LGBT in Islam and religion and reason Wikipedia pages

LGBT in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Islam and homosexuality)
Jump to: navigation, search


Unbalanced scales.svg
 The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (February 2012)



 Persian Shah Abbas with a page (1627).
LGBT and Islam is influenced by the religious, legal and cultural history of the nations with a sizable Muslim population, along with specific passages in the Qur'an[1] and statements attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (hadith). Hadiths traditionally are not interpreted because their language is understood to be simple matter-of-fact language. Orthodox Islam is not only a system of beliefs, but also a legal system.
The traditional schools of Islamic law based on Qur'anic verses and hadith consider homosexual acts a punishable crime and a sin, and influenced by Islamic scholars such as Imam Malik and Imam Shafi.[2] The Qur'an cites the story of the "people of Lot" destroyed by the wrath of God because they engaged in "lustful" carnal acts between men.[according to whom?]
Nevertheless, homoerotic themes were present in poetry and other literature written by some Muslims from the medieval period onwards and sometimes homoeroticism in the form of pederasty was seen in a positive way.[3]
Today in most of the Islamic world homosexuality is not socially or legally accepted. In some of these countries, Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty.[4][5][6][7][8] In others, such as Somalia, it is illegal.[9]
Same-sex sexual intercourse is legal in 19 Muslim-majority nations (Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Chad, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Niger, Northern Cyprus, Tajikistan, Turkey, West Bank (State of Palestine), and most of Indonesia). In Albania, Lebanon, and Turkey, there have been discussions about legalizing same-sex marriage.[10][11] Homosexual relations between females are legal in Kuwait, but homosexual acts between males are illegal. Lebanon has had recent internal efforts to legalize homosexuality.[12]
Most Muslim-majority countries have opposed moves to advance LGBT rights at the United Nations, in the General Assembly and/or the UNHRC. However, Albania and Sierra Leone have signed a UN Declaration supporting LGBT rights.[13][14] OIC member-state Mozambique provides LGBT rights protections in law in the form of non-discrimination laws, and discussions on legally recognizing same-sex marriage have been held in the country.[15][16]


Contents  [hide]
1 Law 1.1 Sharia punishments
1.2 The Quran
1.3 The Hadith and Seerah
1.4 Medieval jurisprudence
1.5 Rulings by modern scholars of Islam
2 Views of homosexuality in Islamic societies 2.1 Modern day 2.1.1 Rejection of homosexuality according to opinion polls
2.1.2 Sex between boys and men
2.1.3 Gay marriage
2.2 Medieval era
2.3 In literature
3 Legal status in nations 3.1 Homosexuality laws in majority Muslim countries
3.2 Homosexuality laws in India
4 LGBT movements within Islam
5 Gender variant and transgender people
6 See also 6.1 Rights activists
6.2 Other
7 Bibliography
8 Notes
9 External links

Law[edit]
Sharia punishments[edit]
There are several methods by which sharia jurists have advocated the punishment of gays or lesbians who are sexually active. One form of execution involves an LGBT person being stoned to death by a crowd of Muslims; this precedence was set in the hadith Abu Dawud (discretion advised; he has history of using da'if hadiths) which states "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done", then elaborates they be "stoned to death".[17] The majority of Muslim jurists established an ijma ruling that LGBT people be thrown from rooftops or high places,[18] and this is the perspective of most Salafists.[19]
The Quran[edit]
The Quran contains seven references to "the people of Lut", the biblical Lot, but meaning the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah (references 7:80–84, 11:77–83, 21:74, 22:43, 26:165–175, 27:56–59, and 29:27–33), and their destruction by Allah is associated explicitly with their sexual practices:[20][21][citation needed]

“And (We sent) Lot when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves). So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind. And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty.”[[http://quran.com/7/80
-84 7:80–84] (Translated by Shakir)]
The sins of the people of Lot became proverbial, and the Arabic words for homosexual behaviour (liwat) and for a person who performs such acts (luti) both derive from his name.[22] There is, however, only one passage in the Qur'an which can be interpreted as prescribing a legal position, and is not restricted to homosexual behaviour - in fact it deals with public practice of adultery:[23]

“And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them. And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.”[-16 4:15–16 (Translated by Shakir)]
Islamist journalist Muhammad Jalal Kishk found no prescribed punishment for homosexuality in Islamic law[24][25] Several modern day scholars, including Scott Kugle, argue for a different interpretation of the Lot narrative focusing not on the sexual act but on the infidelity of the tribe and their rejection of Lot's Prophethood.[26]
The Hadith and Seerah[edit]
The hadith (sayings and actions of Muhammad) show that homosexuality was not unknown in Arabia.[27] Given that the Qur'an is allegedly vague regarding the punishment of homosexual sodomy, Islamic jurists turned to the collections of the hadith and seerah (accounts of Muhammad's life) to support their argument for Hudud punishment.[27]
Ibn al-Jawzi records Muhammad as cursing sodomites in several hadith, and recommending the death penalty for both the active and passive partners in same-sex acts.[28]
Sunan al-Tirmidhi, compiling his work two centuries after the death of Muhammad, wrote that Muhammad had prescribed the death penalty for both the active and the passive partner: "Whoever you find committing the sin of the people of Lut (Lot), kill them, both the one who does it and the one to whom it is done."[2] The overall moral or theological principle is that a person who performs such actions (luti) challenges the harmony of God's creation, and is therefore a revolt against God.[22]
Al-Nuwayri in his Nihaya reports that Muhammad is alleged to have said what he feared most for his community were the practices of the people of Lot (although he seems to have expressed the same idea in regard to wine and female seduction).[27]

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.
— Sunan Abu Dawood, 38:4447 see also Sunan Abu Dawood, 38:4448 Sunan Abu Dawood, 31:4007 Sunan Abu Dawood, 31:4008 Sunan Abu Dawood, 11:2169 Sunan Abu Dawood, 32:4087 Sunan Abu Dawood, 32:4088

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet cursed effeminate men; those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, "Turn them out of your houses." The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman.
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:72:774 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:82:820
Medieval jurisprudence[edit]
The four schools of shari'a (Islamic law) disagreed on what punishment is appropriate for liwat. Abu Bakr Al-Jassas (d. 981 AD/370 AH) argued that the two hadiths on killing homosexuals "are not reliable by any means and no legal punishment can be prescribed based on them",[29] and the Hanafi school held that it does not merit any physical punishment, on the basis of a hadith that "Muslim blood can only be spilled for adultery, apostasy and homicide"; against this the Hanbali school inferred that sodomy is a form of adultery and must incur the same penalty, i.e. death.[22]
There were varying opinions on how the death penalty is to be carried out. Abu Bakr recommended toppling a wall on the evil-doer, or else burning alive,[30] while Ali bin Abi Talib ordered death by stoning for one "luti" and had another thrown head-first from the top of a minaret—according to Ibn Abbas, this last punishment must be followed by stoning.[27]
Rulings by modern scholars of Islam[edit]
With few exceptions all scholars of Sharia, or Islamic law, interpret homosexual activity as a punishable offence as well as a sin. There is no specific punishment prescribed, however, and this is usually left to the discretion of the local authorities on Islam.[31] Mohamed El-Moctar El-Shinqiti, a contemporary Mauritanian scholar, has argued that "[even though] homosexuality is a grievous sin...[a] no legal punishment is stated in the Qur'an for homosexuality...[b] it is not reported that Prophet Muhammad has punished somebody for committing homosexuality...[c] there is no authentic hadith reported from the Prophet prescribing a punishment for the homosexuals..." Hadith scholars such as Al-Bukhari, Yahya ibn Ma'in, Al-Nasa'i, Ibn Hazm, Al-Tirmidhi, and others have impugned these statements.[32]
Faisal Kutty, a professor of Islamic law at Indiana-based Valparaiso University Law School and Toronto-based Osgoode Hall Law School, commented on the contemporary same-sex marriage debate in a March 27, 2014 essay in the Huffington Post.[33] He acknowledged that while Islamic law iterations prohibits pre- and extra-marital as well as same-sex sexual activity, it does not attempt to "regulate feelings, emotions and urges, but only its translation into action that authorities had declared unlawful." Kutty, who teaches comparative law and legal reasoning, also wrote that many Islamic scholars [34] have "even argued that homosexual tendencies themselves were not haram [prohibited] but had to be suppressed for the public good." He claimed that this may not be "what the LGBTQ community wants to hear," but he wrote that, "it reveals that even classical Islamic jurists struggled with this issue and had a more sophisticated attitude than many contemporary Muslims." Kutty who in the past wrote in support of allowing Islamic principles in dispute resolution also noted that "most Muslims have no problem extending full human rights to those - even Muslims - who live together 'in sin'." He argued that therefore it seems hypocritical to deny fundamental rights to same-sex couples. Moreover, he argued as pointed out by Islamic legal scholar Mohamed Fadel,[35] this is not about changing Islamic marriage (nikah), but about making "sure that all citizens have access to the same kinds of public benefits.
Views of homosexuality in Islamic societies[edit]
Modern day[edit]



 Major denominations and religions of the world


LGBT rights at the United Nations v ·
 t ·
 e
  
     Support Countries which have signed a General Assembly declaration of LGBT rights and/or sponsored the Human Rights Council's 2011 resolution on LGBT rights (94 members).
     Oppose Countries which signed a 2008 statement opposing LGBT rights (initially 57 members, now 54 members).
     Neither Countries which, as regards the UN, have expressed neither official support nor opposition to LGBT rights (46 members).
During the Ottoman Empire, homosexuality was decriminalized in 1858, as part of wider reforms during the Tanzimat.[36][37]
Raphael Patai in The Arab Mind has argued that among some Arabs and Turks homosexuality can be justified as an expression of power. The "active homosexual act is considered as an assertion of one's aggressive masculine superiority, while the acceptance of the role of the passive homosexual is considered extremely degrading and shameful because it casts the man or youth into a submissive, feminine role".[38]
In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council passed its first resolution recognizing LGBT rights, which was followed up with a report from the UN Human Rights Commission documenting violations of the rights of LGBT people.[39][40] The two world maps of religions of the world and the countries that support LGBT rights at the UN give an impression of the official attitude towards homosexuality in the Muslim world.
Rejection of homosexuality according to opinion polls[edit]
In a study on the global acceptance of homosexuality by Pew Research Center, released June 4, 2013 it is stated:[41]

The survey of publics in 39 countries finds broad acceptance of homosexuality in North America, the European Union, and much of Latin America, but equally widespread rejection in predominantly Muslim nations and in Africa, as well as in parts of Asia and in Russia.
Age and views on homosexuality

Country
18-29
30-49
50+
Homosexuality
should be accepted
  %  %  %
Malaysia 7 10 11
Turkey 7 9 10
Palestinian territories 5 3 --
Indonesia 4 3 2
Jordan 5 1 1
Egypt 3 2 3
Tunisia 3 2 1
Pakistan 2 2 2
Source: "The Global Divide on Homosexuality" (WEBSITE). PEW Research. 4 June 2013. Retrieved 2013-09-13.
In the UK, a Gallup poll showed that none of the 500 British Muslims polled believed homosexuality to be "morally acceptable", compared with 35% of the 1001 French Muslims polled.[42] A 2007 survey of British Muslims showed that 61% believe homosexuality should be illegal, with up to 71% of young British Muslims holding this belief.[43] According to a 2012 poll, 51% of the Turks in Germany, who account for nearly two thirds of the total Muslim population in Germany,[44] believe that homosexuality is a sickness.[45]
Sex between boys and men[edit]
Despite the formal disapproval of religious authority, the segregation of women in Muslim societies and the strong emphasis on male virility leads adolescent males and unmarried young men to seek sexual outlets with boys younger than themselves—in one study in Morocco, with boys in the age-range 7 to 13.[46] Men have sex with other males so long as they are the penetrators and their partners are boys, or in some cases effeminate men.[47] Liwat is regarded as a temptation,[48] and anal intercourse is not seen as repulsively unnatural so much as dangerously attractive. They believe "one has to avoid getting buggered precisely in order not to acquire a taste for it and thus become addicted."[49] Not all sodomy is homosexual: one Moroccan sociologist, in a study of sex education in his native country, notes that for many young men heterosexual sodomy is considered better than vaginal penetration, and female prostitutes likewise report the demand for anal penetration from their (male) clients.[50]
It is not so much the penetration as the enjoyment that is considered bad.[51] Deep shame attaches to the passive partner: "for this reason men stop getting laid at the age of 15 or 16 and 'forget' that they ever allowed/suffered/enjoyed it earlier."[citation needed] Similar sexual sociologies are reported for other Muslim societies from North Africa to Pakistan and the Far East.[52] In Afghanistan in 2009, the British Army was forced to commission a report into the sexuality of the local men after British soldiers reported the discomfort at witnessing adult males involved in sexual relations with boys. The report stated that though illegal, there was a tradition of such relationships in the country, known as "bache bazi" or boy play, and that it was especially strong around North Afghanistan. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11217772
Gay marriage[edit]
In 2007 there was a gay party in the Moroccan town of al-Qasr al-Kabir. Rumours spread that this was a gay marriage and more than 600 people took to the streets, condemning the alleged event and protesting against leniency towards homosexuals.[53] Several persons who attended the party were detained and eventually six Moroccan men were sentenced to between four and ten months in prison for "homosexuality".[54]
In France there was an Islamic same-sex marriage on February 18, 2012.[55] In Paris in November 2012 a room in a Buddhist prayer hall was used by gay Muslims and called a "gay-friendly mosque",[56] and a French Islamic website [57] is supporting religious same-sex marriage.
The first American Muslim in the United States Congress, Keith Ellison (D-MN) said in 2010 that all discrimination against LGBT people is wrong.[58] He further expressed support for gay marriage stating:[59]

I believe that the right to marry someone who you please is so fundamental it should not be subject to popular approval any more than we should vote on whether blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus.
In 2014 eight men were jailed for three years by a Cairo court after the circulation of a video of them allegedly taking part in a private wedding ceremony between two men on a boat on the Nile.[60]
Medieval era[edit]



 Ottoman illustration depicting a young man used for group sex (from Sawaqub al-Manaquib)
Increasing prosperity resulting from Muslim conquests in the centuries following Muhammad's death was accompanied by what some Muslims bemoaned as a general "corruption" of morals in the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
Therefore, despite its condemnation by religious authorities, homosexuality persisted in a subterranean manner. It seems to have become less of a rarity as the process of acculturation sped up. Information relating to the development of music and song reveals the presence of mukhannathun, who were apparently for the most part of foreign origin. The arrival of the Abbasid army to Arabia in the 8th century seems to have meant that tolerance for homosexual practice subsequently spread more widely under the new dynasty. The ruler Al-Amin, for example, was said to have required slave women to be dressed in masculine clothing in the hope of inducing him to adopt more conventional morals.[27]
There are other examples from the following centuries. The Aghlabid Emir, Ibrahim II of Ifriqiya (ruled 875–902), was said to have been surrounded by some sixty catamites, yet whom he was said to have treated in a most horrific manner. Caliph al-Mutasim in the 9th century and some of his successors were accused of homosexuality. The popular stories says that Cordoba, Abd al-Rahman III had executed a young man from León who was held as a hostage, because he had refused his advances during the Reconquista.[27]
Mehmed the Conqueror, the Ottoman sultan living in the 15th century, European sources say "who was known to have ambivalent sexual tastes, sent a eunuch to the house of Notaras, demanding that he supply his good looking fourteen year old son for the Sultan’s pleasure. When he refused, the Sultan instantly ordered the decapitation of Notaras, together with that of his son and his son-in-law; and their three heads … were placed on the banqueting table before him".[61] Another youth Mehmed found attractive, and who was presumably more accommodating, was Radu III the Fair, the brother of the famous Vlad the Impaler, "Radu, a hostage in Istanbul whose good looks had caught the Sultan’s fancy, and who was thus singled out to serve as one of his most favored pages." After the defeat of Vlad, Mehmed placed Radu on the throne of Wallachia as a vassal ruler. However, Turkish sources deny these stories.[62]
The objectivity of the European sources that claim Mehmed had homosexual tendencies cannot always be verified. Commonly, contemporary writers would embellish stories to add sensual imagery and homosexual behavior and attribute them to Ottoman sultans in an attempt to rile up European opposition to the Ottomans. Furthermore, with regards to the story about Notaras' son, Ottoman sources assert that the boy was being recruited to be an iç oğlan, meaning an "inner servant". Mehmed employed a corps of inner servants, whose role was to serve in the innermost chambers of the palace, not for the sexual pleasure of the sultan.[63]
In literature[edit]
According to the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World

Whatever the legal strictures on sexual activity, the positive expression of male homeoerotic sentiment in literature was accepted, and assiduously cultivated, from the late eighth century until modern times. First in Arabic, but later also in Persian, Turkish and Urdu, love poetry by men about boys more than competed with that about women, it overwhelmed it. Anecdotal literature reinforces this impression of general societal acceptance of the public celebration of male-male love (which hostile Western caricatures of Islamic societies in medieval and early modern times simply exaggerate).[64]
Legal status in nations[edit]
The Ottoman Empire (predecessor of Turkey) decriminalizes homosexuality in 1858 and In Turkey where 99.8% of the population is Muslim, homosexuality has never criminalized since the day it has founded in 1923.[65] and LGBT people also have right to seek asylum to Turkey under the Geneva Convention since 1951.[66] On the other hand, The death penalty for homosexuality is currently in place in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, Mauritania, Sudan and northern Nigeria.[67][68] The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is that it is illegal and can get you the death penalty, but some regions just give jail time, mutilations, and fines. In Qatar, Algeria, Uzbekistan and the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time or fines. This has led to controversy regarding Qatar, which is due to stage the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Human rights groups have questioned the awarding in 2010 of the right to host the competition, due to the possibility that gay football fans may be jailed. In response, Sepp Blatter, head of FIFA, joked that they would have to "refrain from sexual activity" while in Qatar. He later withdrew the remarks after condemnation from rights groups.[69]
In Saudi Arabia, while the maximum punishment for homosexual acts is public execution, the government will generally use lesser punishments—e.g., fines, jail time, and whipping—as alternatives, unless it feels that individuals are challenging state authority by engaging in LGBT social movements.[70] Iran is perhaps the nation to execute the largest number of its citizens for homosexual acts. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, the Iranian government has executed more than 4,000 such people.[71]
In Egypt, openly gay men have been prosecuted under general public morality laws. (See Cairo 52.) In stark contrast, homosexuality is both legal[citation needed] and tolerated[citation needed] in Lebanon[citation needed] and other states in the Levant, like Palestine[citation needed], Jordan[citation needed].
In 20 out of 57 Muslim-majority nations same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. In Albania there have been discussions about legalizing same-sex marriage.[10] Homosexual relations between females are legal in Kuwait but homosexual acts between males are illegal. Lebanon has an internal effort to legalize homosexuality.[12]
Homosexuality laws in majority Muslim countries[edit]
Main article: LGBT rights by country or territory
According to the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) seven countries still retain capital punishment for homosexual behavior: Afghanistan, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen. The situation in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is that is punished by corporal or capital punishment, depending on the region.[72]
Homosexuality laws in India[edit]
In India, where Muslims form a large minority, the largest Islamic seminary (Darul Uloom Deoband) has vehemently opposed recent government moves[73] to abrogate and liberalize laws from the British Raj era that banned homosexuality.[74]
LGBT movements within Islam[edit]



 Float for gay Muslims at Pride London 2011.
The Al-Fatiha Foundation is an organization which tries to advance the cause of gay, lesbian, and transgender Muslims.[citation needed] It was founded in 1998 by Faisal Alam, a Pakistani American, and is registered as a nonprofit organization in the United States. The organization was an offshoot of an internet listserve that brought together many gay, lesbian and questioning Muslims from various countries.[75] The Foundation accepts and considers homosexuality as natural, either regarding Qur'anic verses as obsolete in the context of modern society, or stating that the Qu'ran speaks out against homosexual lust and is silent on homosexual love. In 2001, Al-Muhajiroun, a banned and now defunct international organization who sought the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate, issued a fatwa declaring that all members of Al-Fatiha were murtadd, or apostates, and condemning them to death. Because of the threat and coming from conservative societies, many members of the foundation's site still prefer to be anonymous so as to protect their identity while continuing a tradition of secrecy.[76] Al-Fatiha has fourteen chapters in the United States, as well as offices in England, Canada, Spain, Turkey, and South Africa. In addition, Imaan, a social support group for Muslim LGBT people and their families, exists in the UK.[77] Both of these groups were founded by gay Pakistani activists. The UK also has the Safra Project for women.
Some Muslims such as the lesbian writer Irshad Manji[78] and academic author Scott Kugle argue that Islam does not condemn homosexuality.[79] Kugle, South Asian scholar and author Ruth Vanita, and Muslim scholar and writer Saleem Kidwai also contend that ancient Islam has a rich history of homoerotic literature.[80]
There are also a number of Islamic ex-gay (i.e. people claiming to have experienced a basic change in sexual orientation from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality)[81] groups aimed at attempting to guide homosexuals towards heterosexuality. A large body of research and global scientific consensus indicates that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. Because of this, major mental health professional organizations discourage and caution individuals against attempting to change their sexual orientation to heterosexual, and warn that attempting to do so can be harmful.[82][83]
The religious conflicts and inner turmoil that Islamic homosexuals struggle over has been addressed in various media, such as the 2006 Channel 4 documentary Gay Muslims, and the 2007 documentary film A Jihad for Love. The latter was produced by Sandi Simcha DuBowski, who also made a Jewish-themed documentary on the same topic (Trembling Before G-d) 6 years before.
In November 2012, a prayer room was set up in Paris by gay Islamic scholar and founder of the group 'Homosexual Muslims of France' Ludovic-Mohamed Zahed. It was described by the press as the first gay-friendly mosque in Europe, but traditional Islamic scholars disagree.[84]
Gender variant and transgender people[edit]
In Islam, the term mukhannathun is used to describe gender-variant people, usually male-to-female transgender. Neither this term nor the equivalent for "eunuch" occurs in the Qur'an, but the term does appear in the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad, which have a secondary status to the central text. Moreover, within Islam, there is a tradition on the elaboration and refinement of extended religious doctrines through scholarship. This doctrine contains a passage by the scholar and hadith collector An-Nawawi:

A mukhannath is the one ("male") who carries in his movements, in his appearance and in his language the characteristics of a woman. There are two types; the first is the one in whom these characteristics are innate, he did not put them on by himself, and therein is no guilt, no blame and no shame, as long as he does not perform any (illicit) act or exploit it for money (prostitution etc.). The second type acts like a woman out of immoral purposes and he is the sinner and blameworthy.[85]
While Iran has outlawed homosexuality, Iranian Shi'a thinkers such as Ayatollah Khomeini have allowed for transgender people to change their sex so that they can enter heterosexual relationships. This position has been confirmed by the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and is also supported by many other Iranian clerics.
Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand. It is regarded as a cure for homosexuality, which is punishable by death under Iranian law. The government even provides up to half the cost for those needing financial assistance and a sex change is recognized on the birth certificate.[86]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Islam portal
Portal icon LGBT portal
StraightWay Foundation, an ex-gay foundation for muslims
Islamic religious police
LGBT in the Middle East
Transsexuality in Iran
Rights activists[edit]
Afdhere Jama, editor of Huriyah
Arsham Parsi, Iranian LGBT activist
El-Farouk Khaki, founder of Salaam, the first homosexual Muslim group in Canada
Faisal Alam, Pakistani American founder of Al-Fatiha Foundation
Irshad Manji, Canadian lesbian and human rights activist
Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni
Maryam Hatoon Molkara, campaigner for transsexual rights in Iran
Waheed Alli, Baron Alli, British gay politician
Other[edit]
A Jihad for Love, documentary about devout gay Muslims
Bacchá
Festival of Muslim Cultures
Gay Muslims, documentary
Ghilman
Inclusive Mosque Initiative
Köçek
Malik Ayaz
Nazar ila'l-murd
Bibliography[edit]
Dialmy, Abdessamad (2010). Which Sex Education for Young Muslims?. World Congress of Muslim Philanthropists.
Habib, Samar (1997). Islam and Homosexuality, vol.2. ABC-CLIO.
Jahangir, Junaid bin (2010). "Implied Cases for Muslim Same-Sex Unions". In Samar Habib. Islam and homosexuality, Volume 2. ABC-CLIO.
(German) Georg Klauda: Die Vertreibung aus dem Serail. Europa und die Heteronormierung der islamischen Welt. Männerschwarm Verlag, Hamburg 2008, ISBN 978-3-939542-34-6. See pages at Google Books.
Schmitt, Arno; Sofer, Jehoeda (1992). Sexuality and Eroticism among Males in Muslim Societies. Haworth Press.
Schmitt, Arno (Volume IV, 2001-2002). Liwat im Fiqh: Männliche Homosexualität?. Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies. Check date values in: |date= (help)
Van Jivraj, Suhraiya; de Jong, Anisa (2001). Muslim Moral Instruction on Homosexuality (PDF). Yoesuf Foundation Conference on Islam in the West and Homosexuality – Strategies for Action.
Wafer, Jim (1997). "Mohammad and Male Homosexuality". In Stephen O. Murray & Will Roscoe. Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History and Literature. New York University Press.
Duran, Khalid. Homosexuality in Islam, in: Swidler, Anne (ed.) "Homosexuality and World Religions" (1993). Trinity Press International, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. ISBN 1-56338-051-X
Endsjø, Dag Øistein, Sex and Religion. Teachings and Taboos in the History of World Faiths. Reaktion Books 2011.
Kilgerman, Nicole (2007). Homosexuality in Islam: A Difficult Paradox. Macalester Islam Journal 2(3):52-64, Berkeley Electronic press.
Khaled El-Rouayheb, Before Homosexuality in the Arab–Islamic World, 1500–1800 Chicago, 2009. ISBN 978-0-226-72989-3.
Luongo, Michael (ed.), Gay Travels in the Muslim World Haworth Press, 2007. ISBN 978-1-56023-340-4.
Everett K. Rowson, J.W. Wright (eds.), Homoeroticism in Classical Arabic Literature New York, 1997
Arno Schmitt and Jehoeda Sofer (eds.), Sexuality and Eroticism Among Males in Moslem Societies Harrington Park Press 1992
Arno Schmitt and Gianni de Martino, Kleine Schriften zu zwischenmännlicher Sexualität und Erotik in der muslimischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, Gustav-Müller-Str. 10 : A. Schmitt, 1985
Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe (eds.), "Islamic Homosexualities: culture, history, and literature" NYU Press New York 1997
Wafer, Jim (1997) "Muhammad and Male Homosexuality" in "Islamic Homosexualities: culture, history, and literature" by Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe (eds.), NYU Press New York
Wafer, Jim (1997) "The Symbolism of Male Love in Islamic Mysthical Literature" in "Islamic Homosexualities: culture, history, and literature" by Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe (eds.), NYU Press New York 1997
Vincenzo Patanè, "Homosexuality in the Middle East and North Africa" in: Aldrich, Robert (ed.) Gay Life and Culture: A World History, Thames & Hudson, London, 2006
[Pellat, Charles.] “Liwat”. Encyclopedia of Islam. New edition. Vol. 5. Leiden: Brill, 1986. pp. 776–79.
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "The Qu'ran and Homosexuality". Internet History Sourcebooks Project. Fordham University. Retrieved 7 November 2013. "Richard Burton suggests the following Qu'ranic verses as relevant to homosexuality:"
2.^ Jump up to: a b [1][dead link]
3.Jump up ^ Khaled El-Rouayheb. Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World 1500–1800. pp. 12 ff.
4.Jump up ^ [2][dead link]
5.Jump up ^ Abu Dawud 32:4087
6.Jump up ^ Sahih Bukhari 7:72:774
7.Jump up ^ Ibn Majah Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1903
8.Jump up ^ "UK party leaders back global gay rights campaign". BBC Online. 13 September 2011. Retrieved 7 November 2013. "At present, homosexuality is illegal in 76 countries, including 38 within the Commonwealth. At least five countries - the Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania and Sudan - have used the death penalty against gay people."
9.Jump up ^ The Politics of Homosexuality in Africa
10.^ Jump up to: a b Lowen, Mark (2009-07-30). "Albania 'to approve gay marriage'". BBC News. Retrieved 2013-04-22.
11.Jump up ^ Rough Guide to South East Asia: Third Edition. Rough Guides Ltd. August 2005. p. 74. ISBN 1-84353-437-1.
12.^ Jump up to: a b "Helem". Helem. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
13.Jump up ^ http://www.amnesty.org/es/library/asset/IOR40/024/2008/en/269de167-d107-11dd-984e-fdc7ffcd27a6/ior400242008en.pdf/
14.Jump up ^ "Over 80 Nations Support Statement at Human Rights Council on LGBT Rights » US Mission Geneva". Geneva.usmission.gov. Retrieved 2013-04-22.
15.Jump up ^ "afrol News - Mozambique discovers its gay minority". Afrol.com. Retrieved 2013-04-22.
16.Jump up ^ "Gay Mozambique News & Reports". Archive.globalgayz.com. Retrieved 2013-04-22.
17.Jump up ^ The Hudud: The Hudud are the Seven Specific Crimes in Islamic Criminal Law and Their Mandatory Punishments, 1995 Muhammad Sidahmad
18.Jump up ^ Stonebanks, Christopher Darius (2010). Teaching Against Islamophobia. p. 190.
19.Jump up ^ Tax, Meredith (2010). Double Bind. p. 46.
20.Jump up ^ Duran (1993) p. 179
21.Jump up ^ Kligerman (2007) pp. 53–54
22.^ Jump up to: a b c Wayne Dynes, Encyclopaedia of Homosexuality, New York, 1990.
23.Jump up ^ Wafer, Jim (1997). "Muhammad and Male Homosexuality". In Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe. Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History and Literature. New York University Press. p. 88. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
24.Jump up ^ A Muslim's Thoughts about the Sexual Question, (1984)
25.Jump up ^ Massad, Joseph Andoni (2007). Desiring Arabs. University of Chicago Press. pp. 203–4.
26.Jump up ^ Kugle, Scott (2010). Homosexuality in Islam. Oxford, England: Oneworld Publications. pp. 42–49.
27.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Ed. C. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Leiden, 1983
28.Jump up ^ Wafer, Jim (1997). "Muhammad and Male Homosexuality". In Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe. Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History and Literature. New York University Press. p. 89. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
29.Jump up ^ [3][dead link]
30.Jump up ^ Wafer, Jim (1997). "Muhammad and Male Homosexuality". In Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe. Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History and Literature. New York University Press. pp. 89–90. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
31.Jump up ^ Duran, K. (1993). Homosexuality in Islam, p. 184. Cited in: Kligerman (2007) p. 54.
32.Jump up ^ "Threats to Behead Homosexuals: Shari`ah or Politics? - Disciplinary Penalties (ta`zir) - counsels". OnIslam.net. Retrieved 2013-04-22.
33.Jump up ^ "Why Gay Marriage May Not Be Contrary To Islam". Huffingtonpost.ca. Retrieved 2014-03-29.
34.Jump up ^ "The Homosexual Challenge to Muslim Ethics". Lamppostproductions.com. Retrieved 2014-03-29.
35.Jump up ^ "On Same-Sex Marriage". Islawmix.org. Retrieved 2014-03-29.
36.Jump up ^ Tehmina Kazi (7 Oct 2011). "The Ottoman empire's secular history undermines sharia claims". UK Guardian.
37.Jump up ^ Ishtiaq Hussain (15 Feb 2011). "The Tanzimat: Secular Reforms in the Ottoman Empire" (PDF). Faith Matters.
38.Jump up ^ Patai, The Arab Mind, p. 33
39.Jump up ^ Jordans, Frank (June 17, 2011). "U.N. Gay Rights Protection Resolution Passes, Hailed As 'Historic Moment'". Associated Press.
40.Jump up ^ "UN issues first report on human rights of gay and lesbian people". United Nations. 15 December 2011.
41.Jump up ^ Pew Research Center: The Global Divide on Homosexuality retrieved 9 June 2013
42.Jump up ^ Butt, Riazat (2009-05-07). "Muslims in Britain have zero tolerance of homosexuality, says poll". The Guardian (London).
43.Jump up ^ http://dvmx.com/British_Muslim_Youth.pdf
44.Jump up ^ Bundesministerium des Inneren: Zusammenfassung "Muslimisches Leben in Deutschland", p. 2
45.Jump up ^ Liljeberg Research International: Deutsch-Türkische Lebens- und Wertewelten 2012, July/August 2012, p. 73
46.Jump up ^ Schmitt&Sofer, p.36
47.Jump up ^ Schmitt&Sofer, pp.x-xi
48.Jump up ^ Habib, p.287
49.Jump up ^ Arno Schmitt, Jehoeda Sofer, "Sexuality and Eroticism among Males in Muslim Societies" (The Haworth Press, 1992) p.8. Books.google.com.au. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
50.Jump up ^ Dialmy, pp.32 and 35, footnote 34
51.Jump up ^ Schmitt&Sofer, p.7
52.Jump up ^ Murray&Roscoe, passim
53.Jump up ^ Al Arabiya: "Moroccan "bride" detained for gay wedding"
54.Jump up ^ Al Arabiya: "Morocco sentences gay ‘bride’ to jail"
55.Jump up ^ France 24 - Concilier islam et homosexualité, le combat de Ludovic-Mohamed Zahed - Gaëlle LE ROUX
56.Jump up ^ Gay-friendly 'mosque' opens in Paris retrieved 12 February 2013
57.Jump up ^ Homosexuel-musulmans.org - Association nationale Homosexuel-le-s musulman-e-s de France
58.Jump up ^ Bradlee Dean: Keith Ellison is advancing Sharia law through ‘homosexual agenda’ retrieved 15 January 2013
59.Jump up ^ Keith Ellison: Minnesota Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Will Fail retrieved 16 January 2013
60.Jump up ^ Tadros, Sherine (6 November 2014). "Crackdown As Men Jailed Over 'Gay Wedding'". Retrieved 13 November 2014.
61.Jump up ^ Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries, pp. 115–16.
62.Jump up ^ History of the Ottoman Empire, Mohamed Farid Bey
63.Jump up ^ Akgündüz, Ahmed (2011). Ottoman History: Misperceptions and Truths. Rotterdam: IUR Press. p. 130. ISBN 975-7268-28-3.
64.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, MacMillan Reference USA, 2004, p.316
65.Jump up ^ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/07/ottoman-empire-secular-history-sharia?newsfeed=true. Missing or empty |title= (help)
66.Jump up ^ http://ilga-europe.org/home/issues/asylum_in_europe/country_by_country/tr. Missing or empty |title= (help)
67.Jump up ^ "7 countries still put people to death for same-sex acts". ILGA. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
68.Jump up ^ "Homosexuality and Islam". ReligionFacts. 2005-07-19. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
69.Jump up ^ Fifa boss Sepp Blatter sorry for Qatar 'gay' remarks, BBC
70.Jump up ^ "Is Beheading Really the Punishment for Homosexuality in Saudi Arabia?". Sodomylaws.org. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
71.Jump up ^ "Homosexuality and Religion".
72.Jump up ^ LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates
73.Jump up ^ India to repeal anti-gay law as second Gay Pride is held, The Times
74.Jump up ^ After Deoband, other Muslim leaders condemn homosexuality, Times of India
75.Jump up ^ "Cyber Mecca", The Advocate, March 14, 2000
76.Jump up ^ Tim Herbert, "Queer chronicles", Weekend Australian, October 7, 2006, Qld Review Edition.
77.Jump up ^ "Home". Imaan.org.uk. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
78.Jump up ^ [4][dead link]
79.Jump up ^ [5][dead link]
80.Jump up ^ Queer India: Gay historians: Ruth Vanita and Saleem Kidwai
81.Jump up ^ Throckmorton, Warren; Pattison, M. L. (June 2002). "Initial empirical and clinical findings concerning the change process for ex-gays". Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (American Psychological Association) 33 (3): 242–248. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.33.3.242.
82.Jump up ^ "Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation & Youth". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 2011-04-02.
83.Jump up ^ "Bachmann Silent on Allegations Her Clinic Offers Gay Conversion Therapy". ABC News. Retrieved June 13, 2011.
84.Jump up ^ Banerji, Robin (30 November 2012). "Gay-friendly 'mosque' opens in Paris". BBC News.
85.Jump up ^ Rowson, Everett K. (October 1991). "The Effeminates of Early Medina" (PDF). Journal of the American Oriental Society (American Oriental Society) 111 (4): 671–693. doi:10.2307/603399. JSTOR 603399.
86.Jump up ^ Barford, Vanessa (2008-02-25). "Iran's 'diagnosed transsexuals'". BBC News. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: LGBT in Islam
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Homosexuality and Islam.
Islam and homosexuality: Straight but narrow, The Economist, Feb 4th 2012
Homosexuality: What is the real sickness? Illustrative Article from AbdurRahman.org
Gay Rights: Who are the Real Enemies of Liberation?, Socialist Review
Imaan supports LGBT Muslim people, their families and friends (UK)
The StraightWay Foundation (UK)
Intolerant cruelty This special edition of Diabolic Digest explores the question of homosexuality in the Middle East.
Islamic law: (much) Theory and (just enough) Practice
Safra Project — Sexuality, Gender and Islam
Queer Sexuality and Identity in the Qur'an and Hadith, interpretation of Islamic texts in historical context
Sodomy in Islamic Jurisprudence (article in German; engl. Summary)
Sexuality and Eroticism Among Males in Moslem Societies by Arno Schmitt and Jehoeda Sofer (eds.), Harrington Park Press 1992
Islam and Homosexuality
Gay Travels in the Muslim World, an anthology of travel essays by gay Muslim and non-Muslim men; Luongo, Michael (ed.) Haworth Press
Islam and Homosexuality
Kotb, H.G.: Sexuality in Islam at the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology
Homosexuality in Urdu poetry: Tolerance in medieval India and early Islamic societies
lgbti.org Turkey LGBTI Union


