein on Religion and Science from Ideas and Opinions (1954), Crown Publishers, ISBN 0-517-00393-7
The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science Philip Clayton(ed.), Zachary Simpson(associate-ed.)--Hardcover 2006, paperback July 2008-Oxford University Press, 1023 pages

External links

Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion in the University of Oxford
Religion and Science, Alvin Plantinga on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Counterbalance.org: Science and Religion Project
"Faith and Reason" – website about the historical relations between science and religion, PBS
Is Science Killing the Soul? – Discussion with atheists Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker on Edge Foundation.
Meaning of Life A collection of video interviews with prominent scientists about topics relating science and religion (requires WMV or RealMedia software)
Religion and Science An article critical of the idea that religion and science occupy different realms of inquiry by Michael Ruse (with links to many other articles of the same theme), from Butterflies and Wheels.
Clash in Cambridge: Science and religion seem as antagonistic as ever – by John Horgan, Scientific American, September 2005
"Science at the Crossroads" – Dalai Lama address to the Society for Neuroscience, 2005-11-12
Evolution, Naturalism, and Religion, Greg Graffin's CornellEvolutionProject.org
How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science, David Masci, Pew Research Center
Robert M. Young (1985). "Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's Place in Victorian Culture". Cambridge University Press. http://human-nature.com/dm/dar.html. Retrieved 2007-08-31.
Zygon Journal of Religion and Science
Science and Religion by Archbishop Luke of Crimea, an Eastern Orthodox perspective

[show]

Links to related articles

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science"

LINKS TO DIFFERENT MILKY WAY MYTHS

(Note: Several Deities are translated wrongly being confused between Solar Deities in stead of Milky Way Deities - and visa versa)

John O`Neill, author of "The night of the Gods"

http://www.archive.org/stream/nightgods00unkngoog#page/n6/mode/1up

Cosmic, Cosmogonic Myths and Symbols

Wikipedia Links

Zeus

Zeus (IPA: /zjuːs/; in Greek: nominative: Ζεύς Zeús /zdeús/, genitive: Διός Diós; Modern Greek /'zefs/) in Greek mythology is the king of the gods, the ruler of Mount Olympus and the god of the sky and thunder. His symbols are the thunderbolt, eagle, bull, and oak. In addition to his Indo-European inheritance, the classical "cloud-gatherer" also derives certain iconographic traits from the cultures of the ancient Near East, such as the scepter. Zeus is frequently depicted by Greek artists in one of two poses: standing, striding forward, with a thunderbolt leveled in his raised right hand, or seated in majesty.

Zeus was the child of Cronus and Rhea, and the youngest of his siblings. In most traditions he was married to Hera, although, at the oracle of Dodona, his consort was Dione: according to the Iliad, he is the father of Aphrodite by Dione. He is known for his erotic escapades. These resulted in many godly and heroic offspring, including Athena, Apollo and Artemis, Hermes, Persephone (by Demeter), Dionysus, Perseus, Heracles, Helen, Minos, and the Muses (by Mnemosyne); by Hera, he is usually said to have fathered Ares, Hebe and Hephaestus.

His Roman counterpart was Jupiter and his Etruscan counterpart Tinia. In Hindu mythology his counterpart was Indra with ever common weapon as thunderbolt.

Hera

In the Olympian pantheon of classical Greek Mythology, Hera (pronounced /ˈhɪərə/ or /ˈhɛrə/, Greek Ήρα) or Here (Ήρη in Ionic and Homer) was the wife and older sister of Zeus. Her chief function was as goddess of women and marriage. In Roman mythology, Juno was the equivalent mythical character. The cow and, later, the peacock were sacred to her.

Wikipedia: List of Deities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities

Saturn

Saturn (Latin: Saturnus) was a major Roman god of agriculture and harvest. In medieval times he was known as the Roman god of agriculture, justice and strength; he held a sickle in his left hand and a bundle of wheat in his right. His mother's name was Helen, or Hel. He was identified in classical antiquity with the Greek deity Cronus, and the mythologies of the two gods are commonly mixed.

Sky Father

The sky father is a recurring theme in mythology. The sky father is the complement of the earth mother and appears in some creation myths, many of which are European or ancient Near Eastern. Other cultures have quite different myths; Egyptian mythology features a sky mother and an earthly dying and reviving god of vegetation. Shinto gives precedence to a sun goddess. A sky father also relates to a solar deity, a god identified with the sun.

In Maori mythology, Ranginui was the sky father. In this story, the sky father and earth mother Papatuanuku, embraced and had divine children.

In China, the God of the Abrahamic religions is sometimes called 天父 which means the Sky Father or Heavenly Father.