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and religion topics


Overview
Homosexuality and religion ·
 Transgenderism and religion
 

Religions


Abrahamic
Bahá'í Faith ·
 Christianity  (Anglican ·
 Baptist ·
 LDS Church ·
 Lutheran ·
 Methodist ·
 Presbyterian ·
 Quaker ·
 Roman Catholic)
   ·
 Judaism ·
 Islam
 

Indian
Buddhism ·
 Hinduism  (Hare Krishna)
   ·
 Sikhism
 

Other
Scientology ·
 Unitarian Universalism ·
 Vodou ·
 Wicca ·
 Zoroastrianism
 


Other
LGBT-affirming religious groups  (Judaism ·
 Christianity)
   ·
 Ordination of LGBT clergy  (Judaism ·
 Christianity)
   ·
 Religious views on same-sex marriage  (Judaism ·
 Christianity)
   ·
 The Bible ·
 Hijra ·
 Two-Spirit ·
 Khanith
 

  


Categories: LGBT topics and Islam
Islamic criminal jurisprudence
Sharia
Sexuality in Islam
Sexual orientation and society
Intersectionality




















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
עברית
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
Português
Русский
Suomi
Svenska
Türkçe
اردو
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 23 April 2015, at 17:54.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam

















LGBT in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Islam and homosexuality)
Jump to: navigation, search


Unbalanced scales.svg
 The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (February 2012)



 Persian Shah Abbas with a page (1627).
LGBT and Islam is influenced by the religious, legal and cultural history of the nations with a sizable Muslim population, along with specific passages in the Qur'an[1] and statements attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (hadith). Hadiths traditionally are not interpreted because their language is understood to be simple matter-of-fact language. Orthodox Islam is not only a system of beliefs, but also a legal system.
The traditional schools of Islamic law based on Qur'anic verses and hadith consider homosexual acts a punishable crime and a sin, and influenced by Islamic scholars such as Imam Malik and Imam Shafi.[2] The Qur'an cites the story of the "people of Lot" destroyed by the wrath of God because they engaged in "lustful" carnal acts between men.[according to whom?]
Nevertheless, homoerotic themes were present in poetry and other literature written by some Muslims from the medieval period onwards and sometimes homoeroticism in the form of pederasty was seen in a positive way.[3]
Today in most of the Islamic world homosexuality is not socially or legally accepted. In some of these countries, Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty.[4][5][6][7][8] In others, such as Somalia, it is illegal.[9]
Same-sex sexual intercourse is legal in 19 Muslim-majority nations (Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Chad, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Niger, Northern Cyprus, Tajikistan, Turkey, West Bank (State of Palestine), and most of Indonesia). In Albania, Lebanon, and Turkey, there have been discussions about legalizing same-sex marriage.[10][11] Homosexual relations between females are legal in Kuwait, but homosexual acts between males are illegal. Lebanon has had recent internal efforts to legalize homosexuality.[12]
Most Muslim-majority countries have opposed moves to advance LGBT rights at the United Nations, in the General Assembly and/or the UNHRC. However, Albania and Sierra Leone have signed a UN Declaration supporting LGBT rights.[13][14] OIC member-state Mozambique provides LGBT rights protections in law in the form of non-discrimination laws, and discussions on legally recognizing same-sex marriage have been held in the country.[15][16]


Contents  [hide]
1 Law 1.1 Sharia punishments
1.2 The Quran
1.3 The Hadith and Seerah
1.4 Medieval jurisprudence
1.5 Rulings by modern scholars of Islam
2 Views of homosexuality in Islamic societies 2.1 Modern day 2.1.1 Rejection of homosexuality according to opinion polls
2.1.2 Sex between boys and men
2.1.3 Gay marriage
2.2 Medieval era
2.3 In literature
3 Legal status in nations 3.1 Homosexuality laws in majority Muslim countries
3.2 Homosexuality laws in India
4 LGBT movements within Islam
5 Gender variant and transgender people
6 See also 6.1 Rights activists
6.2 Other
7 Bibliography
8 Notes
9 External links

Law[edit]
Sharia punishments[edit]
There are several methods by which sharia jurists have advocated the punishment of gays or lesbians who are sexually active. One form of execution involves an LGBT person being stoned to death by a crowd of Muslims; this precedence was set in the hadith Abu Dawud (discretion advised; he has history of using da'if hadiths) which states "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done", then elaborates they be "stoned to death".[17] The majority of Muslim jurists established an ijma ruling that LGBT people be thrown from rooftops or high places,[18] and this is the perspective of most Salafists.[19]
The Quran[edit]
The Quran contains seven references to "the people of Lut", the biblical Lot, but meaning the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah (references 7:80–84, 11:77–83, 21:74, 22:43, 26:165–175, 27:56–59, and 29:27–33), and their destruction by Allah is associated explicitly with their sexual practices:[20][21][citation needed]

“And (We sent) Lot when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves). So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind. And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty.”[[http://quran.com/7/80
-84 7:80–84] (Translated by Shakir)]
The sins of the people of Lot became proverbial, and the Arabic words for homosexual behaviour (liwat) and for a person who performs such acts (luti) both derive from his name.[22] There is, however, only one passage in the Qur'an which can be interpreted as prescribing a legal position, and is not restricted to homosexual behaviour - in fact it deals with public practice of adultery:[23]

“And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them. And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.”[-16 4:15–16 (Translated by Shakir)]
Islamist journalist Muhammad Jalal Kishk found no prescribed punishment for homosexuality in Islamic law[24][25] Several modern day scholars, including Scott Kugle, argue for a different interpretation of the Lot narrative focusing not on the sexual act but on the infidelity of the tribe and their rejection of Lot's Prophethood.[26]
The Hadith and Seerah[edit]
The hadith (sayings and actions of Muhammad) show that homosexuality was not unknown in Arabia.[27] Given that the Qur'an is allegedly vague regarding the punishment of homosexual sodomy, Islamic jurists turned to the collections of the hadith and seerah (accounts of Muhammad's life) to support their argument for Hudud punishment.[27]
Ibn al-Jawzi records Muhammad as cursing sodomites in several hadith, and recommending the death penalty for both the active and passive partners in same-sex acts.[28]
Sunan al-Tirmidhi, compiling his work two centuries after the death of Muhammad, wrote that Muhammad had prescribed the death penalty for both the active and the passive partner: "Whoever you find committing the sin of the people of Lut (Lot), kill them, both the one who does it and the one to whom it is done."[2] The overall moral or theological principle is that a person who performs such actions (luti) challenges the harmony of God's creation, and is therefore a revolt against God.[22]
Al-Nuwayri in his Nihaya reports that Muhammad is alleged to have said what he feared most for his community were the practices of the people of Lot (although he seems to have expressed the same idea in regard to wine and female seduction).[27]

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.
— Sunan Abu Dawood, 38:4447 see also Sunan Abu Dawood, 38:4448 Sunan Abu Dawood, 31:4007 Sunan Abu Dawood, 31:4008 Sunan Abu Dawood, 11:2169 Sunan Abu Dawood, 32:4087 Sunan Abu Dawood, 32:4088

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet cursed effeminate men; those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, "Turn them out of your houses." The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman.
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:72:774 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:82:820
Medieval jurisprudence[edit]
The four schools of shari'a (Islamic law) disagreed on what punishment is appropriate for liwat. Abu Bakr Al-Jassas (d. 981 AD/370 AH) argued that the two hadiths on killing homosexuals "are not reliable by any means and no legal punishment can be prescribed based on them",[29] and the Hanafi school held that it does not merit any physical punishment, on the basis of a hadith that "Muslim blood can only be spilled for adultery, apostasy and homicide"; against this the Hanbali school inferred that sodomy is a form of adultery and must incur the same penalty, i.e. death.[22]
There were varying opinions on how the death penalty is to be carried out. Abu Bakr recommended toppling a wall on the evil-doer, or else burning alive,[30] while Ali bin Abi Talib ordered death by stoning for one "luti" and had another thrown head-first from the top of a minaret—according to Ibn Abbas, this last punishment must be followed by stoning.[27]
Rulings by modern scholars of Islam[edit]
With few exceptions all scholars of Sharia, or Islamic law, interpret homosexual activity as a punishable offence as well as a sin. There is no specific punishment prescribed, however, and this is usually left to the discretion of the local authorities on Islam.[31] Mohamed El-Moctar El-Shinqiti, a contemporary Mauritanian scholar, has argued that "[even though] homosexuality is a grievous sin...[a] no legal punishment is stated in the Qur'an for homosexuality...[b] it is not reported that Prophet Muhammad has punished somebody for committing homosexuality...[c] there is no authentic hadith reported from the Prophet prescribing a punishment for the homosexuals..." Hadith scholars such as Al-Bukhari, Yahya ibn Ma'in, Al-Nasa'i, Ibn Hazm, Al-Tirmidhi, and others have impugned these statements.[32]
Faisal Kutty, a professor of Islamic law at Indiana-based Valparaiso University Law School and Toronto-based Osgoode Hall Law School, commented on the contemporary same-sex marriage debate in a March 27, 2014 essay in the Huffington Post.[33] He acknowledged that while Islamic law iterations prohibits pre- and extra-marital as well as same-sex sexual activity, it does not attempt to "regulate feelings, emotions and urges, but only its translation into action that authorities had declared unlawful." Kutty, who teaches comparative law and legal reasoning, also wrote that many Islamic scholars [34] have "even argued that homosexual tendencies themselves were not haram [prohibited] but had to be suppressed for the public good." He claimed that this may not be "what the LGBTQ community wants to hear," but he wrote that, "it reveals that even classical Islamic jurists struggled with this issue and had a more sophisticated attitude than many contemporary Muslims." Kutty who in the past wrote in support of allowing Islamic principles in dispute resolution also noted that "most Muslims have no problem extending full human rights to those - even Muslims - who live together 'in sin'." He argued that therefore it seems hypocritical to deny fundamental rights to same-sex couples. Moreover, he argued as pointed out by Islamic legal scholar Mohamed Fadel,[35] this is not about changing Islamic marriage (nikah), but about making "sure that all citizens have access to the same kinds of public benefits.
Views of homosexuality in Islamic societies[edit]
Modern day[edit]



 Major denominations and religions of the world


LGBT rights at the United Nations v ·
 t ·
 e
  
     Support Countries which have signed a General Assembly declaration of LGBT rights and/or sponsored the Human Rights Council's 2011 resolution on LGBT rights (94 members).
     Oppose Countries which signed a 2008 statement opposing LGBT rights (initially 57 members, now 54 members).
     Neither Countries which, as regards the UN, have expressed neither official support nor opposition to LGBT rights (46 members).
During the Ottoman Empire, homosexuality was decriminalized in 1858, as part of wider reforms during the Tanzimat.[36][37]
Raphael Patai in The Arab Mind has argued that among some Arabs and Turks homosexuality can be justified as an expression of power. The "active homosexual act is considered as an assertion of one's aggressive masculine superiority, while the acceptance of the role of the passive homosexual is considered extremely degrading and shameful because it casts the man or youth into a submissive, feminine role".[38]
In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council passed its first resolution recognizing LGBT rights, which was followed up with a report from the UN Human Rights Commission documenting violations of the rights of LGBT people.[39][40] The two world maps of religions of the world and the countries that support LGBT rights at the UN give an impression of the official attitude towards homosexuality in the Muslim world.
Rejection of homosexuality according to opinion polls[edit]
In a study on the global acceptance of homosexuality by Pew Research Center, released June 4, 2013 it is stated:[41]

The survey of publics in 39 countries finds broad acceptance of homosexuality in North America, the European Union, and much of Latin America, but equally widespread rejection in predominantly Muslim nations and in Africa, as well as in parts of Asia and in Russia.
Age and views on homosexuality

Country
18-29
30-49
50+
Homosexuality
should be accepted
  %  %  %
Malaysia 7 10 11
Turkey 7 9 10
Palestinian territories 5 3 --
Indonesia 4 3 2
Jordan 5 1 1
Egypt 3 2 3
Tunisia 3 2 1
Pakistan 2 2 2
Source: "The Global Divide on Homosexuality" (WEBSITE). PEW Research. 4 June 2013. Retrieved 2013-09-13.
In the UK, a Gallup poll showed that none of the 500 British Muslims polled believed homosexuality to be "morally acceptable", compared with 35% of the 1001 French Muslims polled.[42] A 2007 survey of British Muslims showed that 61% believe homosexuality should be illegal, with up to 71% of young British Muslims holding this belief.[43] According to a 2012 poll, 51% of the Turks in Germany, who account for nearly two thirds of the total Muslim population in Germany,[44] believe that homosexuality is a sickness.[45]
Sex between boys and men[edit]
Despite the formal disapproval of religious authority, the segregation of women in Muslim societies and the strong emphasis on male virility leads adolescent males and unmarried young men to seek sexual outlets with boys younger than themselves—in one study in Morocco, with boys in the age-range 7 to 13.[46] Men have sex with other males so long as they are the penetrators and their partners are boys, or in some cases effeminate men.[47] Liwat is regarded as a temptation,[48] and anal intercourse is not seen as repulsively unnatural so much as dangerously attractive. They believe "one has to avoid getting buggered precisely in order not to acquire a taste for it and thus become addicted."[49] Not all sodomy is homosexual: one Moroccan sociologist, in a study of sex education in his native country, notes that for many young men heterosexual sodomy is considered better than vaginal penetration, and female prostitutes likewise report the demand for anal penetration from their (male) clients.[50]
It is not so much the penetration as the enjoyment that is considered bad.[51] Deep shame attaches to the passive partner: "for this reason men stop getting laid at the age of 15 or 16 and 'forget' that they ever allowed/suffered/enjoyed it earlier."[citation needed] Similar sexual sociologies are reported for other Muslim societies from North Africa to Pakistan and the Far East.[52] In Afghanistan in 2009, the British Army was forced to commission a report into the sexuality of the local men after British soldiers reported the discomfort at witnessing adult males involved in sexual relations with boys. The report stated that though illegal, there was a tradition of such relationships in the country, known as "bache bazi" or boy play, and that it was especially strong around North Afghanistan. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11217772
Gay marriage[edit]
In 2007 there was a gay party in the Moroccan town of al-Qasr al-Kabir. Rumours spread that this was a gay marriage and more than 600 people took to the streets, condemning the alleged event and protesting against leniency towards homosexuals.[53] Several persons who attended the party were detained and eventually six Moroccan men were sentenced to between four and ten months in prison for "homosexuality".[54]
In France there was an Islamic same-sex marriage on February 18, 2012.[55] In Paris in November 2012 a room in a Buddhist prayer hall was used by gay Muslims and called a "gay-friendly mosque",[56] and a French Islamic website [57] is supporting religious same-sex marriage.
The first American Muslim in the United States Congress, Keith Ellison (D-MN) said in 2010 that all discrimination against LGBT people is wrong.[58] He further expressed support for gay marriage stating:[59]

I believe that the right to marry someone who you please is so fundamental it should not be subject to popular approval any more than we should vote on whether blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus.
In 2014 eight men were jailed for three years by a Cairo court after the circulation of a video of them allegedly taking part in a private wedding ceremony between two men on a boat on the Nile.[60]
Medieval era[edit]



 Ottoman illustration depicting a young man used for group sex (from Sawaqub al-Manaquib)
Increasing prosperity resulting from Muslim conquests in the centuries following Muhammad's death was accompanied by what some Muslims bemoaned as a general "corruption" of morals in the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
Therefore, despite its condemnation by religious authorities, homosexuality persisted in a subterranean manner. It seems to have become less of a rarity as the process of acculturation sped up. Information relating to the development of music and song reveals the presence of mukhannathun, who were apparently for the most part of foreign origin. The arrival of the Abbasid army to Arabia in the 8th century seems to have meant that tolerance for homosexual practice subsequently spread more widely under the new dynasty. The ruler Al-Amin, for example, was said to have required slave women to be dressed in masculine clothing in the hope of inducing him to adopt more conventional morals.[27]
There are other examples from the following centuries. The Aghlabid Emir, Ibrahim II of Ifriqiya (ruled 875–902), was said to have been surrounded by some sixty catamites, yet whom he was said to have treated in a most horrific manner. Caliph al-Mutasim in the 9th century and some of his successors were accused of homosexuality. The popular stories says that Cordoba, Abd al-Rahman III had executed a young man from León who was held as a hostage, because he had refused his advances during the Reconquista.[27]
Mehmed the Conqueror, the Ottoman sultan living in the 15th century, European sources say "who was known to have ambivalent sexual tastes, sent a eunuch to the house of Notaras, demanding that he supply his good looking fourteen year old son for the Sultan’s pleasure. When he refused, the Sultan instantly ordered the decapitation of Notaras, together with that of his son and his son-in-law; and their three heads … were placed on the banqueting table before him".[61] Another youth Mehmed found attractive, and who was presumably more accommodating, was Radu III the Fair, the brother of the famous Vlad the Impaler, "Radu, a hostage in Istanbul whose good looks had caught the Sultan’s fancy, and who was thus singled out to serve as one of his most favored pages." After the defeat of Vlad, Mehmed placed Radu on the throne of Wallachia as a vassal ruler. However, Turkish sources deny these stories.[62]
The objectivity of the European sources that claim Mehmed had homosexual tendencies cannot always be verified. Commonly, contemporary writers would embellish stories to add sensual imagery and homosexual behavior and attribute them to Ottoman sultans in an attempt to rile up European opposition to the Ottomans. Furthermore, with regards to the story about Notaras' son, Ottoman sources assert that the boy was being recruited to be an iç oğlan, meaning an "inner servant". Mehmed employed a corps of inner servants, whose role was to serve in the innermost chambers of the palace, not for the sexual pleasure of the sultan.[63]
In literature[edit]
According to the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World

Whatever the legal strictures on sexual activity, the positive expression of male homeoerotic sentiment in literature was accepted, and assiduously cultivated, from the late eighth century until modern times. First in Arabic, but later also in Persian, Turkish and Urdu, love poetry by men about boys more than competed with that about women, it overwhelmed it. Anecdotal literature reinforces this impression of general societal acceptance of the public celebration of male-male love (which hostile Western caricatures of Islamic societies in medieval and early modern times simply exaggerate).[64]
Legal status in nations[edit]
The Ottoman Empire (predecessor of Turkey) decriminalizes homosexuality in 1858 and In Turkey where 99.8% of the population is Muslim, homosexuality has never criminalized since the day it has founded in 1923.[65] and LGBT people also have right to seek asylum to Turkey under the Geneva Convention since 1951.[66] On the other hand, The death penalty for homosexuality is currently in place in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, Mauritania, Sudan and northern Nigeria.[67][68] The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is that it is illegal and can get you the death penalty, but some regions just give jail time, mutilations, and fines. In Qatar, Algeria, Uzbekistan and the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time or fines. This has led to controversy regarding Qatar, which is due to stage the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Human rights groups have questioned the awarding in 2010 of the right to host the competition, due to the possibility that gay football fans may be jailed. In response, Sepp Blatter, head of FIFA, joked that they would have to "refrain from sexual activity" while in Qatar. He later withdrew the remarks after condemnation from rights groups.[69]
In Saudi Arabia, while the maximum punishment for homosexual acts is public execution, the government will generally use lesser punishments—e.g., fines, jail time, and whipping—as alternatives, unless it feels that individuals are challenging state authority by engaging in LGBT social movements.[70] Iran is perhaps the nation to execute the largest number of its citizens for homosexual acts. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, the Iranian government has executed more than 4,000 such people.[71]
In Egypt, openly gay men have been prosecuted under general public morality laws. (See Cairo 52.) In stark contrast, homosexuality is both legal[citation needed] and tolerated[citation needed] in Lebanon[citation needed] and other states in the Levant, like Palestine[citation needed], Jordan[citation needed].
In 20 out of 57 Muslim-majority nations same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. In Albania there have been discussions about legalizing same-sex marriage.[10] Homosexual relations between females are legal in Kuwait but homosexual acts between males are illegal. Lebanon has an internal effort to legalize homosexuality.[12]
Homosexuality laws in majority Muslim countries[edit]
Main article: LGBT rights by country or territory
According to the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) seven countries still retain capital punishment for homosexual behavior: Afghanistan, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen. The situation in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is that is punished by corporal or capital punishment, depending on the region.[72]
Homosexuality laws in India[edit]
In India, where Muslims form a large minority, the largest Islamic seminary (Darul Uloom Deoband) has vehemently opposed recent government moves[73] to abrogate and liberalize laws from the British Raj era that banned homosexuality.[74]
LGBT movements within Islam[edit]



 Float for gay Muslims at Pride London 2011.
The Al-Fatiha Foundation is an organization which tries to advance the cause of gay, lesbian, and transgender Muslims.[citation needed] It was founded in 1998 by Faisal Alam, a Pakistani American, and is registered as a nonprofit organization in the United States. The organization was an offshoot of an internet listserve that brought together many gay, lesbian and questioning Muslims from various countries.[75] The Foundation accepts and considers homosexuality as natural, either regarding Qur'anic verses as obsolete in the context of modern society, or stating that the Qu'ran speaks out against homosexual lust and is silent on homosexual love. In 2001, Al-Muhajiroun, a banned and now defunct international organization who sought the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate, issued a fatwa declaring that all members of Al-Fatiha were murtadd, or apostates, and condemning them to death. Because of the threat and coming from conservative societies, many members of the foundation's site still prefer to be anonymous so as to protect their identity while continuing a tradition of secrecy.[76] Al-Fatiha has fourteen chapters in the United States, as well as offices in England, Canada, Spain, Turkey, and South Africa. In addition, Imaan, a social support group for Muslim LGBT people and their families, exists in the UK.[77] Both of these groups were founded by gay Pakistani activists. The UK also has the Safra Project for women.
Some Muslims such as the lesbian writer Irshad Manji[78] and academic author Scott Kugle argue that Islam does not condemn homosexuality.[79] Kugle, South Asian scholar and author Ruth Vanita, and Muslim scholar and writer Saleem Kidwai also contend that ancient Islam has a rich history of homoerotic literature.[80]
There are also a number of Islamic ex-gay (i.e. people claiming to have experienced a basic change in sexual orientation from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality)[81] groups aimed at attempting to guide homosexuals towards heterosexuality. A large body of research and global scientific consensus indicates that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. Because of this, major mental health professional organizations discourage and caution individuals against attempting to change their sexual orientation to heterosexual, and warn that attempting to do so can be harmful.[82][83]
The religious conflicts and inner turmoil that Islamic homosexuals struggle over has been addressed in various media, such as the 2006 Channel 4 documentary Gay Muslims, and the 2007 documentary film A Jihad for Love. The latter was produced by Sandi Simcha DuBowski, who also made a Jewish-themed documentary on the same topic (Trembling Before G-d) 6 years before.
In November 2012, a prayer room was set up in Paris by gay Islamic scholar and founder of the group 'Homosexual Muslims of France' Ludovic-Mohamed Zahed. It was described by the press as the first gay-friendly mosque in Europe, but traditional Islamic scholars disagree.[84]
Gender variant and transgender people[edit]
In Islam, the term mukhannathun is used to describe gender-variant people, usually male-to-female transgender. Neither this term nor the equivalent for "eunuch" occurs in the Qur'an, but the term does appear in the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad, which have a secondary status to the central text. Moreover, within Islam, there is a tradition on the elaboration and refinement of extended religious doctrines through scholarship. This doctrine contains a passage by the scholar and hadith collector An-Nawawi:

A mukhannath is the one ("male") who carries in his movements, in his appearance and in his language the characteristics of a woman. There are two types; the first is the one in whom these characteristics are innate, he did not put them on by himself, and therein is no guilt, no blame and no shame, as long as he does not perform any (illicit) act or exploit it for money (prostitution etc.). The second type acts like a woman out of immoral purposes and he is the sinner and blameworthy.[85]
While Iran has outlawed homosexuality, Iranian Shi'a thinkers such as Ayatollah Khomeini have allowed for transgender people to change their sex so that they can enter heterosexual relationships. This position has been confirmed by the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and is also supported by many other Iranian clerics.
Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand. It is regarded as a cure for homosexuality, which is punishable by death under Iranian law. The government even provides up to half the cost for those needing financial assistance and a sex change is recognized on the birth certificate.[86]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Islam portal
Portal icon LGBT portal
StraightWay Foundation, an ex-gay foundation for muslims
Islamic religious police
LGBT in the Middle East
Transsexuality in Iran
Rights activists[edit]
Afdhere Jama, editor of Huriyah
Arsham Parsi, Iranian LGBT activist
El-Farouk Khaki, founder of Salaam, the first homosexual Muslim group in Canada
Faisal Alam, Pakistani American founder of Al-Fatiha Foundation
Irshad Manji, Canadian lesbian and human rights activist
Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni
Maryam Hatoon Molkara, campaigner for transsexual rights in Iran
Waheed Alli, Baron Alli, British gay politician
Other[edit]
A Jihad for Love, documentary about devout gay Muslims
Bacchá
Festival of Muslim Cultures
Gay Muslims, documentary
Ghilman
Inclusive Mosque Initiative
Köçek
Malik Ayaz
Nazar ila'l-murd
Bibliography[edit]
Dialmy, Abdessamad (2010). Which Sex Education for Young Muslims?. World Congress of Muslim Philanthropists.
Habib, Samar (1997). Islam and Homosexuality, vol.2. ABC-CLIO.
Jahangir, Junaid bin (2010). "Implied Cases for Muslim Same-Sex Unions". In Samar Habib. Islam and homosexuality, Volume 2. ABC-CLIO.
(German) Georg Klauda: Die Vertreibung aus dem Serail. Europa und die Heteronormierung der islamischen Welt. Männerschwarm Verlag, Hamburg 2008, ISBN 978-3-939542-34-6. See pages at Google Books.
Schmitt, Arno; Sofer, Jehoeda (1992). Sexuality and Eroticism among Males in Muslim Societies. Haworth Press.
Schmitt, Arno (Volume IV, 2001-2002). Liwat im Fiqh: Männliche Homosexualität?. Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies. Check date values in: |date= (help)
Van Jivraj, Suhraiya; de Jong, Anisa (2001). Muslim Moral Instruction on Homosexuality (PDF). Yoesuf Foundation Conference on Islam in the West and Homosexuality – Strategies for Action.
Wafer, Jim (1997). "Mohammad and Male Homosexuality". In Stephen O. Murray & Will Roscoe. Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History and Literature. New York University Press.
Duran, Khalid. Homosexuality in Islam, in: Swidler, Anne (ed.) "Homosexuality and World Religions" (1993). Trinity Press International, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. ISBN 1-56338-051-X
Endsjø, Dag Øistein, Sex and Religion. Teachings and Taboos in the History of World Faiths. Reaktion Books 2011.
Kilgerman, Nicole (2007). Homosexuality in Islam: A Difficult Paradox. Macalester Islam Journal 2(3):52-64, Berkeley Electronic press.
Khaled El-Rouayheb, Before Homosexuality in the Arab–Islamic World, 1500–1800 Chicago, 2009. ISBN 978-0-226-72989-3.
Luongo, Michael (ed.), Gay Travels in the Muslim World Haworth Press, 2007. ISBN 978-1-56023-340-4.
Everett K. Rowson, J.W. Wright (eds.), Homoeroticism in Classical Arabic Literature New York, 1997
Arno Schmitt and Jehoeda Sofer (eds.), Sexuality and Eroticism Among Males in Moslem Societies Harrington Park Press 1992
Arno Schmitt and Gianni de Martino, Kleine Schriften zu zwischenmännlicher Sexualität und Erotik in der muslimischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, Gustav-Müller-Str. 10 : A. Schmitt, 1985
Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe (eds.), "Islamic Homosexualities: culture, history, and literature" NYU Press New York 1997
Wafer, Jim (1997) "Muhammad and Male Homosexuality" in "Islamic Homosexualities: culture, history, and literature" by Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe (eds.), NYU Press New York
Wafer, Jim (1997) "The Symbolism of Male Love in Islamic Mysthical Literature" in "Islamic Homosexualities: culture, history, and literature" by Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe (eds.), NYU Press New York 1997
Vincenzo Patanè, "Homosexuality in the Middle East and North Africa" in: Aldrich, Robert (ed.) Gay Life and Culture: A World History, Thames & Hudson, London, 2006
[Pellat, Charles.] “Liwat”. Encyclopedia of Islam. New edition. Vol. 5. Leiden: Brill, 1986. pp. 776–79.
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "The Qu'ran and Homosexuality". Internet History Sourcebooks Project. Fordham University. Retrieved 7 November 2013. "Richard Burton suggests the following Qu'ranic verses as relevant to homosexuality:"
2.^ Jump up to: a b [1][dead link]
3.Jump up ^ Khaled El-Rouayheb. Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World 1500–1800. pp. 12 ff.
4.Jump up ^ [2][dead link]
5.Jump up ^ Abu Dawud 32:4087
6.Jump up ^ Sahih Bukhari 7:72:774
7.Jump up ^ Ibn Majah Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1903
8.Jump up ^ "UK party leaders back global gay rights campaign". BBC Online. 13 September 2011. Retrieved 7 November 2013. "At present, homosexuality is illegal in 76 countries, including 38 within the Commonwealth. At least five countries - the Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania and Sudan - have used the death penalty against gay people."
9.Jump up ^ The Politics of Homosexuality in Africa
10.^ Jump up to: a b Lowen, Mark (2009-07-30). "Albania 'to approve gay marriage'". BBC News. Retrieved 2013-04-22.
11.Jump up ^ Rough Guide to South East Asia: Third Edition. Rough Guides Ltd. August 2005. p. 74. ISBN 1-84353-437-1.
12.^ Jump up to: a b "Helem". Helem. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
13.Jump up ^ http://www.amnesty.org/es/library/asset/IOR40/024/2008/en/269de167-d107-11dd-984e-fdc7ffcd27a6/ior400242008en.pdf/
14.Jump up ^ "Over 80 Nations Support Statement at Human Rights Council on LGBT Rights » US Mission Geneva". Geneva.usmission.gov. Retrieved 2013-04-22.
15.Jump up ^ "afrol News - Mozambique discovers its gay minority". Afrol.com. Retrieved 2013-04-22.
16.Jump up ^ "Gay Mozambique News & Reports". Archive.globalgayz.com. Retrieved 2013-04-22.
17.Jump up ^ The Hudud: The Hudud are the Seven Specific Crimes in Islamic Criminal Law and Their Mandatory Punishments, 1995 Muhammad Sidahmad
18.Jump up ^ Stonebanks, Christopher Darius (2010). Teaching Against Islamophobia. p. 190.
19.Jump up ^ Tax, Meredith (2010). Double Bind. p. 46.
20.Jump up ^ Duran (1993) p. 179
21.Jump up ^ Kligerman (2007) pp. 53–54
22.^ Jump up to: a b c Wayne Dynes, Encyclopaedia of Homosexuality, New York, 1990.
23.Jump up ^ Wafer, Jim (1997). "Muhammad and Male Homosexuality". In Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe. Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History and Literature. New York University Press. p. 88. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
24.Jump up ^ A Muslim's Thoughts about the Sexual Question, (1984)
25.Jump up ^ Massad, Joseph Andoni (2007). Desiring Arabs. University of Chicago Press. pp. 203–4.
26.Jump up ^ Kugle, Scott (2010). Homosexuality in Islam. Oxford, England: Oneworld Publications. pp. 42–49.
27.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Ed. C. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Leiden, 1983
28.Jump up ^ Wafer, Jim (1997). "Muhammad and Male Homosexuality". In Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe. Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History and Literature. New York University Press. p. 89. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
29.Jump up ^ [3][dead link]
30.Jump up ^ Wafer, Jim (1997). "Muhammad and Male Homosexuality". In Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe. Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History and Literature. New York University Press. pp. 89–90. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
31.Jump up ^ Duran, K. (1993). Homosexuality in Islam, p. 184. Cited in: Kligerman (2007) p. 54.
32.Jump up ^ "Threats to Behead Homosexuals: Shari`ah or Politics? - Disciplinary Penalties (ta`zir) - counsels". OnIslam.net. Retrieved 2013-04-22.
33.Jump up ^ "Why Gay Marriage May Not Be Contrary To Islam". Huffingtonpost.ca. Retrieved 2014-03-29.
34.Jump up ^ "The Homosexual Challenge to Muslim Ethics". Lamppostproductions.com. Retrieved 2014-03-29.
35.Jump up ^ "On Same-Sex Marriage". Islawmix.org. Retrieved 2014-03-29.
36.Jump up ^ Tehmina Kazi (7 Oct 2011). "The Ottoman empire's secular history undermines sharia claims". UK Guardian.
37.Jump up ^ Ishtiaq Hussain (15 Feb 2011). "The Tanzimat: Secular Reforms in the Ottoman Empire" (PDF). Faith Matters.
38.Jump up ^ Patai, The Arab Mind, p. 33
39.Jump up ^ Jordans, Frank (June 17, 2011). "U.N. Gay Rights Protection Resolution Passes, Hailed As 'Historic Moment'". Associated Press.
40.Jump up ^ "UN issues first report on human rights of gay and lesbian people". United Nations. 15 December 2011.
41.Jump up ^ Pew Research Center: The Global Divide on Homosexuality retrieved 9 June 2013
42.Jump up ^ Butt, Riazat (2009-05-07). "Muslims in Britain have zero tolerance of homosexuality, says poll". The Guardian (London).
43.Jump up ^ http://dvmx.com/British_Muslim_Youth.pdf
44.Jump up ^ Bundesministerium des Inneren: Zusammenfassung "Muslimisches Leben in Deutschland", p. 2
45.Jump up ^ Liljeberg Research International: Deutsch-Türkische Lebens- und Wertewelten 2012, July/August 2012, p. 73
46.Jump up ^ Schmitt&Sofer, p.36
47.Jump up ^ Schmitt&Sofer, pp.x-xi
48.Jump up ^ Habib, p.287
49.Jump up ^ Arno Schmitt, Jehoeda Sofer, "Sexuality and Eroticism among Males in Muslim Societies" (The Haworth Press, 1992) p.8. Books.google.com.au. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
50.Jump up ^ Dialmy, pp.32 and 35, footnote 34
51.Jump up ^ Schmitt&Sofer, p.7
52.Jump up ^ Murray&Roscoe, passim
53.Jump up ^ Al Arabiya: "Moroccan "bride" detained for gay wedding"
54.Jump up ^ Al Arabiya: "Morocco sentences gay ‘bride’ to jail"
55.Jump up ^ France 24 - Concilier islam et homosexualité, le combat de Ludovic-Mohamed Zahed - Gaëlle LE ROUX
56.Jump up ^ Gay-friendly 'mosque' opens in Paris retrieved 12 February 2013
57.Jump up ^ Homosexuel-musulmans.org - Association nationale Homosexuel-le-s musulman-e-s de France
58.Jump up ^ Bradlee Dean: Keith Ellison is advancing Sharia law through ‘homosexual agenda’ retrieved 15 January 2013
59.Jump up ^ Keith Ellison: Minnesota Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Will Fail retrieved 16 January 2013
60.Jump up ^ Tadros, Sherine (6 November 2014). "Crackdown As Men Jailed Over 'Gay Wedding'". Retrieved 13 November 2014.
61.Jump up ^ Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries, pp. 115–16.
62.Jump up ^ History of the Ottoman Empire, Mohamed Farid Bey
63.Jump up ^ Akgündüz, Ahmed (2011). Ottoman History: Misperceptions and Truths. Rotterdam: IUR Press. p. 130. ISBN 975-7268-28-3.
64.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, MacMillan Reference USA, 2004, p.316
65.Jump up ^ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/07/ottoman-empire-secular-history-sharia?newsfeed=true. Missing or empty |title= (help)
66.Jump up ^ http://ilga-europe.org/home/issues/asylum_in_europe/country_by_country/tr. Missing or empty |title= (help)
67.Jump up ^ "7 countries still put people to death for same-sex acts". ILGA. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
68.Jump up ^ "Homosexuality and Islam". ReligionFacts. 2005-07-19. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
69.Jump up ^ Fifa boss Sepp Blatter sorry for Qatar 'gay' remarks, BBC
70.Jump up ^ "Is Beheading Really the Punishment for Homosexuality in Saudi Arabia?". Sodomylaws.org. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
71.Jump up ^ "Homosexuality and Religion".
72.Jump up ^ LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates
73.Jump up ^ India to repeal anti-gay law as second Gay Pride is held, The Times
74.Jump up ^ After Deoband, other Muslim leaders condemn homosexuality, Times of India
75.Jump up ^ "Cyber Mecca", The Advocate, March 14, 2000
76.Jump up ^ Tim Herbert, "Queer chronicles", Weekend Australian, October 7, 2006, Qld Review Edition.
77.Jump up ^ "Home". Imaan.org.uk. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
78.Jump up ^ [4][dead link]
79.Jump up ^ [5][dead link]
80.Jump up ^ Queer India: Gay historians: Ruth Vanita and Saleem Kidwai
81.Jump up ^ Throckmorton, Warren; Pattison, M. L. (June 2002). "Initial empirical and clinical findings concerning the change process for ex-gays". Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (American Psychological Association) 33 (3): 242–248. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.33.3.242.
82.Jump up ^ "Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation & Youth". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 2011-04-02.
83.Jump up ^ "Bachmann Silent on Allegations Her Clinic Offers Gay Conversion Therapy". ABC News. Retrieved June 13, 2011.
84.Jump up ^ Banerji, Robin (30 November 2012). "Gay-friendly 'mosque' opens in Paris". BBC News.
85.Jump up ^ Rowson, Everett K. (October 1991). "The Effeminates of Early Medina" (PDF). Journal of the American Oriental Society (American Oriental Society) 111 (4): 671–693. doi:10.2307/603399. JSTOR 603399.
86.Jump up ^ Barford, Vanessa (2008-02-25). "Iran's 'diagnosed transsexuals'". BBC News. Retrieved 2010-07-24.
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: LGBT in Islam
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Homosexuality and Islam.
Islam and homosexuality: Straight but narrow, The Economist, Feb 4th 2012
Homosexuality: What is the real sickness? Illustrative Article from AbdurRahman.org
Gay Rights: Who are the Real Enemies of Liberation?, Socialist Review
Imaan supports LGBT Muslim people, their families and friends (UK)
The StraightWay Foundation (UK)
Intolerant cruelty This special edition of Diabolic Digest explores the question of homosexuality in the Middle East.
Islamic law: (much) Theory and (just enough) Practice
Safra Project — Sexuality, Gender and Islam
Queer Sexuality and Identity in the Qur'an and Hadith, interpretation of Islamic texts in historical context
Sodomy in Islamic Jurisprudence (article in German; engl. Summary)
Sexuality and Eroticism Among Males in Moslem Societies by Arno Schmitt and Jehoeda Sofer (eds.), Harrington Park Press 1992
Islam and Homosexuality
Gay Travels in the Muslim World, an anthology of travel essays by gay Muslim and non-Muslim men; Luongo, Michael (ed.) Haworth Press
Islam and Homosexuality
Kotb, H.G.: Sexuality in Islam at the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology
Homosexuality in Urdu poetry: Tolerance in medieval India and early Islamic societies
lgbti.org Turkey LGBTI Union


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and religion topics


Overview
Homosexuality and religion ·
 Transgenderism and religion
 

Religions


Abrahamic
Bahá'í Faith ·
 Christianity  (Anglican ·
 Baptist ·
 LDS Church ·
 Lutheran ·
 Methodist ·
 Presbyterian ·
 Quaker ·
 Roman Catholic)
   ·
 Judaism ·
 Islam
 

Indian
Buddhism ·
 Hinduism  (Hare Krishna)
   ·
 Sikhism
 

Other
Scientology ·
 Unitarian Universalism ·
 Vodou ·
 Wicca ·
 Zoroastrianism
 


Other
LGBT-affirming religious groups  (Judaism ·
 Christianity)
   ·
 Ordination of LGBT clergy  (Judaism ·
 Christianity)
   ·
 Religious views on same-sex marriage  (Judaism ·
 Christianity)
   ·
 The Bible ·
 Hijra ·
 Two-Spirit ·
 Khanith
 

  


Categories: LGBT topics and Islam
Islamic criminal jurisprudence
Sharia
Sexuality in Islam
Sexual orientation and society
Intersectionality




















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
עברית
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
Português
Русский
Suomi
Svenska
Türkçe
اردو
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 23 April 2015, at 17:54.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam



























Relationship between religion and science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Science and religion)
Jump to: navigation, search

The relationship between religion and science has been a subject of study since Classical antiquity, addressed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others. Perspectives from different geographical regions, cultures and historical epochs show significant diversity, with some characterizing the relationship as one of conflict, others describing it as one of harmony, and still others proposing little interaction.
Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness. These methodologies are totally different. They are diametrically opposed. Reason, empiricism, and evidence simply do not recognize revelation, faith, and sacredness as valid sources of knowledge. Further, revelation, faith, and sacredness, which are examples of religious dogma, only accept conflicting scientific opinion when the evidence becomes overwhelmingly accepted by the general public.
Despite these differences, most scientific and technical innovations prior to the Scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Many features of the scientific method were first pioneered by ancient civilizations such as the Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, and Sumerians. Later during the Middle Ages, the Catholic church was responsible for saving much of the scientific knowledge from these civilizations, thus allowing the scientific method to develop in Europe during and after the Renaissance and through the enlightenment period. Islam also made great contributions to areas such as Mathematics, and Astronomy. Many of the most noted scientists in history, such as Blaise Pascal, Copernicus, and the founder of modern genetics Gregor Mendel, were devout Christians. The Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Jesuit priest named Georges Lemaître. Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world[citation needed]. Confucian thought has held different views of science over time. Most Buddhists today view science as complementary to their beliefs.
Events in Europe such as the Galileo affair, associated with the Scientific revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, led scholars such as John William Draper to postulate a conflict thesis, holding that religion and science conflict methodologically, factually and politically. This thesis is advanced by contemporary scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg and Carl Sagan, as well as by many creationists. While the conflict thesis remains popular for the public, it has lost favor among most contemporary historians of science.[1][2][3][4]
Many theologians, philosophers and scientists in history have found no conflict between their faith and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould, other scientists, and some contemporary theologians hold that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Scientists Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller, John Polkinghorne, Denis Alexander and Francis Collins see no necessary conflict between religion and science. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between them.
Public acceptance of scientific facts may be influenced by religion; many in the United States reject the idea of evolution by natural selection, especially regarding human beings. Nevertheless, the American National Academy of Sciences has written that "the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith," a view officially endorsed by many religious denominations globally.[5]


Contents  [hide]
1 Perspectives 1.1 Incompatibility
1.2 Conflict thesis
1.3 Independence 1.3.1 Parallels in method
1.4 Dialogue
1.5 Cooperative
2 Bahá'í
3 Buddhism
4 Christianity 4.1 Individual scientists' beliefs
4.2 Perspectives on evolution
4.3 Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century
4.4 Roman Catholicism
4.5 Influence of a biblical world view on early modern science
5 Confucianism and traditional Chinese religion
6 Hinduism
7 Islam 7.1 Ahmadiyya
8 Jainism
9 Perspectives from the scientific community 9.1 History
9.2 Studies on scientists' beliefs
10 Public perceptions of science
11 See also
12 Notes
13 References
14 Further reading
15 External links

Perspectives[edit]



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


 According to Richard Dawkins, "not only is science corrosive to religion; religion is corrosive to science. It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural non-explanations and blinds them to the wonderful real explanations that we have within our grasp. It teaches them to accept authority, revelation and faith instead of always insisting on evidence."[6]
The kinds of interactions that might arise between science and religion have been categorized, according to theologian, Anglican priest and physicist John Polkinghorne are: (1) conflict between the disciplines, (2) independence of the disciplines, (3) dialogue between the disciplines where they overlap and (4) integration of both into one field.[7]
This typology is similar to ones used by theologians Ian Barbour[8] and John Haught.[9] More typologies that categorize this relationship can be found among the works of other science and religion scholars such as theologian and biochemist Arthur Peacocke.[10]
Incompatibility[edit]
According to Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C and Avelina Espinosa, the historical conflicts between science and religion are intrinsic to the incompatibility between scientific rationalism/empiricism and the belief in supernatural causation;[11] these authors have formally proposed the incompatibility hypothesis (IH) to explain the "everlasting-conflict-science-and-faith".[12] According to Jerry Coyne, views on evolution and levels of religiosity in some countries, along with the existence of books explaining reconciliation between evolution and religion, indicate that people have trouble in believing both at the same time, thus implying incompatibility.[13] According to Lawrence Krauss, compatibility or incompatibility is a theological concern, not a scientific concern.[13] In Lisa Randall's view, questions of incompatibility or otherwise are not answerable since by accepting revelations one is abandoning rules of logic which are needed to identify if there are indeed contradictions between holding certain beliefs.[13] Daniel Dennett holds that incompatibility exists because religion is not problematic to a certain point before it collapses into a number of excuses for keeping certain beliefs, in light of evolutionary implications.[13]
According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, the central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing. Because of this both are incompatible as currently practiced and the debate of compatibility or incompatibility will be eternal.[14][15] Philosopher and physicist Victor J. Stenger's view is that science and religion are incompatible due to conflicts between approaches of knowing and the availability of alternative plausible natural explanations for phenomena that is usually explained in religious contexts.[16] Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris views science and religion as being in competition, with religion now "losing the argument with modernity".[17] However, Harris disagrees with Jerry Coyne and Daniel Dennett's narrow view of the debate and argues that it is very easy for people to reconcile science and religion because some things are above strict reason, scientific expertise or domains do not spill over to religious expertise or domains necessarily, and mentions "There simply IS no conflict between religion and science."[13]
According to Richard Dawkins, he is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect".[18] He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.[19]
Others such as Francis Collins, Kenneth R. Miller, George Coyne and Francisco J. Ayala argue for compatibility since they do not agree that science is incompatible with religion and vice versa. They argue that science provides many opportunities to look for and find God in nature and to reflect on their beliefs.[20] According to Kenneth Miller, he disagrees with Jerry Coyne's assessment and argues that since significant portions of scientists are religious and the proportion of Americans believing in evolution is much higher, it implies that both are indeed compatible.[13] Karl Giberson argues that when discussing compatibility, some scientific intellectuals often ignore the viewpoints of intellectual leaders in theology and instead argue against less informed masses, thereby, defining religion by non intellectuals and slanting the debate unjustly. He argues that leaders in science sometimes trump older scientific baggage and that leaders in theology do the same, so once theological intellectuals are taken into account, people who represent extreme positions like Ken Ham and Eugene Scott will become irrelevant.[13]
Conflict thesis[edit]
Main article: 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's and Andrew Dickson White's accounts. It was in the 19th century that relationship between science and religion became an actual formal topic of discourse, while before this no one had pitted science against religion or vice versa, though occasional complex interactions had been expressed before the 19th century.[21] Most contemporary historians of science now reject the conflict thesis in its original form and no longer support it.[1][2][3][22] Instead, it has been superseded by subsequent historical research which has resulted in a more nuanced understanding:[23][24] Historian of science, Gary Ferngren, has stated "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."[25]
Most historians today have moved away from a conflict model, which is based mainly on two historical episodes (Galileo and Darwin) for a "complexity" model, because religious figures were on both sides of each dispute and there was no overall aim by any party involved to discredit religion.[26]
An often cited example of conflict was the Galilio affair, whereby interpretations of the Bible were used to attack ideas by Copernicus on Heliocentrism. By 1616 Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade Catholic Church authorities not to ban Copernicus' ideas. In the end, a decree of the Congregation of the Index was issued, declaring that the ideas that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved were "false" and "altogether contrary to Holy Scripture", and suspending Copernicus's De Revolutionibus until it could be corrected. Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[27] However, before all this, Pope Urban VIII had personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in a book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism as physically proven yet. Pope Urban VIII asked that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often portrayed as an unlearned fool who lacked mathematical training. Although the preface of his book claims that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton".[28] Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.[29] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the physical Copernican advocacy. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.[30]
Independence[edit]
In the view of physicist and Hindu monk Mauricio Garrido non-Euclidean geometry proved that Euclidean axioms, such as "there is only one straight line between two points", which were considered self-evident, absolute truths until the 19th century, are in fact interchangeable with different axioms. Therefore, claims by any ideology to exclusive truth, proved by reason or by any other method are obviously wrong.[31]
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.[32] 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.[33]
The USA's National Academy of Science supports the view that science and religion are independent.[34]

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to put science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.[34]
According to Archbishop John Habgood, both science and religion represent distinct ways of approaching experience and these differences are sources of debate. He views science as descriptive and religion as prescriptive. He stated that if science and mathematics concentrate on what the world ought to be, in the way that religion does, it may lead to improperly ascribing properties to the natural world as happened among the followers of Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C.[35] In contrast, proponents of a normative moral science take issue with the idea that science has no way of guiding "oughts". Habgood also stated that he believed that 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 Ptolemic (heliocentric) planetary model that held sway until changes in scientific and religious thinking were brought about by Galileo and proponents of his views.[35]
Parallels in method[edit]
According to Ian Barbour, 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.[36]
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. Polanyi 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.[36] Polanyi added that the scientist often merely follows intuitions of "intellectual beauty, symmetry, and 'empirical agreement'".[36] Polanyi held that science requires moral commitments similar to those found in religion.[36]
Two physicists, Charles A. Coulson and Harold K. Schilling, both claimed that "the methods of science and religion have much in common."[36] Schilling asserted that both fields—science and religion—have "a threefold structure—of experience, theoretical interpretation, and practical application."[36] 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."[36] Religious language and scientific language also show parallels (cf. rhetoric of science).
Dialogue[edit]



Clerks studying astronomy and geometry (France, early 15th century).
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."[37][38] 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, theologians, and engaged non-professionals.[38][not in citation given] 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, the Ian Ramsey Centre,[39] and the Faraday Institute. Journals addressing the relationship between science and religion include Theology and Science and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science. Eugenie Scott has written that the "science and religion" movement is, overall, composed mainly of theists who have a healthy respect for science and may be beneficial to the public understanding of science. She contends that the "Christian scholarship" movement is not a problem for science, but that the "Theistic science" movement, which proposes abandoning methodological materialism, does cause problems in understanding of the nature of science.[40]
The modern dialogue between religion and science is rooted in Ian Barbour's 1966 book Issues in Science and Religion.[41] Since that time it has grown into 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.[41] Articles are also sometimes found in mainstream science journals such as American Journal of Physics[42] and Science.[43][44]
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued that there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion, and that there is deep conflict between science and naturalism.[45] Plantinga, in his book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, heavily contests the linkage of naturalism with science, as conceived by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and like-minded thinkers; while Daniel Dennett thinks that Plantinga stretches science to an unacceptable extent.[46] Philosopher Maarten Boudry, in reviewing the book, has commented that he resorts to creationism and fails to "stave off the conflict between theism and evolution."[47] Cognitive scientist Justin L. Barrett, by contrast, reviews the same book and writes that "those most needing to hear Plantinga's message may fail to give it a fair hearing for rhetorical rather than analytical reasons."[48]
Cooperative[edit]
As a general view, this holds that while interactions are complex between influences of science, theology, politics, social, and economic concerns, the productive engagements between science and religion throughout history should be duly stressed as the norm.
Scientific and theological perspectives often coexist peacefully. Christians and some non-Christian religions 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.[35] According to Lawrence M. Principe, the Johns Hopkins University Drew Professor of the Humanities, from a historical perspective this points out that much of the current-day clashes occur between limited extremists—both religious and scientistic fundamentalists—over a very few topics, and that the movement of ideas back and forth between scientific and theological thought has been more usual.[49] To Principe, this perspective would point to the fundamentally common respect for written learning in religious traditions of rabbinical literature, Christian theology, and the Islamic Golden Age, including a Transmission of the Classics from Greek to Islamic to Christian traditions which helped spark the Renaissance. Religions have also given key participation in development of modern universities and libraries; centers of learning & scholarship were coincident with religious institutions - whether pagan, Muslim, or Christian.[50]
Bahá'í[edit]
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.[51][52][53]
Buddhism[edit]
Main article: Buddhism and science
Buddhism and science have been regarded as compatible by numerous authors.[54] Some philosophic and psychological teachings found in Buddhism share points in common 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. Buddhism and science both show a strong emphasis on causality. However, Buddhism doesn't focus on materialism.[55]
Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, maintains that empirical scientific evidence supersedes the traditional teachings of Buddhism when the two are in conflict. In his book The Universe in a Single Atom he wrote, "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science, so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation." and "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false," he says, "then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."[56][57]
Christianity[edit]



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


 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.
Most sources of knowledge available to early Christians were connected to pagan world-views. There were various opinions on how Christianity should regard pagan learning, which included its ideas about nature. For instance, among early Christian teachers, Tertullian (c. 160–220) held a generally negative opinion of Greek philosophy, while Origen (c. 185–254) regarded it much more favorably and required his students to read nearly every work available to them.[58]



 Clerks studying astronomy and geometry.
 France, early 15th century.
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.[35] 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.[35] Robert John Russell has examined consonance and dissonance between modern physics, evolutionary biology, and Christian theology.[59][60]
Christian philosophers Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and Thomas Aquinas[61] held that scriptures can have multiple interpretations on certain areas where the matters were far beyond their reach, therefore one should leave room for future findings to shed light on the meanings. The "Handmaiden" tradition, which saw secular studies of the universe as a very important and helpful part of arriving at a better understanding of scripture, was adopted throughout Christian history from early on.[62] Also the sense that God created the world as a self operating system is what motivated many Christians throughout the Middle Ages to investigate nature.[63]
Modern historians of science such as J.L. Heilbron,[64] Alistair Cameron Crombie, David Lindberg,[65] Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein,[66] and Ted Davis have reviewed the popular notion that medieval Christianity was a negative influence in the development of civilization and science. In their views, not only did the monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions, but the medieval church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of many universities which, under its leadership, grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's "model theologian", not only argued that reason is in harmony with faith, he even recognized that reason can contribute to understanding revelation, and so encouraged intellectual development. He was not unlike other medieval theologians who sought out reason in the effort to defend his faith.[67] Some of today's scholars, such as Stanley Jaki, have claimed that Christianity with its particular worldview, was a crucial factor for the emergence of modern science.[68]
David C. Lindberg states that the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a time of ignorance and superstition due to the Christian church is a "caricature". According to Lindberg, while there are some portions of the classical tradition which suggest this view, these were exceptional cases. It was common to tolerate and encourage critical thinking about the nature of the world. The relation between Christianity and science is complex and cannot be simplified to either harmony or conflict, according to Lindberg.[69] Lindberg reports that "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led. There was no warfare between science and the church."[70] Ted Peters in Encyclopedia of Religion writes that although there is some truth in the "Galileo's condemnation" story but through exaggerations, it has now become "a modern myth perpetuated by those wishing to see warfare between science and religion who were allegedly persecuted by an atavistic and dogma-bound ecclesiastical authority".[71] In 1992, the Catholic Church's seeming vindication of Galileo attracted much comment in the media.
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".[72]
During the Enlightenment, a period "characterized by dramatic revolutions in science" and the rise of Protestant challenges to the authority of the Catholic Church via individual liberty, the authority of Christian scriptures became strongly challenged. As science advanced, acceptance of a literal version of the Bible became "increasingly untenable" and some in that period presented ways of interpreting scripture according to its spirit on its authority and truth.[73]
Individual scientists' beliefs[edit]



 Set of pictures for a number of notable Christian scientists and Inventors.
Many well-known historical figures who influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Copernicus,[74] Galileo,[75] Kepler,[76] Newton[77] and Boyle.[78]
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." Other famous founders of science who adhered to Christian beliefs include Galileo, Johannes Kepler, and Blaise Pascal.[79][80]
According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.[81]
Perspectives on evolution[edit]
In recent history, the theory of evolution has been at the center of some controversy between Christianity and science. Christians who accept a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation find incompatibility between Darwinian evolution and their interpretation of the Christian faith.[82] Creation science or scientific creationism[83] is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and attempts to disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.[84][85] It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and falsify the scientific evidence for evolution.[86] It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide.[87] In 1925, The State of Tennessee passed the Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in all schools in the state. Later that year, a similar law was passed in Mississippi, and likewise, Arkansas in 1927. In 1968, these "anti-monkey" laws were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States as unconstitutional, "because they established a religious doctrine violating both the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.[88]
Most scientists have rejected creation science for several reasons, including that its claims do not refer to natural causes and cannot be tested. In 1987, the United States Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms.[89]
Theistic evolution attempts to reconcile Christian beliefs and science by accepting the scientific understanding of the age of the Earth and the process of evolution. It includes a range of beliefs, including views described as evolutionary creationism, which accepts some findings of modern science but also upholds classical religious teachings about God and creation in Christian context.[90]
Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century[edit]
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.[91]
In the 20th century, several ecumenical organizations promoting a harmony between science and Christianity were founded, most notably the American Scientific Affiliation, The Biologos Foundation, Christians in Science, The Society of Ordained Scientists, and The Veritas Forum.[92]
Roman Catholicism[edit]
See also: Catholic Church and evolution
While refined and clarified over the centuries, the Roman Catholic position on the relationship between science and religion is one of harmony, and has maintained the teaching of natural law as set forth by Thomas Aquinas. For example, regarding scientific study such as that of evolution, the church's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. Catholic schools have included all manners of scientific study in their curriculum for many centuries.[93]
Galileo once stated "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[94] In 1981 John Paul II, then pope of the Roman Catholic Church, 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".[95]
Influence of a biblical world view on early modern science[edit]
According to Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom from the 19th century, a biblical world view affected negatively the progress of science through time. Dickinson also argues that immediately following the Reformation matters were even worse. The interpretations of Scripture by Luther and Calvin became as sacred to their followers as the Scripture itself. For instance, when Georg Calixtus ventured, in interpreting the Psalms, to question the accepted belief that "the waters above the heavens" were contained in a vast receptacle upheld by a solid vault, he was bitterly denounced as heretical.[96] Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was originally based is considered to be inaccurate. For instance, the claim that early Christians rejected scientific findings by the Greco-Romans is false, since the "handmaiden" view of secular studies was seen to shed light on theology. This view was widely adapted throughout the early medieval period and afterwards by theologians (such as Augustine) and ultimately resulted in fostering interest in knowledge about nature through time.[97] Also, 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[98] and is still very common in popular culture. Modern scholars regard this claim as 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."[98][99] From the fall of Rome to the time of Columbus, all major scholars and many vernacular writers interested in the physical shape of the earth held a spherical view with the exception of Lactantius and Cosmas.[100]
H. Floris Cohen argued for a biblical Protestant, but not excluding Catholicism, influence on the early development of modern science.[101] He 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 more experimentation and empiricism, and a supreme God that left nature and open to emulation and manipulation.[101] It supports the idea early modern science rose due to a combination of Greek and biblical thought.[102][103]
Oxford historian Peter Harrison is another who has argued that a biblical worldview was significant for the development of modern science. Harrison contends that Protestant approaches to the book of scripture had significant, if largely unintended, consequences for the interpretation of the book of nature.[104][page needed] Harrison has also suggested that literal readings of the Genesis narratives of the Creation and Fall motivated and legitimated scientific activity in seventeenth-century England. For many of its seventeenth-century practitioners, science was imagined to be a means of restoring a human dominion over nature that had been lost as a consequence of the Fall.[105][page needed]
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.[106] 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).[107] John Dillenberger and Christopher B. Kaiser have written theological surveys, which also cover additional interactions occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.[108][109] Philosopher of Religion, Richard Jones, has written a philosophical critique of the "dependency thesis" which assumes that modern science emerged from Christian sources and doctrines. Though he acknowledges that modern science emerged in a religious framework, that Christinaity greatly elevated the importance of science by sanctioning and religiously legitimizing it in medieval period, and that Christianity created a favorable social context for it to grow; he argues that direct Christian beliefs or doctrines were not primary source of scientific pursuits by natural philosophers, nor was Christianity, in and of itself, exclusively or directly necessary in developing or practicing modern science.[26]
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 René 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."[110] 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."[111] The sociologist Rodney Stark of Baylor University, argued in contrast that "Christian theology was essential for the rise of science."[112]
Confucianism and traditional Chinese religion[edit]
The historical process of Confucianism has largely been antipathic towards scientific discovery. However the religio-philosophical system itself is more neutral on the subject than such an analysis might suggest. In his writings On Heaven, Xunzi espoused a proto-scientific world view.[113] However during the Han Synthesis the more anti-empirical Mencius was favored and combined with Daoist skepticism regarding the nature of reality. Likewise, during the Medieval period, Zhu Xi argued against technical investigation and specialization proposed by Chen Liang.[114] After contact with the West, scholars such as Wang Fuzhi would rely on Buddhist/Daoist skepticism to denounce all science as a subjective pursuit limited by humanity's fundamental ignorance of the true nature of the world.[115] After the May Fourth Movement, attempts to modernize Confucianism and reconcile it with scientific understanding were attempted by many scholars including Feng Youlan and Xiong Shili. Given the close relationship that Confucianism shares with Buddhism, many of the same arguments used to reconcile Buddhism with science also readily translate to Confucianism. However, modern scholars have also attempted to define the relationship between science and Confucianism on Confucianism's own terms and the results have usually led to the conclusion that Confucianism and science are fundamentally compatible.[116]
Hinduism[edit]
See also: Hindu views on evolution, List of numbers in Hindu scriptures, Hindu cosmology, Hindu units of time, Indian astronomy, Hindu calendar, Indian mathematics and List of Indian inventions and discoveries



Saraswati is regarded as goddess of knowledge, music, arts and science.
In Hinduism, the dividing line between objective sciences and spiritual knowledge (adhyatma vidya) is a linguistic paradox.[117] Hindu scholastic activities and ancient Indian scientific advancements were so interconnected that many Hindu scriptures are also ancient scientific manuals and vice versa. In 1835, English was made the primary language for teaching in higher education in India, exposing Hindu scholars to Western secular ideas; thus starting a renaissance regarding religious and philosophical thought.[118] Hindu sages maintained that logical argument and rational proof using Nyaya is the way to obtain correct knowledge.[117] From a Hindu perspective, modern science is a legitimate, but incomplete, step towards knowing and understanding reality. Hinduism views that science only offers a limited view of reality, but all it offers is right and correct.[119] To clarify, the scientific level of understanding focuses on how things work and from where they originate, while Hinduism strives to understand the ultimate purposes for the existence of living things.[118] To obtain and broaden the knowledge of the world for spiritual perfection, many refer to the Bhāgavata for guidance because it draws upon a scientific and theological dialogue.[120] Hinduism offers methods to correct and transform itself in course of time. For instance, Hindu views on the development of life include a range of viewpoints in regards to evolution, creationism, and the origin of life within the traditions of Hinduism. For instance, it has been suggested that Wallace-Darwininan evolutionary thought was a part of Hindu thought centuries before modern times.[121] The Shankara and the Sāmkhya did not have a problem with the theory of evolution, but instead, argued about the existence of God and what happened after death. These two distinct groups argued among each other's philosophies because of their sacred texts, not the idea of evolution.[122] With the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, many Hindus were eager to connect their scriptures to Darwinism, finding similarities between Brahma's creation, Vishnu's incarnations, and evolution theories.[118]
Samkhya, the oldest school of Hindu philosophy prescribes a particular method to analyze knowledge. According to Samkhya, all knowledge is possible through three means of valid knowledge[123][124] –
1.Pratyakṣa or Dṛṣṭam – direct sense perception,
2.Anumāna – logical inference and
3.Śabda or Āptavacana – verbal testimony.
Nyaya, the Hindu school of logic, accepts all these 3 means and in addition accepts one more - Upamāna (comparison).
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.[125] 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.[126]
The incarnations of Vishnu (Dashavatara) is almost identical to the scientific explanation of the sequence of biological evolution of man and animals.[127][128][129][130] The sequence of avatars starts from an aquatic organism (Matsya), to an amphibian (Kurma), to a land-animal (Varaha), to a humanoid (Narasimha), to a dwarf human (Vamana), to 5 forms of well developed human beings (Parashurama, Rama, Balarama/Buddha, Krishna, Kalki) who showcase an increasing form of complexity (Axe-man, King, Plougher/Sage, wise Statesman, mighty Warrior).[127][130] In fact, many Hindu gods are represented with features of animals as well as those of humans, leading many Hindus to easily accept evolutionary links between animals and humans.[118] In India, the home country of Hindus; educated Hindus widely accept the theory of biological evolution. In a survey of 909 people, 77% of respondents in India agreed with Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and 85 per cent of God-believing people said they believe in evolution as well.[131][132]
As per Vedas, another explanation for the creation is based on the five elements: earth, water, fire, air and aether. The Hindu religion traces its beginnings to the sacred Vedas. Everything that is established in the Hindu faith such as the gods and goddesses, doctrines, chants, spiritual insights, etc. flow from the poetry of Vedic hymns. The Vedas offer an honor to the sun and moon, water and wind, and to the order in Nature that is universal. This naturalism is the beginning of what further becomes the connection between Hinduism and science.[133]
Islam[edit]
Main article: Islam and science
See also: Science in the medieval Islamic world
From an Islamic standpoint, science, the study of nature, is considered to be linked to the concept of Tawhid (the Oneness of God), as are all other branches of knowledge.[134] In Islam, nature is not seen as a separate entity, but rather as an integral part of Islam's holistic outlook on God, humanity, and the world. The Islamic view of science and nature is continuous with that of religion and God. This link implies a sacred aspect to the pursuit of scientific knowledge by Muslims, as nature itself is viewed in the Qur'an as a compilation of signs pointing to the Divine.[135] It was with this understanding that science was studied and understood in Islamic civilizations, specifically during the eighth to sixteenth centuries, prior to the colonization of the Muslim world.[136] Robert Briffault, in The Making of Humanity, asserts that the very existence of science, as it is understood in the modern sense, is rooted in the scientific thought and knowledge that emerged in Islamic civilizations during this time.[137]
With the decline of Islamic Civilizations in the late Middle Ages and the rise of Europe, the Islamic scientific tradition shifted into a new period. Institutions that had existed for centuries in the Muslim world looked to the new scientific institutions of European powers.[citation needed] This changed the practice of science in the Muslim world, as Islamic scientists had to confront the western approach to scientific learning, which was based on a different philosophy of nature.[134] From the time of this initial upheaval of the Islamic scientific tradition to the present day, Muslim scientists and scholars have developed a spectrum of viewpoints on the place of scientific learning within the context of Islam, none of which are universally accepted or practiced.[138] However, most maintain the view that the acquisition of knowledge and scientific pursuit in general is not in disaccord with Islamic thought and religious belief.[134][138]
Ahmadiyya[edit]
Further information: Ahmadiyya views on evolution
The Ahmadiyya movement emphasize that there is no contradiction between Islam and science. For example, Ahmadi Muslims universally accept in principle the process of evolution, albeit divinely guided, and actively promote it. Over the course of several decades the movement has issued various publications in support of the scientific concepts behind the process of evolution, and frequently engages in promoting how religious scriptures, such as the Qur'an, supports the concept.[139] For general purposes, the second Khalifa of the community, Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad says:

The Holy Quran directs attention towards science, time and again, rather than evoking prejudice against it. The Quran has never advised against studying science, lest the reader should become a non-believer; because it has no such fear or concern. The Holy Quran is not worried that if people will learn the laws of nature its spell will break. The Quran has not prevented people from science, rather it states, "Say, 'Reflect on what is happening in the heavens and the earth.'" (Al Younus) [140]
Jainism[edit]
Main article: Jainism and non-creationism
Jainism does not support belief in a creator deity. According to Jain doctrine, the universe and its constituents - soul, matter, space, time, and principles of motion have always existed (a static universe similar to that of Epicureanism and steady state cosmological model). All the constituents and actions are governed by universal natural laws. It is not possible to create matter out of nothing and hence the sum total of matter in the universe remains the same (similar to law of conservation of mass). Similarly, the soul of each living being is unique and uncreated and has existed since beginningless time.[a][141]
The Jain theory of causation holds that a cause and its effect are always identical in nature and hence a conscious and immaterial entity like God cannot create a material entity like the universe. Furthermore, according to the Jain concept of divinity, any soul who destroys its karmas and desires, achieves liberation. A soul who destroys all its passions and desires has no desire to interfere in the working of the universe. Moral rewards and sufferings are not the work of a divine being, but a result of an innate moral order in the cosmos; a self-regulating mechanism whereby the individual reaps the fruits of his own actions through the workings of the karmas.
Through the ages, Jain philosophers have adamantly rejected and opposed the concept of creator and omnipotent God and this has resulted in Jainism being labeled as nastika darsana or atheist philosophy by the rival religious philosophies. The theme of non-creationism and absence of omnipotent God and divine grace runs strongly in all the philosophical dimensions of Jainism, including its cosmology, karma, moksa and its moral code of conduct. Jainism asserts a religious and virtuous life is possible without the idea of a creator god.[142]
Perspectives from the scientific community[edit]
History[edit]
Further information: List of Jewish scientists and philosophers, List of Christian thinkers in science, List of Muslim scientists and List of atheists (science and technology)
In the 17th century, founders of the Royal Society largely held conventional and orthodox religious views, and a number of them were prominent Churchmen.[143] 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.[144] Clerical involvement in the Royal Society remained high until the mid-nineteenth century, when science became more professionalised.[145]
Albert Einstein supported the compatibility of some interpretations of religion with science. In "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium" published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York in 1941, Einstein stated:

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 judgments 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.[146]
Einstein thus expresses views of ethical non-naturalism (contrasted to ethical naturalism).
Prominent modern scientists who are atheists include evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and Nobel Prize–winning physicist Stephen Weinberg. Prominent scientists advocating religious belief include Nobel Prize–winning physicist and United Church of Christ member Charles Townes, evangelical Christian and past head of the Human Genome Project Francis Collins, and climatologist John T. Houghton.[43]
Studies on scientists' beliefs[edit]

Globe icon.
 The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (March 2012)
Statistical analysis of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.[81] Specifically on the science related prizes, Christians have won a total of 72.5% of all the Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, and 54% in all Economics awards.[147] Jews have won 17.3% of the prizes in Chemistry, 26.2% in Medicine, and 25.9% in Physics.[147] Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers have won 7.1% of the prizes in Chemistry, 8.9% in Medicine, and 4.7% in Physics.[147] According to a study that was done by University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, 60% of Nobel prize laureates in physics from 1901 to 1990 had a Christian background.[148]
Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than are the rest of the population. Precise definitions and statistics vary, but generally about 1/3 of scientists are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God (although some might be deistic, for example).[43][149][150] This is in contrast to the more than roughly 3/4 of the general population that believe in some God in the United States. Belief also varies slightly by field. Two surveys on physicists, geoscientists, biologists, mathematicians, and chemists have noted that, from those specializing in these fields, physicists had lowest percentage of belief in God (29%) while chemists had highest (41%).[149][151] Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, only 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer.[152]
In 1916, 1,000 leading American scientists were randomly chosen from American Men of Science and 41.8% believed God existed, 41.5% disbelieved, and 16.7% had doubts/did not know; however when the study was replicated 80 years later using American Men and Women of Science in 1996, results were very much the same with 39.3% believing God exists, 45.3% disbelieved, and 14.5% had doubts/did not know.[43][149] In the same 1996 survey, scientists in the fields of biology, mathematics, and physics/astronomy, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" was most popular among mathematicians (about 45%) and least popular among physicists (about 22%). In total, in terms of belief toward a personal god and personal immortality, about 60% of United States scientists in these fields expressed either disbelief or agnosticism and about 40% expressed belief.[149] This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933.[citation needed]
A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York on 1,646 natural and social science professors at 21 elite US research universities found that, in terms of belief in God or a higher power, more than 60% expressed either disbelief or agnosticism and more than 30% expressed belief. More specifically, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answered "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out."[153] In the same study, 28% said they believed in God and 8% believed in a higher power that was not God.[154] Ecklund stated that scientists were often able to consider themselves spiritual without religion or belief in god.[155] Ecklund and Scheitle concluded, from their study, that the individuals from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately had self-selected into scientific professions and that the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable since the study did not strongly support the idea that scientists had dropped religious identities due to their scientific training.[156] Instead, factors such as upbringing, age, and family size were significant influences on religious identification since those who had religious upbringing were more likely to be religious and those who had a non-religious upbringing were more likely to not be religious.[153][156] The authors also found little difference in religiosity between social and natural scientists.[157]
In terms of perceptions, most social and natural scientists from 21 American elite universities did not perceive conflict between science and religion, while 36.6% did. However, in the study, scientists who had experienced limited exposure to religion tended to perceive conflict.[158] In the same study they found that nearly one in five atheist scientists who are parents (17%) are part of religious congregations and have attended a religious service more than once in the past year. Some of the reasons for doing so are their scientific identity (wishing to expose their children to all sources of knowledge so they can make up their own minds), spousal influence, and desire for community.[159]
A study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) were "much less religious than the general public," with 51% believing in some form of deity or higher power. Specifically, 33% of those polled believe in God, 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power, and 41% did not believe in either God or a higher power.[160] 48% say they have a religious affiliation, equal to the number who say they are not affiliated with any religious tradition. 17% were atheists, 11% were agnostics, 20% were nothing in particular, 8% were Jewish, 10% were Catholic, 16% were Protestant, 4% were Evangelical, 10% were other religion. The survey also found younger scientists to be "substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God". Among the surveyed fields, chemists were the most likely to say they believe in God.[151]
Religious beliefs of US professors were recently examined using a nationally representative sample of more than 1,400 professors. They found that in the social sciences: 23.4% did not believe in God, 16% did not know if God existed, 42.5% believed God existed, and 16% believed in a higher power. Out of the natural sciences: 19.5% did not believe in God, 32.9% did not know if God existed, 43.9% believed God existed, and 3.7% believed in a higher power.[161]
Farr Curlin, a University of Chicago Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, noted in a study that doctors tend to be science-minded religious people. 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."[162]
Physicians in the United States, by contrast, are much more religious than scientists, with 76% stating a belief in God.[162]
Public perceptions of science[edit]
See also: Religiosity and education
According to a 2007 poll by the Pew Forum, "while large majorities of Americans respect science and scientists, they are not always willing to accept scientific findings that squarely contradict their religious beliefs."[163] The Pew Forum states that specific factual disagreements are "not common today", though 40% to 50% of Americans do not accept the evolution of humans and other living things, with the "strongest opposition" coming from evangelical Christians at 65% saying life did not evolve.[163] 51% of the population believes humans and other living things evolved: 26% through natural selection only, 21% somehow guided, 4% don't know.[163] In the U.S., biological evolution is the only concrete example of conflict where a significant portion of the American public denies scientific consensus for religious reasons.[163][164] In terms of advanced industrialized nations, the United States is the most religious.[163]
Creationism is not an exclusively American phenomenon. A poll on adult Europeans revealed that 40% believed in naturalistic evolution, 21% in theistic evolution, 20% in special creation, and 19% are undecided; with the highest concentrations of young earth creationists in Switzerland (21%), Austria (20.4%), Germany (18.1%).[165] Other countries such as Netherlands, Britain, and Australia have experienced growth in such views as well.[165]
Research on perceptions of science among the American public conclude that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science and they have no differences with nonreligious groups in the propensity of seeking out scientific knowledge, although there may be subtle epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.[166][167] Findings from the Pew Center note similar findings and also note that the majority of Americans (80-90%) show strong support for scientific research, agree that science makes society and individual's lives better, and 8 in 10 Americans would be happy if their children were to become scientists.[168] Even strict creationists tend to have very favorable views on science.[164] A study on a national sample of US college students examined whether these students viewed the science / religion relationship as reflecting primarily conflict, collaboration, or independence. The study concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move away from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than towards a conflict view.[169]
In the US, people who had no religious affiliation were no more likely than the religious population to have New Age beliefs and practices.[170][relevant? – discuss]
A study conducted on adolescents from Christian schools in Northern Ireland, noted a positive relationship between attitudes towards Christianity and science once attitudes towards scientism and creationism were accounted for.[171]
Cross-national studies, which have pooled data on religion and science from 1981-2001, have noted that countries with high religiosity also have stronger faith in science, while less religious countries have more skepticism of the impact of science and technology.[172] The United States is noted there as distinctive because of greater faith in both God and scientific progress. Other research cites the National Science Foundation's finding that America has more favorable public attitudes towards science than Europe, Russia, and Japan despite differences in levels of religiosity in these cultures.[164]
See also[edit]
Conflict thesis
Continuity thesis
Deep ecology
Demarcation problem
Faith and rationality
Issues in Science and Religion
Merton thesis
Natural theology
Philosophy of science
Politicization of science
Religious skepticism
Religion and psychology
Science and God
Scientific method and religion
Theistic evolution

By tradition:
Bahá'í Faith and science
Buddhism and science
Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
List of Catholic scientists
List of Christian thinkers in science
List of Roman Catholic scientist-clerics
Islam and science
In the US:
American Scientific Affiliation
Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences
Creation-evolution controversy
Intelligent design
Templeton Foundation