In Ancient Rome the sky father, or sky god, was Jupiter (Zeus, Ζεύς, in Ancient Greece). Often depicted by birds, usually the Eagle or Hawk, and clouds or other sky phenomena. Nicknames included, "Sky God" and, "Cloud Gatherer." Most predominantly heard in The Iliad, an epic poem written by the Greek poet Homer. While many attribute a sky god to the sun, Jupiter ruled mainly over the clouds and the heavens, while Apollo is referred to as the god of the sun. Apollo was, however, the child of Jupiter.

In Ancient Egypt, Horus was ruler of the sky. He was shown as a typical male humanoid, however, he appeared to have the head of a falcon. It is not uncommon for birds to represent the sky in ancient religions, due to their ability to fly.

Father Time

Father Time (known as Pakiž in some countries) is a personification of time. He is usually depicted as an elderly bearded man, dressed in a robe, carrying an hourglass or other timekeeping device (representing time's constant movement). This image derives from many sources, including the Grim Reaper and Chronos, the Greek god of time.

Because of their similarity in name as pertaining to parental figures, he is sometimes paired with Mother Nature as a married couple.

Chronos

In Greek mythology, Chronos (Ancient Greek: Χρόνος) in pre-Socratic philosophical works is said to be the personification of time. His name actually means "time," and is alternatively spelled Khronos (transliteration of the Greek) or Chronus (Latin version). Not to be confused with Cronus, a Titan.

Chronos was imagined as an incorporeal god, serpentine in form, with three heads—that of a man, a bull, and a lion. He and his consort, serpentine Ananke (Inevitability), circled the primal world-egg in their coils and split it apart to form the ordered universe of earth, sea and sky.

He was depicted in Greco-Roman mosaics as a man turning the Zodiac Wheel. Often the figure is named Aeon (Eternal Time), a common alternate name for the god.

Chronos is usually portrayed through an old, wise man with a long, gray beard, such as "Father Time."

Some of the current English words whose etymological root is khronos/chronos include chronology, chronic, and chronicle.

Milky Way Myths

There are many creation myths around the world which explain the origin of the Milky Way and give it its name. The English phrase is a translation from Greek Γαλαξίας, Galaxias, which is derived from the word for milk (γάλα, gala). This is also the origin of the word galaxy. Indians call it the Akashganga or a celestial form of the holy river, Ganga.^{[citation
needed]} In Greek myth, the Milky Way was caused by milk spilt by Hera when suckling Heracles.

Creation Myths/Milky Way Myths

A creation myth or cosmogonic myth is a supernatural mytho-religious story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony),^[1] usually as a deliberate act by one or more deities.

Many creation myths share broadly similar themes. Common motifs include the fractionation of the things of the world from a primordial chaos; the separation of the mother and father gods; land emerging from an infinite and timeless ocean; or creation ex nihilo (English: out of nothing).

The term creation myth is sometimes used in a derogatory way to describe stories which are still believed today, as the term myth may suggest something which is absurd or fictional. While these beliefs and stories need not be a literal account of actual events, they may yet express ideas that are perceived by some people and cultures to be truths at a deeper or more symbolic level.

1 Africa

1.1 Bakuba

1.2 Maasai

1.3 Mandinka

1.4 Voodoo

1.5 Yoruba

1.6 Zulu

2 Asia

2.1 Ainu

2.2 Hmong

2.3 Korea

2.4 Mansi

2.5 Mongol

2.6 Orok

2.7 Shinto

2.8 Taoism

3 Europe

3.1 Finnish

3.2 Greek (Classical)

3.3 Norse & Germanic

4 India

4.1 Buddhist

4.2 Hindu

4.3 Jainism

4.4 Sikhism

4.5 Surat Shabda Yoga

5 Middle East

5.1 Sumerian

5.2 Babylonian

5.3 Bahá'í

5.4 Egyptian

5.5 Hermeticism

5.6 Islam

5.7 Judaism and Christianity

5.8 Mandaeism

5.9 Zoroastrianism

5.10 Mesopotamia

6 North America

6.1 Kiowa Apache

6.2 Aztec

6.3 Cherokee

6.4 Choctaw

6.5 Creek

6.6 Digueno

6.7 Hopi

6.8 Haida

6.9 Inuit

6.10 Iroquois

6.11 Lakota

6.12 Maidu

6.13 Navajo

6.14 Seminole

6.15 Tlingit

6.16 Mayan

7 South America

7.1 Incan

7.2 Pirahã

8 Pacific

Abiogenesis

Allegorical interpretations of Genesis

Big Bang

Book of Genesis

Creation science

Great flood

Elohim

Enuma Elish

Evolutionary origin of religions

Formation and evolution of the Solar System

Poimandres

Origin myth

Cosmogony

Cosmogony, or cosmogeny, is any theory concerning the coming into existence or origin of the universe, or about how reality came to be. The word comes from the Greek κοσμογονία (or κοσμογενία), from κόσμος "cosmos, the world", and the root of γί(γ)νομαι / γέγονα "to be born, come about". In the specialized context of space science and astronomy, the term refers to theories of creation of (and study of) the Solar System.