Portal icon Science portal
Portal icon Religion portal

Notes[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Russel, C.A. (2002). Ferngren, G.B., ed. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 7. 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"
2.^ Jump up to: a b Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press. p. 195. "In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the 'warfare between science and religion' and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science."
3.^ Jump up to: a b Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. "In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited."
4.Jump up ^ Ferngren, G.B. (2002). Ferngren, G.B., ed. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "... while [John Hedley] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind."
5.Jump up ^ Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A view from the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2008). Science, Evolution and Creationism. National Academy of Sciences.
6.Jump up ^ Richard Dawkins on militant atheism (transcript), TED talk, 2007 (page visited on 21 January 2015).
7.Jump up ^ John Polkinghorne Science and Theology SPCK/Fortress Press, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3153-6 pp20-22, following Ian Barbour
8.Jump up ^ Nature, Human Nature, and God, Ian G. Barbour, Fortress Press, 2002, ISBN 0-8006-3477-2
9.Jump up ^ Haught, John F. (1995). Science and Religion : From Conflict to Conversation. Paulist Prees. p. 9. ISBN 0809136066. "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: 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 both dialogue and 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."
10.Jump up ^ 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
11.Jump up ^ Paz-y-Miño-C G. & Espinosa A. 2014. "The Incompatibility Hypothesis: Evolution versus Supernatural Causation" (PDF). In Why Does Evolution Matter? The Importance of Understanding Evolution, edited by Gabriel Trueba. Newcastle UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 3–16. "The Incompatibility Hypothesis (IH) is an ultimate-level hypothesis. IH explains the cause of the controversy science-versus-religion, its fundamental reason. IH addresses directly the inquiry: what elicits the controversy science versus religion? And it offers an educated answer: their intrinsic and opposing approaches to assess reality, i.e. science by means of testing hypotheses, falsifying and/or testing predictions and replication of experiments; religion, in contrast, via belief in supernatural causality. Belief disrupts, distorts, delays or stops (3Ds + S) the comprehension and acceptance of scientific evidence. The authors consider the 3Ds + S to be cognitive effects of illusory thinking."
12.Jump up ^ Paz-y-Miño-C G. & Espinosa A. 2013. "The Everlasting Conflict Evolution-and-science versus Religiosity" (PDF). In Religion and Ethics, edited by Gloria Simpson and Spencer Payne, New York, NY: NOVA Publishers. pp. 73–98.
13.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g "Does The Empirical Nature Of Science Contradict The Revelatory Nature Of Faith? - Jerry Coyne". Edge. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
14.Jump up ^ "Holy Wars | Neil deGrasse Tyson". Haydenplanetarium.org. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
15.Jump up ^ Neil deGrasse Tyson From Natural History Magazine, October 1999
16.Jump up ^ Stenger, Victor J.. God and the folly of faith : the incompatibility of science and religion. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. pp. 290–296. ISBN 1-61614-599-4.
17.Jump up ^ "Science Must Destroy Religion". Retrieved 28 September 2013.
18.Jump up ^ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Bantam Press, 2006, pages 282-286.
19.Jump up ^ Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Free Press, 2010, pages 5-6.
20.Jump up ^ "Excerpts of Statements by Scientists Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science". National Academy of Sciences.
21.Jump up ^ Ronald Numbers, ed. (2009). Galileo Goes To Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. p. 3. ISBN 9780674057418.
22.Jump up ^ Ferngren, G.B. (2002). Ferngren, G.B., ed. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. ix, x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White 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. " ; "... while [John Hedley] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind."
23.Jump up ^ 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 Hedley] 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)
24.Jump up ^ 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).
25.Jump up ^ Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
26.^ Jump up to: a b Jones, Richard H. (2011). For the Glory of God : The Role of Christianity in the Rise and Development of Modern Science Volume 1. University Press of America. pp. 19–22,139. ISBN 9780761855668.
27.Jump up ^ Fantoli (2005, p. 139), Finocchiaro (1989, pp. 288–293).
28.Jump up ^ Finocchiaro (1997), p. 82; Moss & Wallace (2003), p. 11
29.Jump up ^ See Langford (1966, pp. 133–134), and Seeger (1966, p. 30), for example. Drake (1978, p. 355) asserts that Simplicio's character is modelled on the Aristotelian philosophers, Lodovico delle Colombe and Cesare Cremonini, rather than Urban. He also considers that the demand for Galileo to include the Pope's argument in the Dialogue left him with no option but to put it in the mouth of Simplicio (Drake, 1953, p. 491). Even Arthur Koestler, who is generally quite harsh on Galileo in The Sleepwalkers (1959), after noting that Urban suspected Galileo of having intended Simplicio to be a caricature of him, says "this of course is untrue" (1959, p. 483).
30.Jump up ^ Lindberg, David. "Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science".
31.Jump up ^ "Lessons from non Euclidean geometries for interfaith diaoluge".
32.Jump up ^ Stephen Jay Gould. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the fullness of life. Ballantine Books, 1999.
33.Jump up ^ W. T. Stace, Time and Eternity: an Essay in the Philosophy of Religion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1952.
34.^ Jump up to: a b http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html
35.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Religion and Science, John Habgood, Mills & Brown, 1964, pp., 11, 14-16, 48-55, 68-69, 90-91, 87
36.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g 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.
37.Jump up ^ 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
38.^ Jump up to: 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.
39.Jump up ^ "Ian Ramsey Centre". Users.ox.ac.uk. 2013-06-04. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
40.Jump up ^ Scott, Eugenie (1998). ""Science and Religion", "Christian Scholarship", and "Theistic Science"". Reports of the National Center for Science Education (National Center for Science Education) 18 (2). Retrieved 7 January 2013.
41.^ Jump up to: 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.
42.Jump up ^ Theerman, Paul "James Clerk Maxwell and religion", American Journal of Physics, 54 (4), April 1986, p.312–317 doi:10.1119/1.14636
•What is truth? A course in science and religion Peter J. Brancazio, Am. J. Phys. 62, 893 (1994) doi:10.1119/1.17735
•The stifling grip of religion Romard Barthel Am. J. Phys. 68, 785 (2000) doi:10.1119/1.1303729
•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
43.^ Jump up to: a b c d Science 15 August 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5328, pp. 890 - 893; "Scientific Community: Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Gregg Easterbrook doi:10.1126/science.277.5328.890
44.Jump up ^ •Science 12 September 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5332, pp. 1589 - 1591; "Letters: Science and Religion" doi:10.1126/science.277.5332.1589a
•Science 13 December 1957: Vol. 126. no. 3285, pp. 1225 - 1229; "Science and the Citizen" Warren Weaver doi:10.1126/science.126.3285.1225
•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." doi:10.1126/science.127.3310.1324
•Science 23 February 2001: Vol. 291. no. 5508, pp. 1472 - 1474; "PAPAL SCIENCE: Science and Religion Advance Together at Pontifical Academy" Charles Seife doi:10.1126/science.291.5508.1472
45.Jump up ^ Science and Religion, by Alvin Plantinga, 2007, 2010.
46.Jump up ^ Schuessler, Jennifer (13 December 2011). "Philosopher sticks up for God". The New York Times. Retrieved 7 January 2013.
47.Jump up ^ Boudry, Maarten (September and October 2012). "Review of Alvin Plantinga (2011), Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism". International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Group. "Plantinga's effort to stave off the conflict between theism and evolution is a failure... if the bar for rational belief is lowered to mere logical possibility, and the demand for positive evidence dropped, then no holds are barred." Check date values in: |date= (help)
48.Jump up ^ "Themelios | Review: Where The Conflict Really Lies Science Religion And Naturalism". The Gospel Coalition. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
49.Jump up ^ Principe (2006). Science and Religion. The Teaching Company.
50.Jump up ^ Principe. History of Science from Antiquity to 1700. The Teaching Company.
51.Jump up ^ Hatcher, William (September 1979). "Science and the Bahá'í Faith". Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 14 (3): 229–253. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1979.tb00359.x.
52.Jump up ^ Smith, P. (1999). A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications. pp. 306–307. ISBN 1-85168-184-1.
53.Jump up ^ 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.
54.Jump up ^ Yong, Amos. (2005) Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground (review) Buddhist-Christian Studies - Volume 25, 2005, pp. 176-180
55.Jump up ^ Wallace, B. Alan. (2003) " Buddhism & science: breaking new ground" Columbia University Press, pp 328
56.Jump up ^ Hamilton, Jon. (2005) "The Links Between the Dalai Lama and Neuroscience" www.NPR.org, November 11, 2005 [1]
57.Jump up ^ Dalai Lama. (2005) "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality" Broadway.
58.Jump up ^ Davis, Edward B. (2003). "Christianity, History Of Science And Religion". In Van Huyssteen, Wentzel. Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. Macmillan Reference USA. pp. 123–7. ISBN 978-0-02-865704-2
59.Jump up ^ Russell, Robert John (2008). Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. p. 344. ISBN 978-0-8006-6273-8.
60.Jump up ^ Knight, Christopher C. (2008). "God's Action in Nature's World: Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell". Science & Christian Belief 20 (2): 214–215. (subscription required (help)).
61.Jump up ^ Grant, Edward (2006). Science and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550 : from Aristotle to Copernicus (Johns Hopkins Paperbacks ed. ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 222. ISBN 0801884012.
62.Jump up ^ Grant 2006, p. 111-114
63.Jump up ^ Grant 2006, p. 105-106
64.Jump up ^ "What Time Is It in the Transept?". D. Graham Burnett book review of J.L.Heilbron's work, The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories. The New York Times. October 24, 1999. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
65.Jump up ^ Lindberg, David; Numbers, Ronald L (October 2003). When Science and Christianity Meet. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-48214-6.
66.Jump up ^ Goldstein, Thomas (April 1995). Dawn of Modern Science: From the Ancient Greeks to the Renaissance. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-80637-1.
67.Jump up ^ Pope John Paul II (September 1998). "Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), IV". Retrieved 2006-09-15.
68.Jump up ^ Jaki, Stanley L. The Savior of Science, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (July 2000), ISBN 0-8028-4772-2.
69.Jump up ^ David C. Lindberg, "The Medieval Church Encounters the Classical Tradition: Saint Augustine, Roger Bacon, and the Handmaiden Metaphor", in David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, ed. When Science & Christianity Meet, (Chicago: University of Chicago Pr., 2003).
70.Jump up ^ quoted in: Peters, Ted. "Science and Religion". Encyclopedia of Religion pg. 8182
71.Jump up ^ quoted in Ted Peters, Science and Religion, Encyclopedia of Religion, p.8182
72.Jump up ^ "Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
73.Jump up ^ "Enlightenement". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
74.Jump up ^ Pro forma candidate to Prince-Bishop of Warmia, cf. Dobrzycki, Jerzy, and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, "Kopernik, Mikołaj", Polski słownik biograficzny (Polish Biographical Dictionary), vol. XIV, Wrocław, Polish Academy of Sciences, 1969, p. 11.
75.Jump up ^ Sharratt, Michael (1994). Galileo: Decisive Innovator. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 17, 213. ISBN 0-521-56671-1.
76.Jump up ^ "Because he would not accept the Formula of Concord without some reservations, he was excommunicated from the Lutheran communion. Because he remained faithful to his Lutheranism throughout his life, he experienced constant suspicion from Catholics." John L. Treloar, "Biography of Kepler shows man of rare integrity. Astronomer saw science and spirituality as one." National Catholic Reporter, October 8, 2004, p. 2a. A review of James A. Connor Kepler's Witch: An Astronomer's Discovery of Cosmic Order amid Religious War, Political Intrigue and Heresy Trial of His Mother, Harper San Francisco.
77.Jump up ^ Richard S. Westfall - Indiana University The Galileo Project. (Rice University). Retrieved 2008-07-05.
78.Jump up ^ "The Boyle Lecture". St. Marylebow Church.
79.Jump up ^ Christian Influences In The Sciences
80.Jump up ^ World's Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K
81.^ Jump up to: a b Baruch A. Shalev‏, 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (2003),Atlantic Publishers & Distributors , p.57: between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates belong to 28 different religion Most (65.4%) have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.
82.Jump up ^ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/#Sci
83.Jump up ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 268–285
84.Jump up ^ Plavcan, J. Michael (2007). "The Invisible Bible: The Logic of Creation Science". In Petto, Andrew J.; Godfrey, Laurie R. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York, London: Norton. p. 361. ISBN 978-0-393-33073-1. "Most creationists are simply people who choose to believe that God created the world-either as described in Scripture or through evolution. Creation scientists, by contrast, strive to use legitimate scientific means both to argue against evolutionary theory and to prove the creation account as described in Scripture."
85.Jump up ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 271–274
86.Jump up ^ Larson, Edward J. (2004). Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. Modern Library. ISBN 978-0-679-64288-6.
87.Jump up ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 399–431
88.Jump up ^ The Origin of Rights, Roger E. Salhany, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver:Carswell p. 32-34
89.Jump up ^ "The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching." Edwards v. Aguillard
90.Jump up ^ Collins, Francis S. (2007). The Language of God : A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press. ISBN 1416542744.
91.Jump up ^ Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain, Peter J. Bowler, 2001, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-06858-7. Front dustcover flap material
92.Jump up ^ James C. Peterson (2001). Genetic Turning Points: The Ethics of Human Genetic Intervention. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. "As to specifically Christian theists, an example of continue presence would be the American Scientific Affiliation. It currently has about two thousand members, all of whom affirm the Apostles' Creed as part of joining the association, and most of whom hold Ph.D.s in the natural sciences. Their active journal is Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Across the Atlantic, the Society of Ordained Scientists and Christians in Science are similar affiliation in Great Britain."
93.Jump up ^ "Catholic Encyclopedia". New Advent. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
94.Jump up ^ Machamer, Peter (1998). The Cambridge Companion to Galileo. Cambridge University Press. p. 306. ISBN 0-521-58841-3.
95.Jump up ^ Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics"
96.Jump up ^ Andrew Dickson White. History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (Kindle Locations 1970-2132)
97.Jump up ^ Lindberg, David (2009). "Myth 1: That the Rise of Christianity was Responsible for the Demise of Ancient Science". In Ronald Numbers. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. Harvard University Press. pp. 15–18. ISBN 9780674057418.
98.^ Jump up to: a b Jeffrey Russell. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback; New Ed edition (January 30, 1997). ISBN 0-275-95904-X; ISBN 978-0-275-95904-3.
99.Jump up ^ 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.
100.Jump up ^ Cormack, Leslie (2009). "Myth 3: That Medieval Christians Taught that he Earth was Flat". In Ronald Numbers. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. Harvard University Press. pp. 28–34. ISBN 9780674057418.
101.^ Jump up to: a b The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry, H. Floris Cohen, University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-226-11280-2, pages 308-321
102.Jump up ^ "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
103.Jump up ^ 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."
104.Jump up ^ Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge, 1998).
105.Jump up ^ Peter Harrison, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (Cambridge, 2007); see also Charles Webster, The Great Instauration (London: Duckworth, 1975)
106.Jump up ^ 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
107.Jump up ^ 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
108.Jump up ^ John Dillenberger, Protestant Thought and Natural Science (Doubleday, 1960).
109.Jump up ^ Christopher B. Kaiser, Creation and the History of Science (Eerdmans, 1991).
110.Jump up ^ John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, 1991, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19. See also Peter Harrison, "Newtonian Science, Miracles, and the Laws of Nature", Journal of the History of Ideas 56 (1995), 531-53.
111.Jump up ^ 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
112.Jump up ^ Rodney Stark, For the glory of God: how monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery, 2003, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-11436-6, page 123
113.Jump up ^ Cua, Antonio S. "The Quasi-Empirical Aspect of Hsün-tzu's Philosophy of Human Nature." PEW 28 (1978), 3-19.
114.Jump up ^ Tillman, Hoyt Cleveland. "Utilitarian Confucianism : Chʻen Liang's challenge to Chu Hsi" Cambridge, Mass. : Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University : Distributed by Harvard University Press, 1982.
115.Jump up ^ Black, Alison Harley. "Man and Nature in the Philosophical Thought of Wang Fu-Chih." Publications on Asia of the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, no. 41. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1989
116.Jump up ^ Mary Evelyn Tucker "Confucianism and Ecology: The Interrelation of Heaven, Earth, and Humans (Religions of the World and Ecology)" Center for the Study of World Religions (August 15, 1998)
117.^ Jump up to: a b Carl Mitcham (2005). Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Macmillan Reference USA. p. 917. ISBN 0-02-865831-0.
118.^ Jump up to: a b c d Gosling, David L. (2011). "Darwin and the Hindu Tradition: "Does What Goes Around Come Around?"". Zygon 46 (2): 345–369. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01177.x.
119.Jump up ^ "A Hindu Primer by Shukavak N. Dasa". Sanskrit.org. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
120.Jump up ^ Gosling, David (September 2012). "Science and the Hindu Tradition: Compatibility or Conflict?". Hinduism and Science: Contemporary Considerations 47 (3): 576–577. Retrieved 2014-09-26.
121.Jump up ^ Sehgal, Sunil (1999). Encyclopedia of Hinduism (Volume 3). Sarup & Sons. p. 688. "The Hindus were Spinozaites more than two thousand years before the existence of Spinoza; and Darwinians many centuries before our time, and before any word like 'evolution' existed in any language of the world."
122.Jump up ^ Gosling, David (September 2012). "Science and the Hindu Tradition: Compatibility or Conflict?". Hinduism and Science: Contemporary Considerations 47 (3): 577.
123.Jump up ^ Sarma, Deepak (2011) "Classical Indian Philosophy: A Reader" p.167 Columbia University Press
124.Jump up ^ Samkhya Karika, śloka4
125.Jump up ^ "Religion & Ethics-Hinduism". BBC. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
126.Jump up ^ 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. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
127.^ Jump up to: a b Rastogi, V.B. (1988). Organic Evolution. Kedar Nath Ram Nath, New Delhi.
128.Jump up ^ Cvancara, A.M. (1995). A field manual for the amateur geologist. John Wiley & sons, Inc. New York.
129.Jump up ^ Similarities in concept of evolution of life on earth in Dashavatar and modern Geology. Dr. Nitish Priyadarshi, American Chronicle
130.^ Jump up to: a b Dr Kutty (2009). Adam's Gene and the Mitochondrial Eve. Xlibris Corporation. p. 136. ISBN 978-1-4415-0729-7.
131.Jump up ^ "Opinions on evolution from ten countries". NCSE. 2009-06-30. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
132.Jump up ^ Hamilton, Fiona. "One in seven Britons believe in creationism over evolution". The Times (London).
133.Jump up ^ Raman, Varadaraja (2012). "Hinduism and science : some reflections". ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials.
134.^ Jump up to: a b c Muzaffar Iqbal (2007). Science & Islam. Greenwood Press.
135.Jump up ^ 2. Toshihiko Izutsu (1964). God and Man in the Koran. Weltansckauung. Tokyo.
136.Jump up ^ 3. Situating Arabic Science: Locality versus Essence (A.I. Sabra)
137.Jump up ^ Robert Briffault (1928). The Making of Humanity, p. 190-202. G. Allen & Unwin Ltd.
138.^ Jump up to: a b Seyyid Hossein Nasr. "Islam and Modern Science"
139.Jump up ^ "Jesus and the Indian Messiah – 13. Every Wind of Doctrine".
140.Jump up ^ "Islam in Science". Al Islam.
141.Jump up ^ Nayanar (2005b), p.190, Gāthā 10.310
142.Jump up ^ *Soni, Jayandra; E. Craig (Ed.) (1998). "Jain Philosophy". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (London: Routledge). Retrieved 2008-06-27.
143.Jump up ^ Peter Harrison, 'Religion, the Royal Society, and the Rise of Science', Theology and Science, 6 (2008), 255-71.
144.Jump up ^ Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal Society (London, 1667)
145.Jump up ^ Frank Turner, 'The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension', Isis, 49 (1978) 356-76.
146.Jump up ^ "Albert Einstein:Religion and Science". Sacred-texts.com. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
147.^ Jump up to: a b c Shalev, Baruch (2005). 100 Years of Nobel Prizes. p. 59
148.Jump up ^ Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990
149.^ Jump up to: a b c d Larson, E. J.; Witham, L. (1997). "Scientists are still keeping the faith". Nature 386 (6624): 435–436. doi:10.1038/386435a0.
150.Jump up ^ Wuthnow, Robert (2005-05-21). "Essay Forum on the Religious Engagements of American Undergraduates". Religion.ssrc.org. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
151.^ Jump up to: a b Pew Research Center: "Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media", Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion. July 9, 2009.
152.Jump up ^ Larson and Witham, 1998 "Leading Scientists Still Reject God"
153.^ Jump up to: a b Ecklund, Elaine. "Religion and Spirituality among University Scientists" (PDF). Social Science Research Council.
154.Jump up ^ Ecklund, Elaine Howard (2010). Science vs. Religion : What Scientists Really Think. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 16. ISBN 9780195392982.
155.Jump up ^ "Natural scientists are less likely to believe in God than are social scientists" (PDF). Physorg.com. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."
156.^ Jump up to: a b Donovan, Patricia. "Scientists May Not Be Very Religious, but Science May Not Be to Blame". University at Buffalo New York.
157.Jump up ^ Elaine Howard Ecklund & Christopher P. Scheitle (2007). Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographics. Social Problems, 54(2):289-307. doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289 From May to June 2005, the researchers "randomly selected 2,198 faculty members in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science, and psychology.... [with a] a relatively high response rate of 75 percent or 1,646" (p. 293) (p. 299).
158.Jump up ^ Ecklund, Elaine Howard; Park, Jerry Z. "Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists?". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48 (2): 276–292. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01447.x.
159.Jump up ^ Ecklund, Elaine Howard. "Some Atheist Scientists With Children Embrace Religious Traditions". Huffington Post.
160.Jump up ^ "Scientists and Belief". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2011-04-08. "A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
161.Jump up ^ Neil Gross and Solon Simmons (2009). The religiosity of American college and university professors. Sociology of Religion, 70(2):101-129. doi:10.1093/socrel/srp026, (p. 117).
162.^ Jump up to: a b 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-February-09
163.^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Science in America: Religious Belief and Public Attitudes". The Pew Forum. 18 December 2007. Retrieved 16 January 2012.
164.^ Jump up to: a b c Keeter, Scott; Smith, Gregory; Masci, David (2011). "Religious Belief and Attitudes about Science in the United States". The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. New York: Routledge. p. 336,345–347. ISBN 978-0415873697. "The United States is perhaps the most religious out of the advanced industrial democracies." ; "In fact, large majorities of the traditionally religious American nevertheless hold very positive views of science and scientists. Even people who accept a strict creationist view, regarding the origins of life are mostly favorable towards science." ; "Our review of three important issues on the public policy agenda in the United States suggest that although there is a potential for broad religiously based conflict over science, the scope of this conflict is limited. Only on one issue does a significant portion of the public deny strong consensus for religious reasons: evolution. The significance of this disagreement should not be understated, but it is decidedly unrepresentative of the broader set of scientific controversies and issues. As already noted, it is difficult to find any other major policy issues on which there are strong religious objections to scientific research. Religious concerns do arise in connection with a number of areas of life sciences research, such as the effort to develop medical therapies from embryonic stem cells. But these are not rooted in disputes about the truth of scientific research, and can be found across the spectrum of religious sentiment." ; "According to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes about science are more favorable in the United States than in Europe, Russia, and Japan, despite great differences across these cultures in level of religiosity (National Science Foundation, 2008)."
165.^ Jump up to: a b Numbers, Ronald (2009). "Myth 24: That Creationism is a Uniquely American Phenomenon". In Ronald Numbers. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. Harvard University Press. pp. 215–223. ISBN 9780674057418.
166.Jump up ^ Evans, John (2011). "Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50 (4): 707–727. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01603.x.
167.Jump up ^ Baker, Joseph O. (2012). "Public Perceptions of Incompatibility Between "Science and Religion"". Public Understanding of Science 21 (3): 340–353. doi:10.1177/0963662511434908.
168.Jump up ^ Scott Keeter, Gregory Smith, David Masci. "Religious Belief and Public Attitudes About Science in the US" (PDF). Pew Research Center. pp. 1–2, 13.
169.Jump up ^ Christopher P. Scheitle (2011). "U.S. College students' perception of religion and science: Conflict, collaboration, or independence? A research note". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Blackwell) 50 (1): 175–186. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x. ISSN 1468-5906.
170.Jump up ^ "Nones on the Rise" (PDF). Pew Research Center. p. 24.
171.Jump up ^ Francis, Leslie J.; Greer, John E. (1 May 2001). "Shaping Adolescents' Attitudes towards Science and Religion in Northern Ireland: The role of scientism, creationism and denominational schools". Research in Science & Technological Education 19 (1): 39–53. Bibcode:2001RSTEd..19...39J. doi:10.1080/02635140120046213.
172.Jump up ^ Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart (2011). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–68. ISBN 978-1-107-64837-1. "Instead, as is clearly shown in Figure 3.3, societies with greater faith in science also often have stronger religious beliefs." and "Indeed, the secular postindustrial societies, exemplified by the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, prove most skeptical toward the impact of science and technology, and this is in accordance with the countries where the strongest public disquiet has been expressed about certain contemporary scientific developments such as the use of genetically modified organisms, biotechnological cloning, and nuclear power. Interestingly, again the United States displays distinctive attitudes compared with similar European nations, showing greater faith in both God and scientific progress."
References[edit]
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 [2]
Haught, John F. Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation. Paulist Press, 1995. ISBN 0-8091-3606-6
Jones, Richard H. For the Glory of God: The Role of Christianity in the Rise and Development of Modern Science. 2 Volumes. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2011 and 2012.
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
Further reading[edit]
Brooke, John H., Margaret Osler, and Jitse M. van der Meer, editors. "Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions," Osiris, 2nd ser., vol. 16(2001), ISBN 0-226-07565-6.
Brooke, John H., Science And Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991, ISBN 0-521-23961-3
Bunge, Mario, Chasing Reality: Strife over Realism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Cook, Melvin Alonzo, and Melvin Garfield Cook. Science and Mormonism: Correlations, Conflicts, and Conciliations. [Salt Lake City, Utah]: Deseret News Press, 1967.
Haisch, Bernard. The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What's Behind It All, Red Wheel/Weiser, 2006, ISBN 1-57863-374-5
Harper, Sharon M.P. (ed.) (2000). The Lab, the Temple, and the Market: Reflections at the Intersection of Science, Religion, and Development. International Development Research Centre. ISBN 0889369208.
Harrison, Peter, The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (Cambridge, 2010).
Huxley, Thomas Henry, Science and Hebrew Tradition: Essays, D. Appleton and Company, 1897, 372 pages
Johnston, Howard Agnew. Scientific Faith. [London]: Hodder & Stoughton; New York: G. H. Doran Co., 1904.
Lenaers, Roger. Nebuchadnezzar's Dream or The End of a Medieval Catholic Church. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007. ISBN 978-1-59333-583-0.
Nelson, Thomas L. Scientific Aspects of Mormonism: or, Religion in Terms of Life. Chicago, Ill.: Press of Hillison & Etten Co., 1904, t.p. 1918.
Oord,Thomas Jay, ed., Divine Grace and Emerging Creation: Wesleyan Forays in Science and Theology of Creation, Pickwick Publications, 2009, ISBN 1-60608-287-6
Oord,Thomas Jay, Science of Love: The Wisdom of Well-Being, Templeton, 2003, ISBN 1-932031-70-7
Restivo, Sal, The Social Relations of Physics, Mysticism, and Mathematics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1983.
Richardson, Mark - Wesley Wildman (ed.), Religion & Science: History, Method, Dialogue, Routledge, 1996, ISBN 0-415-91667-4
Stump, J.B., and Alan G. Padgett (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell (2012).
Van Huyssteen, J. Wentzel (editor), Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, MacMillan, 2003, ISBN 0-02-865704-7
Walsh, James J., The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time, Kessinger Publishing, 1908, reprinted 2003. ISBN 0-7661-3646-9 from WorldCat [3] Review excerpts:
Waters, F. W. The Way in and the Way out: Science and Religion Reconciled. Toronto: Oxford University Press, Canadian Branch, 1967. x, [2], 269 p.
Wilber, Ken, The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion, Broadway; Reprint edition, 1999, ISBN 0-7679-0343-9
External links[edit]
The BioLogos Forum: Science and Faith in Dialogue
Test of Faith - From the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion
Counterbalance.org: Science and Religion Project
"Faith and Reason" – website about the historical relations between science and religion, PBS
Religion and Science in Historical Perspective by Ted Davis
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)
Clash in Cambridge: Science and religion seem as antagonistic as ever – by John Horgan, Scientific American, September 2005
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. Retrieved 2007-08-31.
Zygon Journal of Religion and Science
Science and Religion by Archbishop Luke of Crimea, an Eastern Orthodox perspective
Victorian Science and Religion The Victorian Web: Literature, History, and Culture in the Age of Victoria
SCIENCE and RELIGION: DIALOG OF PHYSICISTS AND THEOLOGIANS SCIENCE and RELIGION: DIALOG OF PHYSICISTS AND THEOLOGIANS
The Metaphysical Foundations of Buddhism and Sciences
INTERS - Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science - collection of documents (including the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science) that seeks to help scientists frame their work within a philosophical and humanistic context, edited at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross (Rome, Italy)


[show] 
Articles Related to the Relationship Between Religion and Science

































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Portal
Category





































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































  


Categories: Religion and science
History of science
History of religion
Philosophy of religion
Philosophy of science

















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Català
Deutsch
Español
Esperanto
Français
한국어
עברית
Македонски
日本語
Português
Română
Русский
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 April 2015, at 14:13.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

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












Relationship between religion and science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Science and religion)
Jump to: navigation, search

The relationship between religion and science has been a subject of study since Classical antiquity, addressed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others. Perspectives from different geographical regions, cultures and historical epochs show significant diversity, with some characterizing the relationship as one of conflict, others describing it as one of harmony, and still others proposing little interaction.
Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness. These methodologies are totally different. They are diametrically opposed. Reason, empiricism, and evidence simply do not recognize revelation, faith, and sacredness as valid sources of knowledge. Further, revelation, faith, and sacredness, which are examples of religious dogma, only accept conflicting scientific opinion when the evidence becomes overwhelmingly accepted by the general public.
Despite these differences, most scientific and technical innovations prior to the Scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Many features of the scientific method were first pioneered by ancient civilizations such as the Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, and Sumerians. Later during the Middle Ages, the Catholic church was responsible for saving much of the scientific knowledge from these civilizations, thus allowing the scientific method to develop in Europe during and after the Renaissance and through the enlightenment period. Islam also made great contributions to areas such as Mathematics, and Astronomy. Many of the most noted scientists in history, such as Blaise Pascal, Copernicus, and the founder of modern genetics Gregor Mendel, were devout Christians. The Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Jesuit priest named Georges Lemaître. Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world[citation needed]. Confucian thought has held different views of science over time. Most Buddhists today view science as complementary to their beliefs.
Events in Europe such as the Galileo affair, associated with the Scientific revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, led scholars such as John William Draper to postulate a conflict thesis, holding that religion and science conflict methodologically, factually and politically. This thesis is advanced by contemporary scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg and Carl Sagan, as well as by many creationists. While the conflict thesis remains popular for the public, it has lost favor among most contemporary historians of science.[1][2][3][4]
Many theologians, philosophers and scientists in history have found no conflict between their faith and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould, other scientists, and some contemporary theologians hold that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Scientists Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller, John Polkinghorne, Denis Alexander and Francis Collins see no necessary conflict between religion and science. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between them.
Public acceptance of scientific facts may be influenced by religion; many in the United States reject the idea of evolution by natural selection, especially regarding human beings. Nevertheless, the American National Academy of Sciences has written that "the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith," a view officially endorsed by many religious denominations globally.[5]


Contents  [hide]
1 Perspectives 1.1 Incompatibility
1.2 Conflict thesis
1.3 Independence 1.3.1 Parallels in method
1.4 Dialogue
1.5 Cooperative
2 Bahá'í
3 Buddhism
4 Christianity 4.1 Individual scientists' beliefs
4.2 Perspectives on evolution
4.3 Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century
4.4 Roman Catholicism
4.5 Influence of a biblical world view on early modern science
5 Confucianism and traditional Chinese religion
6 Hinduism
7 Islam 7.1 Ahmadiyya
8 Jainism
9 Perspectives from the scientific community 9.1 History
9.2 Studies on scientists' beliefs
10 Public perceptions of science
11 See also
12 Notes
13 References
14 Further reading
15 External links

Perspectives[edit]



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


 According to Richard Dawkins, "not only is science corrosive to religion; religion is corrosive to science. It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural non-explanations and blinds them to the wonderful real explanations that we have within our grasp. It teaches them to accept authority, revelation and faith instead of always insisting on evidence."[6]
The kinds of interactions that might arise between science and religion have been categorized, according to theologian, Anglican priest and physicist John Polkinghorne are: (1) conflict between the disciplines, (2) independence of the disciplines, (3) dialogue between the disciplines where they overlap and (4) integration of both into one field.[7]
This typology is similar to ones used by theologians Ian Barbour[8] and John Haught.[9] More typologies that categorize this relationship can be found among the works of other science and religion scholars such as theologian and biochemist Arthur Peacocke.[10]
Incompatibility[edit]
According to Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C and Avelina Espinosa, the historical conflicts between science and religion are intrinsic to the incompatibility between scientific rationalism/empiricism and the belief in supernatural causation;[11] these authors have formally proposed the incompatibility hypothesis (IH) to explain the "everlasting-conflict-science-and-faith".[12] According to Jerry Coyne, views on evolution and levels of religiosity in some countries, along with the existence of books explaining reconciliation between evolution and religion, indicate that people have trouble in believing both at the same time, thus implying incompatibility.[13] According to Lawrence Krauss, compatibility or incompatibility is a theological concern, not a scientific concern.[13] In Lisa Randall's view, questions of incompatibility or otherwise are not answerable since by accepting revelations one is abandoning rules of logic which are needed to identify if there are indeed contradictions between holding certain beliefs.[13] Daniel Dennett holds that incompatibility exists because religion is not problematic to a certain point before it collapses into a number of excuses for keeping certain beliefs, in light of evolutionary implications.[13]
According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, the central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing. Because of this both are incompatible as currently practiced and the debate of compatibility or incompatibility will be eternal.[14][15] Philosopher and physicist Victor J. Stenger's view is that science and religion are incompatible due to conflicts between approaches of knowing and the availability of alternative plausible natural explanations for phenomena that is usually explained in religious contexts.[16] Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris views science and religion as being in competition, with religion now "losing the argument with modernity".[17] However, Harris disagrees with Jerry Coyne and Daniel Dennett's narrow view of the debate and argues that it is very easy for people to reconcile science and religion because some things are above strict reason, scientific expertise or domains do not spill over to religious expertise or domains necessarily, and mentions "There simply IS no conflict between religion and science."[13]
According to Richard Dawkins, he is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect".[18] He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.[19]
Others such as Francis Collins, Kenneth R. Miller, George Coyne and Francisco J. Ayala argue for compatibility since they do not agree that science is incompatible with religion and vice versa. They argue that science provides many opportunities to look for and find God in nature and to reflect on their beliefs.[20] According to Kenneth Miller, he disagrees with Jerry Coyne's assessment and argues that since significant portions of scientists are religious and the proportion of Americans believing in evolution is much higher, it implies that both are indeed compatible.[13] Karl Giberson argues that when discussing compatibility, some scientific intellectuals often ignore the viewpoints of intellectual leaders in theology and instead argue against less informed masses, thereby, defining religion by non intellectuals and slanting the debate unjustly. He argues that leaders in science sometimes trump older scientific baggage and that leaders in theology do the same, so once theological intellectuals are taken into account, people who represent extreme positions like Ken Ham and Eugene Scott will become irrelevant.[13]
Conflict thesis[edit]
Main article: 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's and Andrew Dickson White's accounts. It was in the 19th century that relationship between science and religion became an actual formal topic of discourse, while before this no one had pitted science against religion or vice versa, though occasional complex interactions had been expressed before the 19th century.[21] Most contemporary historians of science now reject the conflict thesis in its original form and no longer support it.[1][2][3][22] Instead, it has been superseded by subsequent historical research which has resulted in a more nuanced understanding:[23][24] Historian of science, Gary Ferngren, has stated "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."[25]
Most historians today have moved away from a conflict model, which is based mainly on two historical episodes (Galileo and Darwin) for a "complexity" model, because religious figures were on both sides of each dispute and there was no overall aim by any party involved to discredit religion.[26]
An often cited example of conflict was the Galilio affair, whereby interpretations of the Bible were used to attack ideas by Copernicus on Heliocentrism. By 1616 Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade Catholic Church authorities not to ban Copernicus' ideas. In the end, a decree of the Congregation of the Index was issued, declaring that the ideas that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved were "false" and "altogether contrary to Holy Scripture", and suspending Copernicus's De Revolutionibus until it could be corrected. Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[27] However, before all this, Pope Urban VIII had personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in a book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism as physically proven yet. Pope Urban VIII asked that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often portrayed as an unlearned fool who lacked mathematical training. Although the preface of his book claims that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton".[28] Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.[29] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the physical Copernican advocacy. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.[30]
Independence[edit]
In the view of physicist and Hindu monk Mauricio Garrido non-Euclidean geometry proved that Euclidean axioms, such as "there is only one straight line between two points", which were considered self-evident, absolute truths until the 19th century, are in fact interchangeable with different axioms. Therefore, claims by any ideology to exclusive truth, proved by reason or by any other method are obviously wrong.[31]
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.[32] 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.[33]
The USA's National Academy of Science supports the view that science and religion are independent.[34]

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to put science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.[34]
According to Archbishop John Habgood, both science and religion represent distinct ways of approaching experience and these differences are sources of debate. He views science as descriptive and religion as prescriptive. He stated that if science and mathematics concentrate on what the world ought to be, in the way that religion does, it may lead to improperly ascribing properties to the natural world as happened among the followers of Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C.[35] In contrast, proponents of a normative moral science take issue with the idea that science has no way of guiding "oughts". Habgood also stated that he believed that 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 Ptolemic (heliocentric) planetary model that held sway until changes in scientific and religious thinking were brought about by Galileo and proponents of his views.[35]
Parallels in method[edit]
According to Ian Barbour, 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.[36]
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. Polanyi 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.[36] Polanyi added that the scientist often merely follows intuitions of "intellectual beauty, symmetry, and 'empirical agreement'".[36] Polanyi held that science requires moral commitments similar to those found in religion.[36]
Two physicists, Charles A. Coulson and Harold K. Schilling, both claimed that "the methods of science and religion have much in common."[36] Schilling asserted that both fields—science and religion—have "a threefold structure—of experience, theoretical interpretation, and practical application."[36] 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."[36] Religious language and scientific language also show parallels (cf. rhetoric of science).
Dialogue[edit]



Clerks studying astronomy and geometry (France, early 15th century).
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."[37][38] 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, theologians, and engaged non-professionals.[38][not in citation given] 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, the Ian Ramsey Centre,[39] and the Faraday Institute. Journals addressing the relationship between science and religion include Theology and Science and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science. Eugenie Scott has written that the "science and religion" movement is, overall, composed mainly of theists who have a healthy respect for science and may be beneficial to the public understanding of science. She contends that the "Christian scholarship" movement is not a problem for science, but that the "Theistic science" movement, which proposes abandoning methodological materialism, does cause problems in understanding of the nature of science.[40]
The modern dialogue between religion and science is rooted in Ian Barbour's 1966 book Issues in Science and Religion.[41] Since that time it has grown into 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.[41] Articles are also sometimes found in mainstream science journals such as American Journal of Physics[42] and Science.[43][44]
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued that there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion, and that there is deep conflict between science and naturalism.[45] Plantinga, in his book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, heavily contests the linkage of naturalism with science, as conceived by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and like-minded thinkers; while Daniel Dennett thinks that Plantinga stretches science to an unacceptable extent.[46] Philosopher Maarten Boudry, in reviewing the book, has commented that he resorts to creationism and fails to "stave off the conflict between theism and evolution."[47] Cognitive scientist Justin L. Barrett, by contrast, reviews the same book and writes that "those most needing to hear Plantinga's message may fail to give it a fair hearing for rhetorical rather than analytical reasons."[48]
Cooperative[edit]
As a general view, this holds that while interactions are complex between influences of science, theology, politics, social, and economic concerns, the productive engagements between science and religion throughout history should be duly stressed as the norm.
Scientific and theological perspectives often coexist peacefully. Christians and some non-Christian religions 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.[35] According to Lawrence M. Principe, the Johns Hopkins University Drew Professor of the Humanities, from a historical perspective this points out that much of the current-day clashes occur between limited extremists—both religious and scientistic fundamentalists—over a very few topics, and that the movement of ideas back and forth between scientific and theological thought has been more usual.[49] To Principe, this perspective would point to the fundamentally common respect for written learning in religious traditions of rabbinical literature, Christian theology, and the Islamic Golden Age, including a Transmission of the Classics from Greek to Islamic to Christian traditions which helped spark the Renaissance. Religions have also given key participation in development of modern universities and libraries; centers of learning & scholarship were coincident with religious institutions - whether pagan, Muslim, or Christian.[50]
Bahá'í[edit]
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.[51][52][53]
Buddhism[edit]
Main article: Buddhism and science
Buddhism and science have been regarded as compatible by numerous authors.[54] Some philosophic and psychological teachings found in Buddhism share points in common 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. Buddhism and science both show a strong emphasis on causality. However, Buddhism doesn't focus on materialism.[55]
Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, maintains that empirical scientific evidence supersedes the traditional teachings of Buddhism when the two are in conflict. In his book The Universe in a Single Atom he wrote, "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science, so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation." and "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false," he says, "then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."[56][57]
Christianity[edit]



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


 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.
Most sources of knowledge available to early Christians were connected to pagan world-views. There were various opinions on how Christianity should regard pagan learning, which included its ideas about nature. For instance, among early Christian teachers, Tertullian (c. 160–220) held a generally negative opinion of Greek philosophy, while Origen (c. 185–254) regarded it much more favorably and required his students to read nearly every work available to them.[58]



 Clerks studying astronomy and geometry.
 France, early 15th century.
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.[35] 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.[35] Robert John Russell has examined consonance and dissonance between modern physics, evolutionary biology, and Christian theology.[59][60]
Christian philosophers Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and Thomas Aquinas[61] held that scriptures can have multiple interpretations on certain areas where the matters were far beyond their reach, therefore one should leave room for future findings to shed light on the meanings. The "Handmaiden" tradition, which saw secular studies of the universe as a very important and helpful part of arriving at a better understanding of scripture, was adopted throughout Christian history from early on.[62] Also the sense that God created the world as a self operating system is what motivated many Christians throughout the Middle Ages to investigate nature.[63]
Modern historians of science such as J.L. Heilbron,[64] Alistair Cameron Crombie, David Lindberg,[65] Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein,[66] and Ted Davis have reviewed the popular notion that medieval Christianity was a negative influence in the development of civilization and science. In their views, not only did the monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions, but the medieval church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of many universities which, under its leadership, grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's "model theologian", not only argued that reason is in harmony with faith, he even recognized that reason can contribute to understanding revelation, and so encouraged intellectual development. He was not unlike other medieval theologians who sought out reason in the effort to defend his faith.[67] Some of today's scholars, such as Stanley Jaki, have claimed that Christianity with its particular worldview, was a crucial factor for the emergence of modern science.[68]
David C. Lindberg states that the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a time of ignorance and superstition due to the Christian church is a "caricature". According to Lindberg, while there are some portions of the classical tradition which suggest this view, these were exceptional cases. It was common to tolerate and encourage critical thinking about the nature of the world. The relation between Christianity and science is complex and cannot be simplified to either harmony or conflict, according to Lindberg.[69] Lindberg reports that "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led. There was no warfare between science and the church."[70] Ted Peters in Encyclopedia of Religion writes that although there is some truth in the "Galileo's condemnation" story but through exaggerations, it has now become "a modern myth perpetuated by those wishing to see warfare between science and religion who were allegedly persecuted by an atavistic and dogma-bound ecclesiastical authority".[71] In 1992, the Catholic Church's seeming vindication of Galileo attracted much comment in the media.
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".[72]
During the Enlightenment, a period "characterized by dramatic revolutions in science" and the rise of Protestant challenges to the authority of the Catholic Church via individual liberty, the authority of Christian scriptures became strongly challenged. As science advanced, acceptance of a literal version of the Bible became "increasingly untenable" and some in that period presented ways of interpreting scripture according to its spirit on its authority and truth.[73]
Individual scientists' beliefs[edit]



 Set of pictures for a number of notable Christian scientists and Inventors.
Many well-known historical figures who influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Copernicus,[74] Galileo,[75] Kepler,[76] Newton[77] and Boyle.[78]
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." Other famous founders of science who adhered to Christian beliefs include Galileo, Johannes Kepler, and Blaise Pascal.[79][80]
According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.[81]
Perspectives on evolution[edit]
In recent history, the theory of evolution has been at the center of some controversy between Christianity and science. Christians who accept a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation find incompatibility between Darwinian evolution and their interpretation of the Christian faith.[82] Creation science or scientific creationism[83] is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and attempts to disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.[84][85] It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and falsify the scientific evidence for evolution.[86] It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide.[87] In 1925, The State of Tennessee passed the Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in all schools in the state. Later that year, a similar law was passed in Mississippi, and likewise, Arkansas in 1927. In 1968, these "anti-monkey" laws were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States as unconstitutional, "because they established a religious doctrine violating both the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.[88]
Most scientists have rejected creation science for several reasons, including that its claims do not refer to natural causes and cannot be tested. In 1987, the United States Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms.[89]
Theistic evolution attempts to reconcile Christian beliefs and science by accepting the scientific understanding of the age of the Earth and the process of evolution. It includes a range of beliefs, including views described as evolutionary creationism, which accepts some findings of modern science but also upholds classical religious teachings about God and creation in Christian context.[90]
Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century[edit]
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.[91]
In the 20th century, several ecumenical organizations promoting a harmony between science and Christianity were founded, most notably the American Scientific Affiliation, The Biologos Foundation, Christians in Science, The Society of Ordained Scientists, and The Veritas Forum.[92]
Roman Catholicism[edit]
See also: Catholic Church and evolution
While refined and clarified over the centuries, the Roman Catholic position on the relationship between science and religion is one of harmony, and has maintained the teaching of natural law as set forth by Thomas Aquinas. For example, regarding scientific study such as that of evolution, the church's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. Catholic schools have included all manners of scientific study in their curriculum for many centuries.[93]
Galileo once stated "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[94] In 1981 John Paul II, then pope of the Roman Catholic Church, 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".[95]
Influence of a biblical world view on early modern science[edit]
According to Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom from the 19th century, a biblical world view affected negatively the progress of science through time. Dickinson also argues that immediately following the Reformation matters were even worse. The interpretations of Scripture by Luther and Calvin became as sacred to their followers as the Scripture itself. For instance, when Georg Calixtus ventured, in interpreting the Psalms, to question the accepted belief that "the waters above the heavens" were contained in a vast receptacle upheld by a solid vault, he was bitterly denounced as heretical.[96] Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was originally based is considered to be inaccurate. For instance, the claim that early Christians rejected scientific findings by the Greco-Romans is false, since the "handmaiden" view of secular studies was seen to shed light on theology. This view was widely adapted throughout the early medieval period and afterwards by theologians (such as Augustine) and ultimately resulted in fostering interest in knowledge about nature through time.[97] Also, 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[98] and is still very common in popular culture. Modern scholars regard this claim as 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."[98][99] From the fall of Rome to the time of Columbus, all major scholars and many vernacular writers interested in the physical shape of the earth held a spherical view with the exception of Lactantius and Cosmas.[100]
H. Floris Cohen argued for a biblical Protestant, but not excluding Catholicism, influence on the early development of modern science.[101] He 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 more experimentation and empiricism, and a supreme God that left nature and open to emulation and manipulation.[101] It supports the idea early modern science rose due to a combination of Greek and biblical thought.[102][103]
Oxford historian Peter Harrison is another who has argued that a biblical worldview was significant for the development of modern science. Harrison contends that Protestant approaches to the book of scripture had significant, if largely unintended, consequences for the interpretation of the book of nature.[104][page needed] Harrison has also suggested that literal readings of the Genesis narratives of the Creation and Fall motivated and legitimated scientific activity in seventeenth-century England. For many of its seventeenth-century practitioners, science was imagined to be a means of restoring a human dominion over nature that had been lost as a consequence of the Fall.[105][page needed]
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.[106] 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).[107] John Dillenberger and Christopher B. Kaiser have written theological surveys, which also cover additional interactions occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.[108][109] Philosopher of Religion, Richard Jones, has written a philosophical critique of the "dependency thesis" which assumes that modern science emerged from Christian sources and doctrines. Though he acknowledges that modern science emerged in a religious framework, that Christinaity greatly elevated the importance of science by sanctioning and religiously legitimizing it in medieval period, and that Christianity created a favorable social context for it to grow; he argues that direct Christian beliefs or doctrines were not primary source of scientific pursuits by natural philosophers, nor was Christianity, in and of itself, exclusively or directly necessary in developing or practicing modern science.[26]
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 René 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."[110] 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."[111] The sociologist Rodney Stark of Baylor University, argued in contrast that "Christian theology was essential for the rise of science."[112]
Confucianism and traditional Chinese religion[edit]
The historical process of Confucianism has largely been antipathic towards scientific discovery. However the religio-philosophical system itself is more neutral on the subject than such an analysis might suggest. In his writings On Heaven, Xunzi espoused a proto-scientific world view.[113] However during the Han Synthesis the more anti-empirical Mencius was favored and combined with Daoist skepticism regarding the nature of reality. Likewise, during the Medieval period, Zhu Xi argued against technical investigation and specialization proposed by Chen Liang.[114] After contact with the West, scholars such as Wang Fuzhi would rely on Buddhist/Daoist skepticism to denounce all science as a subjective pursuit limited by humanity's fundamental ignorance of the true nature of the world.[115] After the May Fourth Movement, attempts to modernize Confucianism and reconcile it with scientific understanding were attempted by many scholars including Feng Youlan and Xiong Shili. Given the close relationship that Confucianism shares with Buddhism, many of the same arguments used to reconcile Buddhism with science also readily translate to Confucianism. However, modern scholars have also attempted to define the relationship between science and Confucianism on Confucianism's own terms and the results have usually led to the conclusion that Confucianism and science are fundamentally compatible.[116]
Hinduism[edit]
See also: Hindu views on evolution, List of numbers in Hindu scriptures, Hindu cosmology, Hindu units of time, Indian astronomy, Hindu calendar, Indian mathematics and List of Indian inventions and discoveries



Saraswati is regarded as goddess of knowledge, music, arts and science.
In Hinduism, the dividing line between objective sciences and spiritual knowledge (adhyatma vidya) is a linguistic paradox.[117] Hindu scholastic activities and ancient Indian scientific advancements were so interconnected that many Hindu scriptures are also ancient scientific manuals and vice versa. In 1835, English was made the primary language for teaching in higher education in India, exposing Hindu scholars to Western secular ideas; thus starting a renaissance regarding religious and philosophical thought.[118] Hindu sages maintained that logical argument and rational proof using Nyaya is the way to obtain correct knowledge.[117] From a Hindu perspective, modern science is a legitimate, but incomplete, step towards knowing and understanding reality. Hinduism views that science only offers a limited view of reality, but all it offers is right and correct.[119] To clarify, the scientific level of understanding focuses on how things work and from where they originate, while Hinduism strives to understand the ultimate purposes for the existence of living things.[118] To obtain and broaden the knowledge of the world for spiritual perfection, many refer to the Bhāgavata for guidance because it draws upon a scientific and theological dialogue.[120] Hinduism offers methods to correct and transform itself in course of time. For instance, Hindu views on the development of life include a range of viewpoints in regards to evolution, creationism, and the origin of life within the traditions of Hinduism. For instance, it has been suggested that Wallace-Darwininan evolutionary thought was a part of Hindu thought centuries before modern times.[121] The Shankara and the Sāmkhya did not have a problem with the theory of evolution, but instead, argued about the existence of God and what happened after death. These two distinct groups argued among each other's philosophies because of their sacred texts, not the idea of evolution.[122] With the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, many Hindus were eager to connect their scriptures to Darwinism, finding similarities between Brahma's creation, Vishnu's incarnations, and evolution theories.[118]
Samkhya, the oldest school of Hindu philosophy prescribes a particular method to analyze knowledge. According to Samkhya, all knowledge is possible through three means of valid knowledge[123][124] –
1.Pratyakṣa or Dṛṣṭam – direct sense perception,
2.Anumāna – logical inference and
3.Śabda or Āptavacana – verbal testimony.
Nyaya, the Hindu school of logic, accepts all these 3 means and in addition accepts one more - Upamāna (comparison).
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.[125] 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.[126]
The incarnations of Vishnu (Dashavatara) is almost identical to the scientific explanation of the sequence of biological evolution of man and animals.[127][128][129][130] The sequence of avatars starts from an aquatic organism (Matsya), to an amphibian (Kurma), to a land-animal (Varaha), to a humanoid (Narasimha), to a dwarf human (Vamana), to 5 forms of well developed human beings (Parashurama, Rama, Balarama/Buddha, Krishna, Kalki) who showcase an increasing form of complexity (Axe-man, King, Plougher/Sage, wise Statesman, mighty Warrior).[127][130] In fact, many Hindu gods are represented with features of animals as well as those of humans, leading many Hindus to easily accept evolutionary links between animals and humans.[118] In India, the home country of Hindus; educated Hindus widely accept the theory of biological evolution. In a survey of 909 people, 77% of respondents in India agreed with Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and 85 per cent of God-believing people said they believe in evolution as well.[131][132]
As per Vedas, another explanation for the creation is based on the five elements: earth, water, fire, air and aether. The Hindu religion traces its beginnings to the sacred Vedas. Everything that is established in the Hindu faith such as the gods and goddesses, doctrines, chants, spiritual insights, etc. flow from the poetry of Vedic hymns. The Vedas offer an honor to the sun and moon, water and wind, and to the order in Nature that is universal. This naturalism is the beginning of what further becomes the connection between Hinduism and science.[133]
Islam[edit]
Main article: Islam and science
See also: Science in the medieval Islamic world
From an Islamic standpoint, science, the study of nature, is considered to be linked to the concept of Tawhid (the Oneness of God), as are all other branches of knowledge.[134] In Islam, nature is not seen as a separate entity, but rather as an integral part of Islam's holistic outlook on God, humanity, and the world. The Islamic view of science and nature is continuous with that of religion and God. This link implies a sacred aspect to the pursuit of scientific knowledge by Muslims, as nature itself is viewed in the Qur'an as a compilation of signs pointing to the Divine.[135] It was with this understanding that science was studied and understood in Islamic civilizations, specifically during the eighth to sixteenth centuries, prior to the colonization of the Muslim world.[136] Robert Briffault, in The Making of Humanity, asserts that the very existence of science, as it is understood in the modern sense, is rooted in the scientific thought and knowledge that emerged in Islamic civilizations during this time.[137]
With the decline of Islamic Civilizations in the late Middle Ages and the rise of Europe, the Islamic scientific tradition shifted into a new period. Institutions that had existed for centuries in the Muslim world looked to the new scientific institutions of European powers.[citation needed] This changed the practice of science in the Muslim world, as Islamic scientists had to confront the western approach to scientific learning, which was based on a different philosophy of nature.[134] From the time of this initial upheaval of the Islamic scientific tradition to the present day, Muslim scientists and scholars have developed a spectrum of viewpoints on the place of scientific learning within the context of Islam, none of which are universally accepted or practiced.[138] However, most maintain the view that the acquisition of knowledge and scientific pursuit in general is not in disaccord with Islamic thought and religious belief.[134][138]
Ahmadiyya[edit]
Further information: Ahmadiyya views on evolution
The Ahmadiyya movement emphasize that there is no contradiction between Islam and science. For example, Ahmadi Muslims universally accept in principle the process of evolution, albeit divinely guided, and actively promote it. Over the course of several decades the movement has issued various publications in support of the scientific concepts behind the process of evolution, and frequently engages in promoting how religious scriptures, such as the Qur'an, supports the concept.[139] For general purposes, the second Khalifa of the community, Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad says:

The Holy Quran directs attention towards science, time and again, rather than evoking prejudice against it. The Quran has never advised against studying science, lest the reader should become a non-believer; because it has no such fear or concern. The Holy Quran is not worried that if people will learn the laws of nature its spell will break. The Quran has not prevented people from science, rather it states, "Say, 'Reflect on what is happening in the heavens and the earth.'" (Al Younus) [140]
Jainism[edit]
Main article: Jainism and non-creationism
Jainism does not support belief in a creator deity. According to Jain doctrine, the universe and its constituents - soul, matter, space, time, and principles of motion have always existed (a static universe similar to that of Epicureanism and steady state cosmological model). All the constituents and actions are governed by universal natural laws. It is not possible to create matter out of nothing and hence the sum total of matter in the universe remains the same (similar to law of conservation of mass). Similarly, the soul of each living being is unique and uncreated and has existed since beginningless time.[a][141]
The Jain theory of causation holds that a cause and its effect are always identical in nature and hence a conscious and immaterial entity like God cannot create a material entity like the universe. Furthermore, according to the Jain concept of divinity, any soul who destroys its karmas and desires, achieves liberation. A soul who destroys all its passions and desires has no desire to interfere in the working of the universe. Moral rewards and sufferings are not the work of a divine being, but a result of an innate moral order in the cosmos; a self-regulating mechanism whereby the individual reaps the fruits of his own actions through the workings of the karmas.
Through the ages, Jain philosophers have adamantly rejected and opposed the concept of creator and omnipotent God and this has resulted in Jainism being labeled as nastika darsana or atheist philosophy by the rival religious philosophies. The theme of non-creationism and absence of omnipotent God and divine grace runs strongly in all the philosophical dimensions of Jainism, including its cosmology, karma, moksa and its moral code of conduct. Jainism asserts a religious and virtuous life is possible without the idea of a creator god.[142]
Perspectives from the scientific community[edit]
History[edit]
Further information: List of Jewish scientists and philosophers, List of Christian thinkers in science, List of Muslim scientists and List of atheists (science and technology)
In the 17th century, founders of the Royal Society largely held conventional and orthodox religious views, and a number of them were prominent Churchmen.[143] 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.[144] Clerical involvement in the Royal Society remained high until the mid-nineteenth century, when science became more professionalised.[145]
Albert Einstein supported the compatibility of some interpretations of religion with science. In "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium" published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York in 1941, Einstein stated:

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 judgments 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.[146]
Einstein thus expresses views of ethical non-naturalism (contrasted to ethical naturalism).
Prominent modern scientists who are atheists include evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and Nobel Prize–winning physicist Stephen Weinberg. Prominent scientists advocating religious belief include Nobel Prize–winning physicist and United Church of Christ member Charles Townes, evangelical Christian and past head of the Human Genome Project Francis Collins, and climatologist John T. Houghton.[43]
Studies on scientists' beliefs[edit]

Globe icon.
 The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (March 2012)
Statistical analysis of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.[81] Specifically on the science related prizes, Christians have won a total of 72.5% of all the Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, and 54% in all Economics awards.[147] Jews have won 17.3% of the prizes in Chemistry, 26.2% in Medicine, and 25.9% in Physics.[147] Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers have won 7.1% of the prizes in Chemistry, 8.9% in Medicine, and 4.7% in Physics.[147] According to a study that was done by University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, 60% of Nobel prize laureates in physics from 1901 to 1990 had a Christian background.[148]
Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than are the rest of the population. Precise definitions and statistics vary, but generally about 1/3 of scientists are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God (although some might be deistic, for example).[43][149][150] This is in contrast to the more than roughly 3/4 of the general population that believe in some God in the United States. Belief also varies slightly by field. Two surveys on physicists, geoscientists, biologists, mathematicians, and chemists have noted that, from those specializing in these fields, physicists had lowest percentage of belief in God (29%) while chemists had highest (41%).[149][151] Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, only 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer.[152]
In 1916, 1,000 leading American scientists were randomly chosen from American Men of Science and 41.8% believed God existed, 41.5% disbelieved, and 16.7% had doubts/did not know; however when the study was replicated 80 years later using American Men and Women of Science in 1996, results were very much the same with 39.3% believing God exists, 45.3% disbelieved, and 14.5% had doubts/did not know.[43][149] In the same 1996 survey, scientists in the fields of biology, mathematics, and physics/astronomy, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" was most popular among mathematicians (about 45%) and least popular among physicists (about 22%). In total, in terms of belief toward a personal god and personal immortality, about 60% of United States scientists in these fields expressed either disbelief or agnosticism and about 40% expressed belief.[149] This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933.[citation needed]
A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York on 1,646 natural and social science professors at 21 elite US research universities found that, in terms of belief in God or a higher power, more than 60% expressed either disbelief or agnosticism and more than 30% expressed belief. More specifically, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answered "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out."[153] In the same study, 28% said they believed in God and 8% believed in a higher power that was not God.[154] Ecklund stated that scientists were often able to consider themselves spiritual without religion or belief in god.[155] Ecklund and Scheitle concluded, from their study, that the individuals from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately had self-selected into scientific professions and that the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable since the study did not strongly support the idea that scientists had dropped religious identities due to their scientific training.[156] Instead, factors such as upbringing, age, and family size were significant influences on religious identification since those who had religious upbringing were more likely to be religious and those who had a non-religious upbringing were more likely to not be religious.[153][156] The authors also found little difference in religiosity between social and natural scientists.[157]
In terms of perceptions, most social and natural scientists from 21 American elite universities did not perceive conflict between science and religion, while 36.6% did. However, in the study, scientists who had experienced limited exposure to religion tended to perceive conflict.[158] In the same study they found that nearly one in five atheist scientists who are parents (17%) are part of religious congregations and have attended a religious service more than once in the past year. Some of the reasons for doing so are their scientific identity (wishing to expose their children to all sources of knowledge so they can make up their own minds), spousal influence, and desire for community.[159]
A study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) were "much less religious than the general public," with 51% believing in some form of deity or higher power. Specifically, 33% of those polled believe in God, 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power, and 41% did not believe in either God or a higher power.[160] 48% say they have a religious affiliation, equal to the number who say they are not affiliated with any religious tradition. 17% were atheists, 11% were agnostics, 20% were nothing in particular, 8% were Jewish, 10% were Catholic, 16% were Protestant, 4% were Evangelical, 10% were other religion. The survey also found younger scientists to be "substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God". Among the surveyed fields, chemists were the most likely to say they believe in God.[151]
Religious beliefs of US professors were recently examined using a nationally representative sample of more than 1,400 professors. They found that in the social sciences: 23.4% did not believe in God, 16% did not know if God existed, 42.5% believed God existed, and 16% believed in a higher power. Out of the natural sciences: 19.5% did not believe in God, 32.9% did not know if God existed, 43.9% believed God existed, and 3.7% believed in a higher power.[161]
Farr Curlin, a University of Chicago Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, noted in a study that doctors tend to be science-minded religious people. 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."[162]
Physicians in the United States, by contrast, are much more religious than scientists, with 76% stating a belief in God.[162]
Public perceptions of science[edit]
See also: Religiosity and education
According to a 2007 poll by the Pew Forum, "while large majorities of Americans respect science and scientists, they are not always willing to accept scientific findings that squarely contradict their religious beliefs."[163] The Pew Forum states that specific factual disagreements are "not common today", though 40% to 50% of Americans do not accept the evolution of humans and other living things, with the "strongest opposition" coming from evangelical Christians at 65% saying life did not evolve.[163] 51% of the population believes humans and other living things evolved: 26% through natural selection only, 21% somehow guided, 4% don't know.[163] In the U.S., biological evolution is the only concrete example of conflict where a significant portion of the American public denies scientific consensus for religious reasons.[163][164] In terms of advanced industrialized nations, the United States is the most religious.[163]
Creationism is not an exclusively American phenomenon. A poll on adult Europeans revealed that 40% believed in naturalistic evolution, 21% in theistic evolution, 20% in special creation, and 19% are undecided; with the highest concentrations of young earth creationists in Switzerland (21%), Austria (20.4%), Germany (18.1%).[165] Other countries such as Netherlands, Britain, and Australia have experienced growth in such views as well.[165]
Research on perceptions of science among the American public conclude that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science and they have no differences with nonreligious groups in the propensity of seeking out scientific knowledge, although there may be subtle epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.[166][167] Findings from the Pew Center note similar findings and also note that the majority of Americans (80-90%) show strong support for scientific research, agree that science makes society and individual's lives better, and 8 in 10 Americans would be happy if their children were to become scientists.[168] Even strict creationists tend to have very favorable views on science.[164] A study on a national sample of US college students examined whether these students viewed the science / religion relationship as reflecting primarily conflict, collaboration, or independence. The study concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move away from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than towards a conflict view.[169]
In the US, people who had no religious affiliation were no more likely than the religious population to have New Age beliefs and practices.[170][relevant? – discuss]
A study conducted on adolescents from Christian schools in Northern Ireland, noted a positive relationship between attitudes towards Christianity and science once attitudes towards scientism and creationism were accounted for.[171]
Cross-national studies, which have pooled data on religion and science from 1981-2001, have noted that countries with high religiosity also have stronger faith in science, while less religious countries have more skepticism of the impact of science and technology.[172] The United States is noted there as distinctive because of greater faith in both God and scientific progress. Other research cites the National Science Foundation's finding that America has more favorable public attitudes towards science than Europe, Russia, and Japan despite differences in levels of religiosity in these cultures.[164]
See also[edit]
Conflict thesis
Continuity thesis
Deep ecology
Demarcation problem
Faith and rationality
Issues in Science and Religion
Merton thesis
Natural theology
Philosophy of science
Politicization of science
Religious skepticism
Religion and psychology
Science and God
Scientific method and religion
Theistic evolution

By tradition:
Bahá'í Faith and science
Buddhism and science
Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
List of Catholic scientists
List of Christian thinkers in science
List of Roman Catholic scientist-clerics
Islam and science
In the US:
American Scientific Affiliation
Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences
Creation-evolution controversy
Intelligent design
Templeton Foundation