Mother Goddess/Milky Way

A mother goddess is a goddess, often portrayed as the Earth Mother, who serves as a general fertility deity, the bountiful embodiment of the Earth. As such, not all goddesses should be viewed as manifestations of the mother goddess.

Bil

Daughters of Ægir

Dísir

Eir

Ēostre

Freyja

Frigg

Fulla

Gersemi

Gná

Gullveig

Hel

Hlín

Hretha

Hnoss

Iðunn

Lofn

Mothers of Heimdall

Nanna

Nerthus

Norns

Skuld

Urðr

Verdandi

Nótt

Rán

Rindr

Sága

Sif

Sinthgunt

Sjöfn

Skaði

Snotra

Sól/Sunna

Syn

Þrúðr

Vár

Stellar Gods

Arsu

Attar (god)

Auseklis

Azizos

Citlalatonac

Fetu

Malara

Radu (god)

Rehua

Roua

Shu-pa-e

Stellar Goddesses

Aušrinė

Bat (goddess)

Citlalicue

Hathor

Inanna

Ira (mythology)

Shulsaga

Sopdet

Tala (goddess)

Taonoui

Taweret

The Zorya

Solar Goddesses/Milky Way Goddesses

Aimend

Áine
Albina (mythology)
Alectrona
Amaterasu
Ame-no-Uzume
Arinniti
Atanua
Atarapa
Aurora (mythology)
Bastet (mythology)
Beiwe
Beten (mythology)
Chicomecoatl
Chup Kamui
Eki
Eos
Étaín
Gnowee
Mahu
Malina
Marishi-Ten
Mater Matuta
Saranyu
Saulė
Sól (Sun)
Thesan
Ushas
Wala (goddess)
Wuriupranili
Yhi
Zaria (goddess)
The Zorya
Álfröðull

Earth Goddess/Milky Way Goddesses

Aphrodite

Blessed Virgin Mary

Brigid

Cybele

Demeter

Devi

Durga

Freyja

Frigg

Gaia

Hathor

Hecate

Ishtar

Isis

Jord

Kamakhya

Kali

Laxmi

Mut

Nerthus

Sky Deities/Milky Way Deities

Ouranos/Uranus and Zeus/Jupiter (Greek/Roman mythology)

Shu, Nut, Horus (Egyptian mythology)

Indra, Varuna (Hindu scripture)

Tyr, Ullr (Norse mythology)

Cabaguil (Maya mythology)

Torngasoak (Inuit mythology)

Anu (Sumerian mythology)

Nyame (Ashanti mythology)

Denka (Dinka mythology)

Altjira, Baiame (Aboriginal mythology)

Sin (Haida mythology)

Shanga (Yoruba mythology)

Gamab (Khoikhoi mythology)

Tengri (Altaic mythology)

Ukko (Finnish mythology)

List of Lithuanian sky deities

Thunder god

Water deity

Solar deity

Lunar deity

Death deity

Deities of the earth

War deities

Sky and Weather Goddesses/Milky Way Goddesses

Aditi

Amunet

An (goddess)

Asiaq

Atahensic

Atlacamani

Ayao

Ayauhteotl

Ayida-Weddo

Beiwe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Definitions of religion

Specific religious movements

Religion and superstition (And religious ignorance - My remark)

History

Development of religion

Middle Ages

Modern period

Religious belief

Related forms of thought

Religion and science

Religion, metaphysics, and cosmology

Mysticism and esotericism

Spirituality

Myth

Cosmology

Criticism of religious belief

Memetic theory of religion

Criticism of the concept of "religion"

See also

External links

Relationship between religion and science

Contents

Perspectives on the relationship between religion and science

Conflict

Conflict thesis

Independence

Two takes on experience

Parallels in method

Dialogue

Concerns over the nature of reality

Integration

Christianity and science

Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century

Buddhism

Hinduism

Bahá'í view

Current scholarship

Influence of a biblical world view on early modern science

Religious community's perspective

Historical Judeo-Christian-Islamic view

Non-fundamentalist religious views

The scientific community's perspective

The attitudes of scientists towards religion

Scientific study of religion

Religion and science community

Notes

References

Further reading

See also

External links

Sky and Weather Goddesses/Milky Way Goddesses