Portal icon Science portal
Portal icon Religion portal

Notes[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Russel, C.A. (2002). Ferngren, G.B., ed. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 7. 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"
2.^ Jump up to: a b Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press. p. 195. "In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the 'warfare between science and religion' and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science."
3.^ Jump up to: a b Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. "In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited."
4.Jump up ^ Ferngren, G.B. (2002). Ferngren, G.B., ed. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "... while [John Hedley] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind."
5.Jump up ^ Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A view from the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2008). Science, Evolution and Creationism. National Academy of Sciences.
6.Jump up ^ Richard Dawkins on militant atheism (transcript), TED talk, 2007 (page visited on 21 January 2015).
7.Jump up ^ John Polkinghorne Science and Theology SPCK/Fortress Press, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3153-6 pp20-22, following Ian Barbour
8.Jump up ^ Nature, Human Nature, and God, Ian G. Barbour, Fortress Press, 2002, ISBN 0-8006-3477-2
9.Jump up ^ Haught, John F. (1995). Science and Religion : From Conflict to Conversation. Paulist Prees. p. 9. ISBN 0809136066. "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: 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 both dialogue and 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."
10.Jump up ^ 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
11.Jump up ^ Paz-y-Miño-C G. & Espinosa A. 2014. "The Incompatibility Hypothesis: Evolution versus Supernatural Causation" (PDF). In Why Does Evolution Matter? The Importance of Understanding Evolution, edited by Gabriel Trueba. Newcastle UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 3–16. "The Incompatibility Hypothesis (IH) is an ultimate-level hypothesis. IH explains the cause of the controversy science-versus-religion, its fundamental reason. IH addresses directly the inquiry: what elicits the controversy science versus religion? And it offers an educated answer: their intrinsic and opposing approaches to assess reality, i.e. science by means of testing hypotheses, falsifying and/or testing predictions and replication of experiments; religion, in contrast, via belief in supernatural causality. Belief disrupts, distorts, delays or stops (3Ds + S) the comprehension and acceptance of scientific evidence. The authors consider the 3Ds + S to be cognitive effects of illusory thinking."
12.Jump up ^ Paz-y-Miño-C G. & Espinosa A. 2013. "The Everlasting Conflict Evolution-and-science versus Religiosity" (PDF). In Religion and Ethics, edited by Gloria Simpson and Spencer Payne, New York, NY: NOVA Publishers. pp. 73–98.
13.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g "Does The Empirical Nature Of Science Contradict The Revelatory Nature Of Faith? - Jerry Coyne". Edge. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
14.Jump up ^ "Holy Wars | Neil deGrasse Tyson". Haydenplanetarium.org. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
15.Jump up ^ Neil deGrasse Tyson From Natural History Magazine, October 1999
16.Jump up ^ Stenger, Victor J.. God and the folly of faith : the incompatibility of science and religion. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. pp. 290–296. ISBN 1-61614-599-4.
17.Jump up ^ "Science Must Destroy Religion". Retrieved 28 September 2013.
18.Jump up ^ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Bantam Press, 2006, pages 282-286.
19.Jump up ^ Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Free Press, 2010, pages 5-6.
20.Jump up ^ "Excerpts of Statements by Scientists Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science". National Academy of Sciences.
21.Jump up ^ Ronald Numbers, ed. (2009). Galileo Goes To Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. p. 3. ISBN 9780674057418.
22.Jump up ^ Ferngren, G.B. (2002). Ferngren, G.B., ed. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. ix, x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White 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. " ; "... while [John Hedley] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind."
23.Jump up ^ 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 Hedley] 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)
24.Jump up ^ 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).
25.Jump up ^ Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
26.^ Jump up to: a b Jones, Richard H. (2011). For the Glory of God : The Role of Christianity in the Rise and Development of Modern Science Volume 1. University Press of America. pp. 19–22,139. ISBN 9780761855668.
27.Jump up ^ Fantoli (2005, p. 139), Finocchiaro (1989, pp. 288–293).
28.Jump up ^ Finocchiaro (1997), p. 82; Moss & Wallace (2003), p. 11
29.Jump up ^ See Langford (1966, pp. 133–134), and Seeger (1966, p. 30), for example. Drake (1978, p. 355) asserts that Simplicio's character is modelled on the Aristotelian philosophers, Lodovico delle Colombe and Cesare Cremonini, rather than Urban. He also considers that the demand for Galileo to include the Pope's argument in the Dialogue left him with no option but to put it in the mouth of Simplicio (Drake, 1953, p. 491). Even Arthur Koestler, who is generally quite harsh on Galileo in The Sleepwalkers (1959), after noting that Urban suspected Galileo of having intended Simplicio to be a caricature of him, says "this of course is untrue" (1959, p. 483).
30.Jump up ^ Lindberg, David. "Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science".
31.Jump up ^ "Lessons from non Euclidean geometries for interfaith diaoluge".
32.Jump up ^ Stephen Jay Gould. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the fullness of life. Ballantine Books, 1999.
33.Jump up ^ W. T. Stace, Time and Eternity: an Essay in the Philosophy of Religion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1952.
34.^ Jump up to: a b http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html
35.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Religion and Science, John Habgood, Mills & Brown, 1964, pp., 11, 14-16, 48-55, 68-69, 90-91, 87
36.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g 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.
37.Jump up ^ 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
38.^ Jump up to: 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.
39.Jump up ^ "Ian Ramsey Centre". Users.ox.ac.uk. 2013-06-04. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
40.Jump up ^ Scott, Eugenie (1998). ""Science and Religion", "Christian Scholarship", and "Theistic Science"". Reports of the National Center for Science Education (National Center for Science Education) 18 (2). Retrieved 7 January 2013.
41.^ Jump up to: 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.
42.Jump up ^ Theerman, Paul "James Clerk Maxwell and religion", American Journal of Physics, 54 (4), April 1986, p.312–317 doi:10.1119/1.14636
•What is truth? A course in science and religion Peter J. Brancazio, Am. J. Phys. 62, 893 (1994) doi:10.1119/1.17735
•The stifling grip of religion Romard Barthel Am. J. Phys. 68, 785 (2000) doi:10.1119/1.1303729
•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
43.^ Jump up to: a b c d Science 15 August 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5328, pp. 890 - 893; "Scientific Community: Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Gregg Easterbrook doi:10.1126/science.277.5328.890
44.Jump up ^ •Science 12 September 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5332, pp. 1589 - 1591; "Letters: Science and Religion" doi:10.1126/science.277.5332.1589a
•Science 13 December 1957: Vol. 126. no. 3285, pp. 1225 - 1229; "Science and the Citizen" Warren Weaver doi:10.1126/science.126.3285.1225
•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." doi:10.1126/science.127.3310.1324
•Science 23 February 2001: Vol. 291. no. 5508, pp. 1472 - 1474; "PAPAL SCIENCE: Science and Religion Advance Together at Pontifical Academy" Charles Seife doi:10.1126/science.291.5508.1472
45.Jump up ^ Science and Religion, by Alvin Plantinga, 2007, 2010.
46.Jump up ^ Schuessler, Jennifer (13 December 2011). "Philosopher sticks up for God". The New York Times. Retrieved 7 January 2013.
47.Jump up ^ Boudry, Maarten (September and October 2012). "Review of Alvin Plantinga (2011), Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism". International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Group. "Plantinga's effort to stave off the conflict between theism and evolution is a failure... if the bar for rational belief is lowered to mere logical possibility, and the demand for positive evidence dropped, then no holds are barred." Check date values in: |date= (help)
48.Jump up ^ "Themelios | Review: Where The Conflict Really Lies Science Religion And Naturalism". The Gospel Coalition. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
49.Jump up ^ Principe (2006). Science and Religion. The Teaching Company.
50.Jump up ^ Principe. History of Science from Antiquity to 1700. The Teaching Company.
51.Jump up ^ Hatcher, William (September 1979). "Science and the Bahá'í Faith". Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 14 (3): 229–253. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1979.tb00359.x.
52.Jump up ^ Smith, P. (1999). A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications. pp. 306–307. ISBN 1-85168-184-1.
53.Jump up ^ 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.
54.Jump up ^ Yong, Amos. (2005) Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground (review) Buddhist-Christian Studies - Volume 25, 2005, pp. 176-180
55.Jump up ^ Wallace, B. Alan. (2003) " Buddhism & science: breaking new ground" Columbia University Press, pp 328
56.Jump up ^ Hamilton, Jon. (2005) "The Links Between the Dalai Lama and Neuroscience" www.NPR.org, November 11, 2005 [1]
57.Jump up ^ Dalai Lama. (2005) "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality" Broadway.
58.Jump up ^ Davis, Edward B. (2003). "Christianity, History Of Science And Religion". In Van Huyssteen, Wentzel. Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. Macmillan Reference USA. pp. 123–7. ISBN 978-0-02-865704-2
59.Jump up ^ Russell, Robert John (2008). Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. p. 344. ISBN 978-0-8006-6273-8.
60.Jump up ^ Knight, Christopher C. (2008). "God's Action in Nature's World: Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell". Science & Christian Belief 20 (2): 214–215. (subscription required (help)).
61.Jump up ^ Grant, Edward (2006). Science and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550 : from Aristotle to Copernicus (Johns Hopkins Paperbacks ed. ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 222. ISBN 0801884012.
62.Jump up ^ Grant 2006, p. 111-114
63.Jump up ^ Grant 2006, p. 105-106
64.Jump up ^ "What Time Is It in the Transept?". D. Graham Burnett book review of J.L.Heilbron's work, The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories. The New York Times. October 24, 1999. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
65.Jump up ^ Lindberg, David; Numbers, Ronald L (October 2003). When Science and Christianity Meet. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-48214-6.
66.Jump up ^ Goldstein, Thomas (April 1995). Dawn of Modern Science: From the Ancient Greeks to the Renaissance. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-80637-1.
67.Jump up ^ Pope John Paul II (September 1998). "Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), IV". Retrieved 2006-09-15.
68.Jump up ^ Jaki, Stanley L. The Savior of Science, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (July 2000), ISBN 0-8028-4772-2.
69.Jump up ^ David C. Lindberg, "The Medieval Church Encounters the Classical Tradition: Saint Augustine, Roger Bacon, and the Handmaiden Metaphor", in David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, ed. When Science & Christianity Meet, (Chicago: University of Chicago Pr., 2003).
70.Jump up ^ quoted in: Peters, Ted. "Science and Religion". Encyclopedia of Religion pg. 8182
71.Jump up ^ quoted in Ted Peters, Science and Religion, Encyclopedia of Religion, p.8182
72.Jump up ^ "Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
73.Jump up ^ "Enlightenement". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
74.Jump up ^ Pro forma candidate to Prince-Bishop of Warmia, cf. Dobrzycki, Jerzy, and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, "Kopernik, Mikołaj", Polski słownik biograficzny (Polish Biographical Dictionary), vol. XIV, Wrocław, Polish Academy of Sciences, 1969, p. 11.
75.Jump up ^ Sharratt, Michael (1994). Galileo: Decisive Innovator. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 17, 213. ISBN 0-521-56671-1.
76.Jump up ^ "Because he would not accept the Formula of Concord without some reservations, he was excommunicated from the Lutheran communion. Because he remained faithful to his Lutheranism throughout his life, he experienced constant suspicion from Catholics." John L. Treloar, "Biography of Kepler shows man of rare integrity. Astronomer saw science and spirituality as one." National Catholic Reporter, October 8, 2004, p. 2a. A review of James A. Connor Kepler's Witch: An Astronomer's Discovery of Cosmic Order amid Religious War, Political Intrigue and Heresy Trial of His Mother, Harper San Francisco.
77.Jump up ^ Richard S. Westfall - Indiana University The Galileo Project. (Rice University). Retrieved 2008-07-05.
78.Jump up ^ "The Boyle Lecture". St. Marylebow Church.
79.Jump up ^ Christian Influences In The Sciences
80.Jump up ^ World's Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K
81.^ Jump up to: a b Baruch A. Shalev‏, 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (2003),Atlantic Publishers & Distributors , p.57: between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates belong to 28 different religion Most (65.4%) have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.
82.Jump up ^ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/#Sci
83.Jump up ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 268–285
84.Jump up ^ Plavcan, J. Michael (2007). "The Invisible Bible: The Logic of Creation Science". In Petto, Andrew J.; Godfrey, Laurie R. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York, London: Norton. p. 361. ISBN 978-0-393-33073-1. "Most creationists are simply people who choose to believe that God created the world-either as described in Scripture or through evolution. Creation scientists, by contrast, strive to use legitimate scientific means both to argue against evolutionary theory and to prove the creation account as described in Scripture."
85.Jump up ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 271–274
86.Jump up ^ Larson, Edward J. (2004). Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. Modern Library. ISBN 978-0-679-64288-6.
87.Jump up ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 399–431
88.Jump up ^ The Origin of Rights, Roger E. Salhany, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver:Carswell p. 32-34
89.Jump up ^ "The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching." Edwards v. Aguillard
90.Jump up ^ Collins, Francis S. (2007). The Language of God : A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press. ISBN 1416542744.
91.Jump up ^ Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain, Peter J. Bowler, 2001, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-06858-7. Front dustcover flap material
92.Jump up ^ James C. Peterson (2001). Genetic Turning Points: The Ethics of Human Genetic Intervention. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. "As to specifically Christian theists, an example of continue presence would be the American Scientific Affiliation. It currently has about two thousand members, all of whom affirm the Apostles' Creed as part of joining the association, and most of whom hold Ph.D.s in the natural sciences. Their active journal is Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Across the Atlantic, the Society of Ordained Scientists and Christians in Science are similar affiliation in Great Britain."
93.Jump up ^ "Catholic Encyclopedia". New Advent. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
94.Jump up ^ Machamer, Peter (1998). The Cambridge Companion to Galileo. Cambridge University Press. p. 306. ISBN 0-521-58841-3.
95.Jump up ^ Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics"
96.Jump up ^ Andrew Dickson White. History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (Kindle Locations 1970-2132)
97.Jump up ^ Lindberg, David (2009). "Myth 1: That the Rise of Christianity was Responsible for the Demise of Ancient Science". In Ronald Numbers. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. Harvard University Press. pp. 15–18. ISBN 9780674057418.
98.^ Jump up to: a b Jeffrey Russell. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback; New Ed edition (January 30, 1997). ISBN 0-275-95904-X; ISBN 978-0-275-95904-3.
99.Jump up ^ 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.
100.Jump up ^ Cormack, Leslie (2009). "Myth 3: That Medieval Christians Taught that he Earth was Flat". In Ronald Numbers. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. Harvard University Press. pp. 28–34. ISBN 9780674057418.
101.^ Jump up to: a b The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry, H. Floris Cohen, University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-226-11280-2, pages 308-321
102.Jump up ^ "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
103.Jump up ^ 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."
104.Jump up ^ Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge, 1998).
105.Jump up ^ Peter Harrison, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (Cambridge, 2007); see also Charles Webster, The Great Instauration (London: Duckworth, 1975)
106.Jump up ^ 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
107.Jump up ^ 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
108.Jump up ^ John Dillenberger, Protestant Thought and Natural Science (Doubleday, 1960).
109.Jump up ^ Christopher B. Kaiser, Creation and the History of Science (Eerdmans, 1991).
110.Jump up ^ John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, 1991, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19. See also Peter Harrison, "Newtonian Science, Miracles, and the Laws of Nature", Journal of the History of Ideas 56 (1995), 531-53.
111.Jump up ^ 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
112.Jump up ^ Rodney Stark, For the glory of God: how monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery, 2003, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-11436-6, page 123
113.Jump up ^ Cua, Antonio S. "The Quasi-Empirical Aspect of Hsün-tzu's Philosophy of Human Nature." PEW 28 (1978), 3-19.
114.Jump up ^ Tillman, Hoyt Cleveland. "Utilitarian Confucianism : Chʻen Liang's challenge to Chu Hsi" Cambridge, Mass. : Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University : Distributed by Harvard University Press, 1982.
115.Jump up ^ Black, Alison Harley. "Man and Nature in the Philosophical Thought of Wang Fu-Chih." Publications on Asia of the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, no. 41. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1989
116.Jump up ^ Mary Evelyn Tucker "Confucianism and Ecology: The Interrelation of Heaven, Earth, and Humans (Religions of the World and Ecology)" Center for the Study of World Religions (August 15, 1998)
117.^ Jump up to: a b Carl Mitcham (2005). Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Macmillan Reference USA. p. 917. ISBN 0-02-865831-0.
118.^ Jump up to: a b c d Gosling, David L. (2011). "Darwin and the Hindu Tradition: "Does What Goes Around Come Around?"". Zygon 46 (2): 345–369. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01177.x.
119.Jump up ^ "A Hindu Primer by Shukavak N. Dasa". Sanskrit.org. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
120.Jump up ^ Gosling, David (September 2012). "Science and the Hindu Tradition: Compatibility or Conflict?". Hinduism and Science: Contemporary Considerations 47 (3): 576–577. Retrieved 2014-09-26.
121.Jump up ^ Sehgal, Sunil (1999). Encyclopedia of Hinduism (Volume 3). Sarup & Sons. p. 688. "The Hindus were Spinozaites more than two thousand years before the existence of Spinoza; and Darwinians many centuries before our time, and before any word like 'evolution' existed in any language of the world."
122.Jump up ^ Gosling, David (September 2012). "Science and the Hindu Tradition: Compatibility or Conflict?". Hinduism and Science: Contemporary Considerations 47 (3): 577.
123.Jump up ^ Sarma, Deepak (2011) "Classical Indian Philosophy: A Reader" p.167 Columbia University Press
124.Jump up ^ Samkhya Karika, śloka4
125.Jump up ^ "Religion & Ethics-Hinduism". BBC. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
126.Jump up ^ 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. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
127.^ Jump up to: a b Rastogi, V.B. (1988). Organic Evolution. Kedar Nath Ram Nath, New Delhi.
128.Jump up ^ Cvancara, A.M. (1995). A field manual for the amateur geologist. John Wiley & sons, Inc. New York.
129.Jump up ^ Similarities in concept of evolution of life on earth in Dashavatar and modern Geology. Dr. Nitish Priyadarshi, American Chronicle
130.^ Jump up to: a b Dr Kutty (2009). Adam's Gene and the Mitochondrial Eve. Xlibris Corporation. p. 136. ISBN 978-1-4415-0729-7.
131.Jump up ^ "Opinions on evolution from ten countries". NCSE. 2009-06-30. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
132.Jump up ^ Hamilton, Fiona. "One in seven Britons believe in creationism over evolution". The Times (London).
133.Jump up ^ Raman, Varadaraja (2012). "Hinduism and science : some reflections". ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials.
134.^ Jump up to: a b c Muzaffar Iqbal (2007). Science & Islam. Greenwood Press.
135.Jump up ^ 2. Toshihiko Izutsu (1964). God and Man in the Koran. Weltansckauung. Tokyo.
136.Jump up ^ 3. Situating Arabic Science: Locality versus Essence (A.I. Sabra)
137.Jump up ^ Robert Briffault (1928). The Making of Humanity, p. 190-202. G. Allen & Unwin Ltd.
138.^ Jump up to: a b Seyyid Hossein Nasr. "Islam and Modern Science"
139.Jump up ^ "Jesus and the Indian Messiah – 13. Every Wind of Doctrine".
140.Jump up ^ "Islam in Science". Al Islam.
141.Jump up ^ Nayanar (2005b), p.190, Gāthā 10.310
142.Jump up ^ *Soni, Jayandra; E. Craig (Ed.) (1998). "Jain Philosophy". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (London: Routledge). Retrieved 2008-06-27.
143.Jump up ^ Peter Harrison, 'Religion, the Royal Society, and the Rise of Science', Theology and Science, 6 (2008), 255-71.
144.Jump up ^ Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal Society (London, 1667)
145.Jump up ^ Frank Turner, 'The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension', Isis, 49 (1978) 356-76.
146.Jump up ^ "Albert Einstein:Religion and Science". Sacred-texts.com. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
147.^ Jump up to: a b c Shalev, Baruch (2005). 100 Years of Nobel Prizes. p. 59
148.Jump up ^ Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990
149.^ Jump up to: a b c d Larson, E. J.; Witham, L. (1997). "Scientists are still keeping the faith". Nature 386 (6624): 435–436. doi:10.1038/386435a0.
150.Jump up ^ Wuthnow, Robert (2005-05-21). "Essay Forum on the Religious Engagements of American Undergraduates". Religion.ssrc.org. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
151.^ Jump up to: a b Pew Research Center: "Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media", Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion. July 9, 2009.
152.Jump up ^ Larson and Witham, 1998 "Leading Scientists Still Reject God"
153.^ Jump up to: a b Ecklund, Elaine. "Religion and Spirituality among University Scientists" (PDF). Social Science Research Council.
154.Jump up ^ Ecklund, Elaine Howard (2010). Science vs. Religion : What Scientists Really Think. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 16. ISBN 9780195392982.
155.Jump up ^ "Natural scientists are less likely to believe in God than are social scientists" (PDF). Physorg.com. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."
156.^ Jump up to: a b Donovan, Patricia. "Scientists May Not Be Very Religious, but Science May Not Be to Blame". University at Buffalo New York.
157.Jump up ^ Elaine Howard Ecklund & Christopher P. Scheitle (2007). Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographics. Social Problems, 54(2):289-307. doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289 From May to June 2005, the researchers "randomly selected 2,198 faculty members in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science, and psychology.... [with a] a relatively high response rate of 75 percent or 1,646" (p. 293) (p. 299).
158.Jump up ^ Ecklund, Elaine Howard; Park, Jerry Z. "Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists?". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48 (2): 276–292. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01447.x.
159.Jump up ^ Ecklund, Elaine Howard. "Some Atheist Scientists With Children Embrace Religious Traditions". Huffington Post.
160.Jump up ^ "Scientists and Belief". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2011-04-08. "A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
161.Jump up ^ Neil Gross and Solon Simmons (2009). The religiosity of American college and university professors. Sociology of Religion, 70(2):101-129. doi:10.1093/socrel/srp026, (p. 117).
162.^ Jump up to: a b 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-February-09
163.^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Science in America: Religious Belief and Public Attitudes". The Pew Forum. 18 December 2007. Retrieved 16 January 2012.
164.^ Jump up to: a b c Keeter, Scott; Smith, Gregory; Masci, David (2011). "Religious Belief and Attitudes about Science in the United States". The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. New York: Routledge. p. 336,345–347. ISBN 978-0415873697. "The United States is perhaps the most religious out of the advanced industrial democracies." ; "In fact, large majorities of the traditionally religious American nevertheless hold very positive views of science and scientists. Even people who accept a strict creationist view, regarding the origins of life are mostly favorable towards science." ; "Our review of three important issues on the public policy agenda in the United States suggest that although there is a potential for broad religiously based conflict over science, the scope of this conflict is limited. Only on one issue does a significant portion of the public deny strong consensus for religious reasons: evolution. The significance of this disagreement should not be understated, but it is decidedly unrepresentative of the broader set of scientific controversies and issues. As already noted, it is difficult to find any other major policy issues on which there are strong religious objections to scientific research. Religious concerns do arise in connection with a number of areas of life sciences research, such as the effort to develop medical therapies from embryonic stem cells. But these are not rooted in disputes about the truth of scientific research, and can be found across the spectrum of religious sentiment." ; "According to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes about science are more favorable in the United States than in Europe, Russia, and Japan, despite great differences across these cultures in level of religiosity (National Science Foundation, 2008)."
165.^ Jump up to: a b Numbers, Ronald (2009). "Myth 24: That Creationism is a Uniquely American Phenomenon". In Ronald Numbers. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. Harvard University Press. pp. 215–223. ISBN 9780674057418.
166.Jump up ^ Evans, John (2011). "Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50 (4): 707–727. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01603.x.
167.Jump up ^ Baker, Joseph O. (2012). "Public Perceptions of Incompatibility Between "Science and Religion"". Public Understanding of Science 21 (3): 340–353. doi:10.1177/0963662511434908.
168.Jump up ^ Scott Keeter, Gregory Smith, David Masci. "Religious Belief and Public Attitudes About Science in the US" (PDF). Pew Research Center. pp. 1–2, 13.
169.Jump up ^ Christopher P. Scheitle (2011). "U.S. College students' perception of religion and science: Conflict, collaboration, or independence? A research note". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Blackwell) 50 (1): 175–186. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x. ISSN 1468-5906.
170.Jump up ^ "Nones on the Rise" (PDF). Pew Research Center. p. 24.
171.Jump up ^ Francis, Leslie J.; Greer, John E. (1 May 2001). "Shaping Adolescents' Attitudes towards Science and Religion in Northern Ireland: The role of scientism, creationism and denominational schools". Research in Science & Technological Education 19 (1): 39–53. Bibcode:2001RSTEd..19...39J. doi:10.1080/02635140120046213.
172.Jump up ^ Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart (2011). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–68. ISBN 978-1-107-64837-1. "Instead, as is clearly shown in Figure 3.3, societies with greater faith in science also often have stronger religious beliefs." and "Indeed, the secular postindustrial societies, exemplified by the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, prove most skeptical toward the impact of science and technology, and this is in accordance with the countries where the strongest public disquiet has been expressed about certain contemporary scientific developments such as the use of genetically modified organisms, biotechnological cloning, and nuclear power. Interestingly, again the United States displays distinctive attitudes compared with similar European nations, showing greater faith in both God and scientific progress."
References[edit]
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 [2]
Haught, John F. Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation. Paulist Press, 1995. ISBN 0-8091-3606-6
Jones, Richard H. For the Glory of God: The Role of Christianity in the Rise and Development of Modern Science. 2 Volumes. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2011 and 2012.
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
Further reading[edit]
Brooke, John H., Margaret Osler, and Jitse M. van der Meer, editors. "Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions," Osiris, 2nd ser., vol. 16(2001), ISBN 0-226-07565-6.
Brooke, John H., Science And Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991, ISBN 0-521-23961-3
Bunge, Mario, Chasing Reality: Strife over Realism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Cook, Melvin Alonzo, and Melvin Garfield Cook. Science and Mormonism: Correlations, Conflicts, and Conciliations. [Salt Lake City, Utah]: Deseret News Press, 1967.
Haisch, Bernard. The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What's Behind It All, Red Wheel/Weiser, 2006, ISBN 1-57863-374-5
Harper, Sharon M.P. (ed.) (2000). The Lab, the Temple, and the Market: Reflections at the Intersection of Science, Religion, and Development. International Development Research Centre. ISBN 0889369208.
Harrison, Peter, The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (Cambridge, 2010).
Huxley, Thomas Henry, Science and Hebrew Tradition: Essays, D. Appleton and Company, 1897, 372 pages
Johnston, Howard Agnew. Scientific Faith. [London]: Hodder & Stoughton; New York: G. H. Doran Co., 1904.
Lenaers, Roger. Nebuchadnezzar's Dream or The End of a Medieval Catholic Church. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007. ISBN 978-1-59333-583-0.
Nelson, Thomas L. Scientific Aspects of Mormonism: or, Religion in Terms of Life. Chicago, Ill.: Press of Hillison & Etten Co., 1904, t.p. 1918.
Oord,Thomas Jay, ed., Divine Grace and Emerging Creation: Wesleyan Forays in Science and Theology of Creation, Pickwick Publications, 2009, ISBN 1-60608-287-6
Oord,Thomas Jay, Science of Love: The Wisdom of Well-Being, Templeton, 2003, ISBN 1-932031-70-7
Restivo, Sal, The Social Relations of Physics, Mysticism, and Mathematics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1983.
Richardson, Mark - Wesley Wildman (ed.), Religion & Science: History, Method, Dialogue, Routledge, 1996, ISBN 0-415-91667-4
Stump, J.B., and Alan G. Padgett (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell (2012).
Van Huyssteen, J. Wentzel (editor), Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, MacMillan, 2003, ISBN 0-02-865704-7
Walsh, James J., The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time, Kessinger Publishing, 1908, reprinted 2003. ISBN 0-7661-3646-9 from WorldCat [3] Review excerpts:
Waters, F. W. The Way in and the Way out: Science and Religion Reconciled. Toronto: Oxford University Press, Canadian Branch, 1967. x, [2], 269 p.
Wilber, Ken, The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion, Broadway; Reprint edition, 1999, ISBN 0-7679-0343-9
External links[edit]
The BioLogos Forum: Science and Faith in Dialogue
Test of Faith - From the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion
Counterbalance.org: Science and Religion Project
"Faith and Reason" – website about the historical relations between science and religion, PBS
Religion and Science in Historical Perspective by Ted Davis
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)
Clash in Cambridge: Science and religion seem as antagonistic as ever – by John Horgan, Scientific American, September 2005
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. Retrieved 2007-08-31.
Zygon Journal of Religion and Science
Science and Religion by Archbishop Luke of Crimea, an Eastern Orthodox perspective
Victorian Science and Religion The Victorian Web: Literature, History, and Culture in the Age of Victoria
SCIENCE and RELIGION: DIALOG OF PHYSICISTS AND THEOLOGIANS SCIENCE and RELIGION: DIALOG OF PHYSICISTS AND THEOLOGIANS
The Metaphysical Foundations of Buddhism and Sciences
INTERS - Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science - collection of documents (including the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science) that seeks to help scientists frame their work within a philosophical and humanistic context, edited at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross (Rome, Italy)


[show] 
Articles Related to the Relationship Between Religion and Science

































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Portal
Category





































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































  


Categories: Religion and science
History of science
History of religion
Philosophy of religion
Philosophy of science

















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Català
Deutsch
Español
Esperanto
Français
한국어
עברית
Македонски
日本語
Português
Română
Русский
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 April 2015, at 14:13.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

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





























Philosophy of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Reason and religion)
Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on the
Philosophy of religion


Religious concepts[show]













Challenges[show]

















God[show]









































































Theories of religion[show]












































Philosophers of religion[show]






































































































































Related topics[show]










Philosophy of religion article index
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Philosophy of religion is a branch of philosophy concerned with questions regarding religion, including the nature and existence of God, the examination of religious experience, analysis of religious vocabulary and texts, and the relationship of religion and science.[1] It is an ancient discipline, being found in the earliest known manuscripts concerning philosophy, and relates to many other branches of philosophy and general thought, including metaphysics, logic, and history.[2] Philosophy of religion is frequently discussed outside of academia through popular books and debates, mostly regarding the existence of God and problem of evil.
The philosophy of religion differs from religious philosophy in that it seeks to discuss questions regarding the nature of religion as a whole, rather than examining the problems brought forth by a particular belief system. It is designed such that it can be carried out dispassionately by those who identify as believers or non-believers.[3]


Contents  [hide]
1 As a part of metaphysics
2 History
3 Field of study
4 Basic themes and problems 4.1 Existence of God 4.1.1 Natural theology
4.1.2 Problem of evil
4.2 The nature of God
4.3 Knowledge of God
5 Analytic philosophy of religion
6 Major philosophers of religion
7 See also
8 Notes and references
9 Further reading
10 External links

As a part of metaphysics[edit]



 Aristotle
Philosophy of religion has classically been regarded as a part of metaphysics. In Aristotle's Metaphysics, the necessarily prior cause of eternal motion was an unmoved mover, who, like the object of desire, or of thought, inspires motion without itself being moved.[4] This, according to Aristotle, is God, the subject of study in theology. Today, however, philosophers have adopted the term "philosophy of religion" for the subject, and typically it is regarded as a separate field of specialization, although it is also still treated by some, particularly Catholic philosophers, as a part of metaphysics.
History[edit]
Although the term did not come into general use until the nineteenth century,[5] perhaps the earliest strictly philosophical writings about religion can be found in the Hindu Upanishads. Around the same time, the works of Daoism and Confucianism also dealt, in part. with reasoning about religious concepts. The Buddhist writing in the Pali canon "contains acute philosophical thinking", and "we have in Buddhism a very shrewd grasp of the nature of religion as philosophy illuminates it."[6]
Field of study[edit]



 Kierkegaard
Philosophy of religion covers alternative beliefs about God, the varieties of religious experience, the interplay between science and religion, the nature and scope of good and evil, and religious treatments of birth, history, and death.[7] The field also includes the ethical implications of religious commitments, the relation between faith, reason, experience and tradition, concepts of the miraculous, the sacred revelation, mysticism, power, and salvation.[8]
The philosophy of religion has been distinguished from theology by pointing out that, for theology, "its critical reflections are based on religious convictions".[9] Also, "theology is responsible to an authority that initiates its thinking, speaking, and witnessing ... [while] philosophy bases its arguments on the ground of timeless evidence."[10]
Basic themes and problems[edit]
Three considerations that are basic to the philosophy of religion concerning deities are: the existence of God, the nature of God, and the knowledge of God.[11]
Existence of God[edit]
Main article: Existence of God



 Aquinas
There are several main positions with regard to the existence of God that one might take:
1.Theism - the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities. 1.Pantheism - the belief that God exists as all things of the cosmos, that God is one and all is God; God is immanent.
2.Panentheism - the belief that God encompasses all things of the cosmos but that God is greater than the cosmos; God is both immanent and transcendent.
3.Deism - the belief that God does exist but does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe; God is transcendent.
4.Monotheism - the belief that a single deity exists which rules the universe as a separate and individual entity.
5.Polytheism - the belief that multiple deities exist which rule the universe as separate and individual entities.
6.Henotheism - the belief that multiple deities may or may not exist, though there is a single supreme deity.
7.Henology - believing that multiple avatars of a deity exist, which represent unique aspects of the ultimate deity.
2.Agnosticism - the belief that the existence or non-existence of deities or God is currently unknown or unknowable and cannot be proven. A weaker form of this might be defined as simply a lack of certainty about gods' existence or nonexistence.[citation needed]
3.Atheism - the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[12][13] 1.Strong atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[14][15]
2.Weak atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[15][16][17]
4.Apatheism - the lack of caring whether any supreme being exists, or lack thereof
5.Possibilianism
These are not mutually exclusive positions. For example, agnostic theists choose to believe God exists while asserting that knowledge of God's existence is inherently unknowable. Similarly, agnostic atheists reject belief in the existence of all deities, while asserting that whether any such entities exist or not is inherently unknowable.
Natural theology[edit]
The attempt to provide proofs or arguments for the existence of God is one aspect of what is known as natural theology or the natural theistic project. This strand of natural theology attempts to justify belief in God by independent grounds. There is plenty of philosophical literature on faith (especially fideism) and other subjects generally considered to be outside the realm of natural theology. Perhaps most of philosophy of religion is predicated on natural theology's assumption that the existence of God can be justified or warranted on rational grounds. There has been considerable philosophical and theological debate about the kinds of proofs, justifications and arguments that are appropriate for this discourse.[18]
The philosopher Alvin Plantinga has shifted his focus to justifying belief in God (that is, those who believe in God, for whatever reasons, are rational in doing so) through Reformed epistemology, in the context of a theory of warrant and proper cognitive function.
Other reactions to natural theology are those of Wittgensteinian philosophers of religion, most notably D. Z. Phillips. Phillips rejects "natural theology" and its evidentialist approach as confused, in favor of a grammatical approach which investigates the meaning of belief in God. For Phillips, belief in God is not a proposition with a particular truth value, but a form of life. Consequently, the question of whether God exists confuses the logical categories which govern theistic language with those that govern other forms of discourse (most notably, scientific discourse). According to Phillips, the question of whether or not God exists cannot be "objectively" answered by philosophy because the categories of truth and falsity, which are necessary for asking the question, have no application in the religious contexts wherein religious belief has its sense and meaning. In other words, the question cannot be answered because it cannot be asked without entering into confusion. As Phillips sees things, the job of the philosopher is not to investigate the "rationality" of belief in God but to elucidate its meaning.
Problem of evil[edit]
Main articles: Problem of evil and Theodicy
[icon] This section requires expansion. (November 2014)
The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.[19][20] An argument from evil attempts to show that the co-existence of evil and such a deity is unlikely or impossible if placed in absolute terms. Attempts to show the contrary have traditionally been discussed under the heading of theodicy.
The nature of God[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (November 2014)
Knowledge of God[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (November 2014)
Analytic philosophy of religion[edit]
In Analytic Philosophy of Religion, James Franklin Harris noted that

analytic philosophy has been a very heterogeneous 'movement'.... some forms of analytic philosophy have proven very sympathetic to the philosophy of religion and have actually provided a philosophical mechanism for responding to other more radical and hostile forms of analytic philosophy.[21]:3
As with the study of ethics, early analytic philosophy tended to avoid the study of philosophy of religion, largely dismissing (as per the logical positivists view) the subject as part of metaphysics and therefore meaningless.[22] The collapse of logical positivism renewed interest in philosophy of religion, prompting philosophers like William Alston, John Mackie, Alvin Plantinga, Robert Merrihew Adams, Richard Swinburne, and Antony Flew not only to introduce new problems, but to re-open classical topics such as the nature of miracles, theistic arguments, the problem of evil, (see existence of God) the rationality of belief in God, concepts of the nature of God, and many more.[23]
Plantinga, Mackie and Flew debated the logical validity of the free will defense as a way to solve the problem of evil.[24] Alston, grappling with the consequences of analytic philosophy of language, worked on the nature of religious language. Adams worked on the relationship of faith and morality.[25] Analytic epistemology and metaphysics has formed the basis for a number of philosophically-sophisticated theistic arguments, like those of the reformed epistemologists like Plantinga.
Analytic philosophy of religion has also been preoccupied with Ludwig Wittgenstein, as well as his interpretation of Søren Kierkegaard's philosophy of religion.[26] Using first-hand remarks (which would later be published in Philosophical Investigations, Culture and Value, and other works), philosophers such as Peter Winch and Norman Malcolm developed what has come to be known as contemplative philosophy, a Wittgensteinian school of thought rooted in the "Swansea tradition" and which includes Wittgensteinians such as Rush Rhees, Peter Winch and D. Z. Phillips, among others. The name "contemplative philosophy" was first coined by D. Z. Phillips in Philosophy's Cool Place, which rests on an interpretation of a passage from Wittgenstein's "Culture and Value."[27] This interpretation was first labeled, "Wittgensteinian Fideism," by Kai Nielsen but those who consider themselves Wittgensteinians in the Swansea tradition have relentlessly and repeatedly rejected this construal as a caricature of Wittgenstein's considered position; this is especially true of D. Z. Phillips.[28] Responding to this interpretation, Kai Nielsen and D.Z. Phillips became two of the most prominent philosophers on Wittgenstein's philosophy of religion.[29]
Major philosophers of religion[edit]
Main article: List of philosophers of religion
See also[edit]

Portal icon Philosophy portal
Portal icon Religion portal
Comparative theology
Evolutionary origin of religions
Evolutionary psychology of religion
Issues in Science and Religion
Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion by Hegel
Major world religions
Theories of religion
Worldview
Notes and references[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Alston, William P. "Problems of Philosophy of Religion." Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1967.
2.Jump up ^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Philosophy of Religion."
3.Jump up ^ Evans, C. Stephen (1985). Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith. InterVarsity Press. p. 16. ISBN 0-87784-343-0.
4.Jump up ^ Aristotle, Professor Barry D. Smith, Crandall University
5.Jump up ^ Wainwright, WJ., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, Oxford Handbooks Online, 2004, p. 3. "The expression “philosophy of religion” did not come into general use until the nineteenth century, when it was employed to refer to the articulation and criticism of humanity's religious consciousness and its cultural expressions in thought, language, feeling, and practice."
6.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of Philosophy: History of the philosophy of religion.
7.Jump up ^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Philosophy of Religion.
8.Jump up ^ Bunnin, N, Tsui-James, The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, John Wiley & Sons, 2008, p. 453.
9.Jump up ^ Encyclopædia Britannica: Theology.
10.Jump up ^ Encyclopædia Britannica: Theology; Relationship of theology to the history of religions and philosophy; Relationship to philosophy.
11.Jump up ^ Encyclopædia Britannica: Basic themes and problems in the philosophy of religion.
12.Jump up ^ Nielsen, Kai (2010). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.... Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived)..."
13.Jump up ^ Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359. ISBN 978-0-02-865780-6. "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion."(page 175 in 1967 edition)
14.Jump up ^ Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. ...an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology."
15.^ Jump up to: a b Cline, Austin (2006). "Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism: What's the Difference?". about.com. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
16.Jump up ^ Religioustolerance.org's short article on Definitions of the term "Atheism" suggests that there is no consensus on the definition of the term. Simon Blackburn summarizes the situation in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: "Atheism. Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none". Most dictionaries (see the OneLook query for "atheism") first list one of the more narrow definitions.
17.Jump up ^ Runes, Dagobert D.(editor) (1942). Dictionary of Philosophy. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co. Philosophical Library. ISBN 0-06-463461-2. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "(a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought" – entry by Vergilius Ferm
18.Jump up ^ see e.g. Antony Flew, John Polkinghorne, Keith Ward and Richard Swinburne
19.Jump up ^ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Problem of Evil", Michael Tooley
20.Jump up ^ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Evidential Problem of Evil", Nick Trakakis
21.Jump up ^ Harris, James Franklin (2002). Analytic philosophy of religion. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ISBN 140200530X. (432 pages) (volume 3 of Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, ISSN 1568-1556)
22.Jump up ^ (a notable exception is the series of Michael B. Forest's 1934-36 Mind articles involving the Christian doctrine of creation and the rise of modern science).
23.Jump up ^ Peterson, Michael et al. (2003). Reason and Religious Belief
24.Jump up ^ Mackie, John L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God
25.Jump up ^ Adams, Robert M. (1987). The Virtue of Faith And Other Essays in Philosophical Theology
26.Jump up ^ Creegan, Charles. (1989). Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard: Religion, Individuality and Philosophical Method
27.Jump up ^ Phillips, D. Z. (1999). Philosophy's Cool Place. Cornell University Press. The quote is from Wittgenstein's Culture and Value (2e): "My ideal is a certain coolness. A temple providing a setting for the passions without meddling with them.
28.Jump up ^ Fideism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
29.Jump up ^ Nielsen, Kai and D.Z. Phillips. (2005). Wittgensteinian Fideism?
Further reading[edit]
Al-Nawawi Forty Hadiths and Commentary, by Arabic Virtual Translation Center; (2010) ISBN 978-1-4563-6735-0 (Philosophy of Religion from an Islamic Point of View)
The London Philosophy Study Guide offers many suggestions on what to read, depending on the student's familiarity with the subject: Philosophy of Religion
William L. Rowe, William J. Wainwright, Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, Third Ed. (Florida: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998)
Religious Studies is an international journal for the philosophy of religion. It is available online and in print and has a fully searchable online archive dating back to Issue 1 in 1965. It currently publishes four issues per year.
External links[edit]
Philosophy of religion at PhilPapers
Philosophy of religion at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project
Philosophy of religion entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Philosophy of religion entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
An introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Paul Newall.
Philosophy of Religion Useful annotated index of religious philosophy topics.
Philosophy of Religion .Info Introductory articles on philosophical arguments for and against theism.
The Australasian Philosophy of Religion Association
Introductory Articles Into the Philosophy of Religion from University of Notre Dame


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Philosophy of religion


Concepts in religion
Afterlife ·
 Euthyphro dilemma ·
 Faith ·
 Intelligent design ·
 Miracle ·
 Problem of evil ·
 Religious belief ·
 Soul ·
 Spirit ·
 Theodicy ·
 Theological veto
 

Conceptions of God


Aristotelian view ·
 Brahman ·
 Demiurge ·
 Divine simplicity ·
 Egoism ·
 Holy Spirit ·
 Maltheism ·
 Pandeism ·
 Personal god ·
 Process theology ·
 Supreme being ·
 Unmoved mover
 

God in
Abrahamic religions ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism ·
 Bahá'í Faith ·
 Wicca
 


Existence of God


For
Beauty ·
 Christological ·
 Consciousness ·
 Cosmological  (Kalam ·
 Contingency)
   ·
 Degree ·
 Desire ·
 Experience ·
 Fine-tuning of the Universe ·
 Love ·
 Miracles ·
 Morality ·
 Ontological ·
 Pascal's Wager ·
 Proper basis ·
 Reason ·
 Teleological  (Natural law ·
 Watchmaker analogy)
   ·
 Transcendental
 

Against
747 Gambit ·
 Atheist's Wager ·
 Evil ·
 Free will ·
 Hell ·
 Inconsistent revelations ·
 Nonbelief ·
 Noncognitivism ·
 Occam's razor ·
 Omnipotence ·
 Poor design ·
 Russell's teapot
 


Theology
Acosmism ·
 Agnosticism ·
 Animism ·
 Antireligion ·
 Atheism ·
 Creationism ·
 Dharmism ·
 Deism ·
 Divine command theory ·
 Dualism ·
 Esotericism ·
 Exclusivism ·
 Existentialism  (Christian ·
 Agnostic ·
 Atheist)
   ·
 Feminist theology ·
 Fideism ·
 Fundamentalism ·
 Gnosticism ·
 Henotheism ·
 Humanism  (Religious ·
 Secular ·
 Christian)
   ·
 Inclusivism ·
 Theories of religions ·
 Monism ·
 Monotheism ·
 Mysticism ·
 Naturalism  (Metaphysical ·
 Religious ·
 Humanistic)
   ·
 New Age ·
 Nondualism ·
 Nontheism ·
 Pandeism ·
 Panentheism ·
 Pantheism ·
 Perennialism ·
 Polytheism ·
 Process theology ·
 Religious skepticism ·
 Spiritualism ·
 Shamanism ·
 Taoic ·
 Theism ·
 Transcendentalism ·
 more...
 

Religious language
Eschatological verification ·
 Language-game ·
 Logical positivism ·
 Apophatic theology ·
 Verificationism
 

Problem of evil
Augustinian theodicy ·
 Best of all possible worlds ·
 Euthyphro dilemma ·
 Inconsistent triad ·
 Irenaean theodicy ·
 Natural evil ·
 Theodicy
 


Philosophers
 of religion

Albrecht Ritschl ·
 Alexander Pruss ·
 Alvin Plantinga ·
 Anselm of Canterbury ·
 Antony Flew ·
 Anthony Kenny ·
 Augustine of Hippo ·
 Averroes ·
 Ali Akbar Rashad ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 Baruch Spinoza ·
 Blaise Pascal ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Boethius ·
 Charles Hartshorne ·
 D. Z. Phillips ·
 Daniel Dennett ·
 David Hume ·
 Desiderius Erasmus ·
 Emil Brunner ·
 Ernst Cassirer ·
 Ernst Haeckel ·
 Ernst Troeltsch ·
 Friedrich Schleiermacher ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Gaunilo of Marmoutiers ·
 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel ·
 George Santayana ·
 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ·
 Harald Høffding ·
 Heraclitus ·
 Immanuel Kant ·
 J. L. Mackie ·
 Jean-Luc Marion ·
 Johann Gottfried Herder ·
 George I. Mavrodes ·
 Joseph Maréchal ·
 Karl Barth ·
 Karl Christian Friedrich Krause ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Lev Shestov ·
 Loyal Rue ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Maimonides ·
 Martin Buber ·
 Martin Lings ·
 Mircea Eliade ·
 Nicolas Malebranche ·
 Nicholas Wolterstorff ·
 Paul Tillich ·
 Pavel Florensky ·
 Peter Geach ·
 Peter van Inwagen ·
 Pico della Mirandola ·
 Reinhold Niebuhr ·
 René Descartes ·
 René Guénon ·
 Richard Swinburne ·
 Rudolf Bultmann ·
 Robert Merrihew Adams ·
 Rudolf Otto ·
 Søren Kierkegaard ·
 Sergei Bulgakov ·
 Thomas Aquinas ·
 Thomas Chubb ·
 Vladimir Solovyov ·
 Walter Kaufmann ·
 William Alston ·
 William James ·
 William Lane Craig ·
 W. K. Clifford ·
 William L. Rowe ·
 William Whewell ·
 William Wollaston ·
 more...
 

Related topics
Criticism of religion ·
 Ethics in religion ·
 Exegesis ·
 History of religions ·
 Religion ·
 Religious language ·
 Religious philosophy ·
 Theology ·
 Relationship between religion and science ·
 Political science of religion ·
 Faith and rationality ·
 more...
 

Portal Portal ·
 Category Category
 



[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion



























































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Philosophy


































































































































































































































































































































































































































  


Categories: Philosophy of religion







Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Magyar
Македонски
Монгол
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
پښتو
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
Türkçe
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 20 February 2015, at 20:52.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion






























Philosophy of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Reason and religion)
Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on the
Philosophy of religion


Religious concepts[show]













Challenges[show]

















God[show]









































































Theories of religion[show]












































Philosophers of religion[show]






































































































































Related topics[show]










Philosophy of religion article index
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Philosophy of religion is a branch of philosophy concerned with questions regarding religion, including the nature and existence of God, the examination of religious experience, analysis of religious vocabulary and texts, and the relationship of religion and science.[1] It is an ancient discipline, being found in the earliest known manuscripts concerning philosophy, and relates to many other branches of philosophy and general thought, including metaphysics, logic, and history.[2] Philosophy of religion is frequently discussed outside of academia through popular books and debates, mostly regarding the existence of God and problem of evil.
The philosophy of religion differs from religious philosophy in that it seeks to discuss questions regarding the nature of religion as a whole, rather than examining the problems brought forth by a particular belief system. It is designed such that it can be carried out dispassionately by those who identify as believers or non-believers.[3]


Contents  [hide]
1 As a part of metaphysics
2 History
3 Field of study
4 Basic themes and problems 4.1 Existence of God 4.1.1 Natural theology
4.1.2 Problem of evil
4.2 The nature of God
4.3 Knowledge of God
5 Analytic philosophy of religion
6 Major philosophers of religion
7 See also
8 Notes and references
9 Further reading
10 External links

As a part of metaphysics[edit]



 Aristotle
Philosophy of religion has classically been regarded as a part of metaphysics. In Aristotle's Metaphysics, the necessarily prior cause of eternal motion was an unmoved mover, who, like the object of desire, or of thought, inspires motion without itself being moved.[4] This, according to Aristotle, is God, the subject of study in theology. Today, however, philosophers have adopted the term "philosophy of religion" for the subject, and typically it is regarded as a separate field of specialization, although it is also still treated by some, particularly Catholic philosophers, as a part of metaphysics.
History[edit]
Although the term did not come into general use until the nineteenth century,[5] perhaps the earliest strictly philosophical writings about religion can be found in the Hindu Upanishads. Around the same time, the works of Daoism and Confucianism also dealt, in part. with reasoning about religious concepts. The Buddhist writing in the Pali canon "contains acute philosophical thinking", and "we have in Buddhism a very shrewd grasp of the nature of religion as philosophy illuminates it."[6]
Field of study[edit]



 Kierkegaard
Philosophy of religion covers alternative beliefs about God, the varieties of religious experience, the interplay between science and religion, the nature and scope of good and evil, and religious treatments of birth, history, and death.[7] The field also includes the ethical implications of religious commitments, the relation between faith, reason, experience and tradition, concepts of the miraculous, the sacred revelation, mysticism, power, and salvation.[8]
The philosophy of religion has been distinguished from theology by pointing out that, for theology, "its critical reflections are based on religious convictions".[9] Also, "theology is responsible to an authority that initiates its thinking, speaking, and witnessing ... [while] philosophy bases its arguments on the ground of timeless evidence."[10]
Basic themes and problems[edit]
Three considerations that are basic to the philosophy of religion concerning deities are: the existence of God, the nature of God, and the knowledge of God.[11]
Existence of God[edit]
Main article: Existence of God



 Aquinas
There are several main positions with regard to the existence of God that one might take:
1.Theism - the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities. 1.Pantheism - the belief that God exists as all things of the cosmos, that God is one and all is God; God is immanent.
2.Panentheism - the belief that God encompasses all things of the cosmos but that God is greater than the cosmos; God is both immanent and transcendent.
3.Deism - the belief that God does exist but does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe; God is transcendent.
4.Monotheism - the belief that a single deity exists which rules the universe as a separate and individual entity.
5.Polytheism - the belief that multiple deities exist which rule the universe as separate and individual entities.
6.Henotheism - the belief that multiple deities may or may not exist, though there is a single supreme deity.
7.Henology - believing that multiple avatars of a deity exist, which represent unique aspects of the ultimate deity.
2.Agnosticism - the belief that the existence or non-existence of deities or God is currently unknown or unknowable and cannot be proven. A weaker form of this might be defined as simply a lack of certainty about gods' existence or nonexistence.[citation needed]
3.Atheism - the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[12][13] 1.Strong atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[14][15]
2.Weak atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[15][16][17]
4.Apatheism - the lack of caring whether any supreme being exists, or lack thereof
5.Possibilianism
These are not mutually exclusive positions. For example, agnostic theists choose to believe God exists while asserting that knowledge of God's existence is inherently unknowable. Similarly, agnostic atheists reject belief in the existence of all deities, while asserting that whether any such entities exist or not is inherently unknowable.
Natural theology[edit]
The attempt to provide proofs or arguments for the existence of God is one aspect of what is known as natural theology or the natural theistic project. This strand of natural theology attempts to justify belief in God by independent grounds. There is plenty of philosophical literature on faith (especially fideism) and other subjects generally considered to be outside the realm of natural theology. Perhaps most of philosophy of religion is predicated on natural theology's assumption that the existence of God can be justified or warranted on rational grounds. There has been considerable philosophical and theological debate about the kinds of proofs, justifications and arguments that are appropriate for this discourse.[18]
The philosopher Alvin Plantinga has shifted his focus to justifying belief in God (that is, those who believe in God, for whatever reasons, are rational in doing so) through Reformed epistemology, in the context of a theory of warrant and proper cognitive function.
Other reactions to natural theology are those of Wittgensteinian philosophers of religion, most notably D. Z. Phillips. Phillips rejects "natural theology" and its evidentialist approach as confused, in favor of a grammatical approach which investigates the meaning of belief in God. For Phillips, belief in God is not a proposition with a particular truth value, but a form of life. Consequently, the question of whether God exists confuses the logical categories which govern theistic language with those that govern other forms of discourse (most notably, scientific discourse). According to Phillips, the question of whether or not God exists cannot be "objectively" answered by philosophy because the categories of truth and falsity, which are necessary for asking the question, have no application in the religious contexts wherein religious belief has its sense and meaning. In other words, the question cannot be answered because it cannot be asked without entering into confusion. As Phillips sees things, the job of the philosopher is not to investigate the "rationality" of belief in God but to elucidate its meaning.
Problem of evil[edit]
Main articles: Problem of evil and Theodicy
[icon] This section requires expansion. (November 2014)
The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.[19][20] An argument from evil attempts to show that the co-existence of evil and such a deity is unlikely or impossible if placed in absolute terms. Attempts to show the contrary have traditionally been discussed under the heading of theodicy.
The nature of God[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (November 2014)
Knowledge of God[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (November 2014)
Analytic philosophy of religion[edit]
In Analytic Philosophy of Religion, James Franklin Harris noted that

analytic philosophy has been a very heterogeneous 'movement'.... some forms of analytic philosophy have proven very sympathetic to the philosophy of religion and have actually provided a philosophical mechanism for responding to other more radical and hostile forms of analytic philosophy.[21]:3
As with the study of ethics, early analytic philosophy tended to avoid the study of philosophy of religion, largely dismissing (as per the logical positivists view) the subject as part of metaphysics and therefore meaningless.[22] The collapse of logical positivism renewed interest in philosophy of religion, prompting philosophers like William Alston, John Mackie, Alvin Plantinga, Robert Merrihew Adams, Richard Swinburne, and Antony Flew not only to introduce new problems, but to re-open classical topics such as the nature of miracles, theistic arguments, the problem of evil, (see existence of God) the rationality of belief in God, concepts of the nature of God, and many more.[23]
Plantinga, Mackie and Flew debated the logical validity of the free will defense as a way to solve the problem of evil.[24] Alston, grappling with the consequences of analytic philosophy of language, worked on the nature of religious language. Adams worked on the relationship of faith and morality.[25] Analytic epistemology and metaphysics has formed the basis for a number of philosophically-sophisticated theistic arguments, like those of the reformed epistemologists like Plantinga.
Analytic philosophy of religion has also been preoccupied with Ludwig Wittgenstein, as well as his interpretation of Søren Kierkegaard's philosophy of religion.[26] Using first-hand remarks (which would later be published in Philosophical Investigations, Culture and Value, and other works), philosophers such as Peter Winch and Norman Malcolm developed what has come to be known as contemplative philosophy, a Wittgensteinian school of thought rooted in the "Swansea tradition" and which includes Wittgensteinians such as Rush Rhees, Peter Winch and D. Z. Phillips, among others. The name "contemplative philosophy" was first coined by D. Z. Phillips in Philosophy's Cool Place, which rests on an interpretation of a passage from Wittgenstein's "Culture and Value."[27] This interpretation was first labeled, "Wittgensteinian Fideism," by Kai Nielsen but those who consider themselves Wittgensteinians in the Swansea tradition have relentlessly and repeatedly rejected this construal as a caricature of Wittgenstein's considered position; this is especially true of D. Z. Phillips.[28] Responding to this interpretation, Kai Nielsen and D.Z. Phillips became two of the most prominent philosophers on Wittgenstein's philosophy of religion.[29]
Major philosophers of religion[edit]
Main article: List of philosophers of religion
See also[edit]

Portal icon Philosophy portal
Portal icon Religion portal
Comparative theology
Evolutionary origin of religions
Evolutionary psychology of religion
Issues in Science and Religion
Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion by Hegel
Major world religions
Theories of religion
Worldview
Notes and references[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Alston, William P. "Problems of Philosophy of Religion." Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1967.
2.Jump up ^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Philosophy of Religion."
3.Jump up ^ Evans, C. Stephen (1985). Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith. InterVarsity Press. p. 16. ISBN 0-87784-343-0.
4.Jump up ^ Aristotle, Professor Barry D. Smith, Crandall University
5.Jump up ^ Wainwright, WJ., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, Oxford Handbooks Online, 2004, p. 3. "The expression “philosophy of religion” did not come into general use until the nineteenth century, when it was employed to refer to the articulation and criticism of humanity's religious consciousness and its cultural expressions in thought, language, feeling, and practice."
6.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of Philosophy: History of the philosophy of religion.
7.Jump up ^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Philosophy of Religion.
8.Jump up ^ Bunnin, N, Tsui-James, The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, John Wiley & Sons, 2008, p. 453.
9.Jump up ^ Encyclopædia Britannica: Theology.
10.Jump up ^ Encyclopædia Britannica: Theology; Relationship of theology to the history of religions and philosophy; Relationship to philosophy.
11.Jump up ^ Encyclopædia Britannica: Basic themes and problems in the philosophy of religion.
12.Jump up ^ Nielsen, Kai (2010). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.... Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived)..."
13.Jump up ^ Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359. ISBN 978-0-02-865780-6. "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion."(page 175 in 1967 edition)
14.Jump up ^ Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. ...an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology."
15.^ Jump up to: a b Cline, Austin (2006). "Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism: What's the Difference?". about.com. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
16.Jump up ^ Religioustolerance.org's short article on Definitions of the term "Atheism" suggests that there is no consensus on the definition of the term. Simon Blackburn summarizes the situation in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: "Atheism. Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none". Most dictionaries (see the OneLook query for "atheism") first list one of the more narrow definitions.
17.Jump up ^ Runes, Dagobert D.(editor) (1942). Dictionary of Philosophy. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co. Philosophical Library. ISBN 0-06-463461-2. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "(a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought" – entry by Vergilius Ferm
18.Jump up ^ see e.g. Antony Flew, John Polkinghorne, Keith Ward and Richard Swinburne
19.Jump up ^ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Problem of Evil", Michael Tooley
20.Jump up ^ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Evidential Problem of Evil", Nick Trakakis
21.Jump up ^ Harris, James Franklin (2002). Analytic philosophy of religion. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ISBN 140200530X. (432 pages) (volume 3 of Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, ISSN 1568-1556)
22.Jump up ^ (a notable exception is the series of Michael B. Forest's 1934-36 Mind articles involving the Christian doctrine of creation and the rise of modern science).
23.Jump up ^ Peterson, Michael et al. (2003). Reason and Religious Belief
24.Jump up ^ Mackie, John L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God
25.Jump up ^ Adams, Robert M. (1987). The Virtue of Faith And Other Essays in Philosophical Theology
26.Jump up ^ Creegan, Charles. (1989). Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard: Religion, Individuality and Philosophical Method
27.Jump up ^ Phillips, D. Z. (1999). Philosophy's Cool Place. Cornell University Press. The quote is from Wittgenstein's Culture and Value (2e): "My ideal is a certain coolness. A temple providing a setting for the passions without meddling with them.
28.Jump up ^ Fideism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
29.Jump up ^ Nielsen, Kai and D.Z. Phillips. (2005). Wittgensteinian Fideism?
Further reading[edit]
Al-Nawawi Forty Hadiths and Commentary, by Arabic Virtual Translation Center; (2010) ISBN 978-1-4563-6735-0 (Philosophy of Religion from an Islamic Point of View)
The London Philosophy Study Guide offers many suggestions on what to read, depending on the student's familiarity with the subject: Philosophy of Religion
William L. Rowe, William J. Wainwright, Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, Third Ed. (Florida: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998)
Religious Studies is an international journal for the philosophy of religion. It is available online and in print and has a fully searchable online archive dating back to Issue 1 in 1965. It currently publishes four issues per year.
External links[edit]
Philosophy of religion at PhilPapers
Philosophy of religion at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project
Philosophy of religion entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Philosophy of religion entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
An introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Paul Newall.
Philosophy of Religion Useful annotated index of religious philosophy topics.
Philosophy of Religion .Info Introductory articles on philosophical arguments for and against theism.
The Australasian Philosophy of Religion Association
Introductory Articles Into the Philosophy of Religion from University of Notre Dame


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Philosophy of religion


Concepts in religion
Afterlife ·
 Euthyphro dilemma ·
 Faith ·
 Intelligent design ·
 Miracle ·
 Problem of evil ·
 Religious belief ·
 Soul ·
 Spirit ·
 Theodicy ·
 Theological veto
 

Conceptions of God


Aristotelian view ·
 Brahman ·
 Demiurge ·
 Divine simplicity ·
 Egoism ·
 Holy Spirit ·
 Maltheism ·
 Pandeism ·
 Personal god ·
 Process theology ·
 Supreme being ·
 Unmoved mover
 

God in
Abrahamic religions ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism ·
 Bahá'í Faith ·
 Wicca
 


Existence of God


For
Beauty ·
 Christological ·
 Consciousness ·
 Cosmological  (Kalam ·
 Contingency)
   ·
 Degree ·
 Desire ·
 Experience ·
 Fine-tuning of the Universe ·
 Love ·
 Miracles ·
 Morality ·
 Ontological ·
 Pascal's Wager ·
 Proper basis ·
 Reason ·
 Teleological  (Natural law ·
 Watchmaker analogy)
   ·
 Transcendental
 

Against
747 Gambit ·
 Atheist's Wager ·
 Evil ·
 Free will ·
 Hell ·
 Inconsistent revelations ·
 Nonbelief ·
 Noncognitivism ·
 Occam's razor ·
 Omnipotence ·
 Poor design ·
 Russell's teapot
 


Theology
Acosmism ·
 Agnosticism ·
 Animism ·
 Antireligion ·
 Atheism ·
 Creationism ·
 Dharmism ·
 Deism ·
 Divine command theory ·
 Dualism ·
 Esotericism ·
 Exclusivism ·
 Existentialism  (Christian ·
 Agnostic ·
 Atheist)
   ·
 Feminist theology ·
 Fideism ·
 Fundamentalism ·
 Gnosticism ·
 Henotheism ·
 Humanism  (Religious ·
 Secular ·
 Christian)
   ·
 Inclusivism ·
 Theories of religions ·
 Monism ·
 Monotheism ·
 Mysticism ·
 Naturalism  (Metaphysical ·
 Religious ·
 Humanistic)
   ·
 New Age ·
 Nondualism ·
 Nontheism ·
 Pandeism ·
 Panentheism ·
 Pantheism ·
 Perennialism ·
 Polytheism ·
 Process theology ·
 Religious skepticism ·
 Spiritualism ·
 Shamanism ·
 Taoic ·
 Theism ·
 Transcendentalism ·
 more...
 

Religious language
Eschatological verification ·
 Language-game ·
 Logical positivism ·
 Apophatic theology ·
 Verificationism
 

Problem of evil
Augustinian theodicy ·
 Best of all possible worlds ·
 Euthyphro dilemma ·
 Inconsistent triad ·
 Irenaean theodicy ·
 Natural evil ·
 Theodicy
 


Philosophers
 of religion

Albrecht Ritschl ·
 Alexander Pruss ·
 Alvin Plantinga ·
 Anselm of Canterbury ·
 Antony Flew ·
 Anthony Kenny ·
 Augustine of Hippo ·
 Averroes ·
 Ali Akbar Rashad ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 Baruch Spinoza ·
 Blaise Pascal ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Boethius ·
 Charles Hartshorne ·
 D. Z. Phillips ·
 Daniel Dennett ·
 David Hume ·
 Desiderius Erasmus ·
 Emil Brunner ·
 Ernst Cassirer ·
 Ernst Haeckel ·
 Ernst Troeltsch ·
 Friedrich Schleiermacher ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Gaunilo of Marmoutiers ·
 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel ·
 George Santayana ·
 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ·
 Harald Høffding ·
 Heraclitus ·
 Immanuel Kant ·
 J. L. Mackie ·
 Jean-Luc Marion ·
 Johann Gottfried Herder ·
 George I. Mavrodes ·
 Joseph Maréchal ·
 Karl Barth ·
 Karl Christian Friedrich Krause ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Lev Shestov ·
 Loyal Rue ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Maimonides ·
 Martin Buber ·
 Martin Lings ·
 Mircea Eliade ·
 Nicolas Malebranche ·
 Nicholas Wolterstorff ·
 Paul Tillich ·
 Pavel Florensky ·
 Peter Geach ·
 Peter van Inwagen ·
 Pico della Mirandola ·
 Reinhold Niebuhr ·
 René Descartes ·
 René Guénon ·
 Richard Swinburne ·
 Rudolf Bultmann ·
 Robert Merrihew Adams ·
 Rudolf Otto ·
 Søren Kierkegaard ·
 Sergei Bulgakov ·
 Thomas Aquinas ·
 Thomas Chubb ·
 Vladimir Solovyov ·
 Walter Kaufmann ·
 William Alston ·
 William James ·
 William Lane Craig ·
 W. K. Clifford ·
 William L. Rowe ·
 William Whewell ·
 William Wollaston ·
 more...
 

Related topics
Criticism of religion ·
 Ethics in religion ·
 Exegesis ·
 History of religions ·
 Religion ·
 Religious language ·
 Religious philosophy ·
 Theology ·
 Relationship between religion and science ·
 Political science of religion ·
 Faith and rationality ·
 more...
 

Portal Portal ·
 Category Category
 



[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion



























































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Philosophy


































































































































































































































































































































































































































  


Categories: Philosophy of religion







Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Magyar
Македонски
Монгол
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
پښتو
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
Türkçe
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 20 February 2015, at 20:52.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion