Theology, Philosophy and Science

I think no book has had more perceived influence on the relationship between religion and science than Darwin's Origin of Species. What follows is a brief outline of different approaches to the Origin of Species effect on the relationship between religion and science. There is a lot of historical analysis available on these effects, this being an introduction to a variety of historical actors who you can investigate more yourself if you are interested.  Darwin’s Origin of Species (origin) was read by historians of science, scientists, philosophers and theologians with implications for the relationship between religion and science which these specialists have spoken on. I define the theory of evolution most widely accepted today. The theory of evolution in the origin this definition is inspired by was either neutral, enhancing or conflicting in the relationship between religion and science because of the implications it has on the argument for biological design, an aspect of

In the paper “Rational Authority and social Power: Towards a truly Social Epistemology” Fricker develops an approach to knowledge which relies strongly on testimony drawing on three features of good informants: “competence, trustworthiness and indicator-properties”. An example of competence is a pianist who can play the piano, being able to competently assess another person’s ability to play the piano. Trustworthiness is a feature of a good informant as it creates willingness to part with information and a good track record of non-deception. An example to demonstrate this is that someone who has always been honest when telling me of my appearance for a night out is trustworthy in telling me how my appearance is for a party. Indicator properties entail that a potential informant is ‘likely right about p’. To be right about p is to have a true belief. The truth claim with respect to p is important for the inquirer, so the inquirer needs both truth and competence to be present. Indica

In the paper “Is Understanding A Species Of Knowledge?” Grimm claims understanding is a species of knowledge citing philosopher of science Peter Lipton who claims understanding is not a super knowledge but simply more knowledge, knowledge of causes. Zagzebski opposes this claiming “that understanding is transparent whereas knowledge is not”. Transparent understanding entails how information or concepts relate to one another; connections being made among them and seeing how they go together. This results in an internalist view as the object of understanding comes through the seeing of connection which is internal as we cannot grasp or see things that are not open to our mental view. An internalist holds that mental phenomenon such as justification has an internal rather than external basis. Grimm is willing to grant when one believes to be in understanding they can explain what it is in virtue of which they understood, which requires apprehension of the understood. Furthermore, t

In the paper “Knowledge First: Approaches in Epistemology and Mind”, it is noted justified true belief analysis of knowledge has been bought down by Edmund Gettier. The authors posit a knowledge first approach to overcome this with two different constructions- representational and metaphysical. Representational knowledge comes through conceptual analysis, the concept of knowledge not being reducible to other concepts that are necessary and sufficient for its application, rather it is a part in analyses of other mental concepts. This conception of knowledge is primitive because of it not being analysable in terms of other concepts. By contrast metaphysical knowledge is where you do not know because of knowledge being in certain other mental states, rather, one is in certain other mental states because of knowing. An example to demonstrate this is that you do know you are happy because you are in a state of happiness, rather you are happy because you know something that is making you

Physicist Sean Carroll has argued that we do not know that the Universe had a beginning and he thinks it is likely it did not. I saw his argument presented here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgpvCxDL7q4  on "Closer to Truth", a great show which explores life's big questions which arise out of philosophy, science and religion. Carroll claims that the prediction that the universe has a space-time beginning is based upon the space-time theorems which predict the existence of a Big-Bang singularity. Carroll gives two arguments why we cannot conclude that a Big Bang singularity exists: we do not think singularities exist as infinities do not occur in nature, and general relativity which is used to predict the existence of a Big Bang singularity is wrong as it is incompatible with quantum mechanics (quantum mechanics being correct and general relativity being wrong), so its prediction of a Big Bang singularity is incorrect. Physicist Sean Carroll sees the Big Bang as j

Stefan Molyneux is a philosopher who does podcasts on political philosophy, economics and philosophy in relationships to name a few things. He is someone I have listened to since the 2016 Presidential Election and I find some of his ideas very interesting and engaging. Stefan is an atheist, however in more recent podcasts has had nice things to say about Christianity and claims to regret being overly critical of it in the past. This having been said Stefan has written a book Against the God's which is available through his website in audio and written form: https://freedomainradio.com/ which argues for atheism. I'm going to focus on chapter two of the book "Why are Gods Self-Contradictory” because as a Christian this is the part that is of most concern to me.  Against the Gods? Argues for atheism Stefan claims that "gods are entirely self-contradictory entities, the supernatural equivalent of square circle" (pg 13).   Stefan defines God in the following

Jurgen Moltmann is a theologian I've taken some interest in primarily due to his formulation of the Trinity on the grounds that God passes through a process, similar to Karl Rahner whose work on the trinity I have evaluated here: https://theologyphilosophyscience.blogspot.com/2019/01/an-evaluation-of-karl-rahners-trinity.html Naturally after having engaged with Moltmann's key theological ideas I took a look into his view of creation, down to my love for natural theology. Moltmann has an interesting approach which fits with his theology of hope, with a focus on eschatology. I personally find this to be very welcome, what's with this rarely being dealt with in relation to creation.   Moltmann is someone who has written a lot on creation Moltmann sees creation in three distinct stages- Original Creation, Continuous Creation and New Creation. Moltmann identifies the Original Creation with God's creative acts as identified in the six days of the Genesis creation ac

Wolfheart Pannenberg was a theologian I have taken great interest in for his insight of how theology should engage with the truth claims from all forms of human enquiry and experience. Central to this is Panneberg's engagement with the natural sciences, in particular physics. For Pannenberg if the God of the Bible is the great creator, then when cannot understand the natural world without reference to God. By contrast if nature can be understood without reference to God then a creator God cannot exist. This led Pannenberg to engage with the works of physicist Frank Tipler who claimed to be able to deduce the existence of God and eternal life from physics, in his work the Physics of Immortality. As well as being influenced by Tipler, Pannenberg has influenced Tipler, and this is apparent in his work The Physics of Christianity. Another contribution I have found to be of particular interest is Pannenberg's re-evaluation of the definition of miracles and the implication this has

I found Karl Rahner's The Trinity, to be highly engaging, picking up and dealing with a lot of the issues I myself have seen in Christians conception of God as Triune. The work has many criticisms for the way in which Christians have dealt with the doctrine of the Trinity and it is a work I suggest you read if you have not. In his work “The Trinity” Rahner develops a doctrine of the Trinity. Rahner does this for two reasons: lack of emphasis on God as trinity and false tritheist and modalist attempts to understand the trinity. Rahner claims that Christian’s in their practical Christian life are for the most part mere ‘monotheists’, if the doctrine of the trinity were to be dropped   the vast majority of Christian literature remaining untouched. Rahner thinks this is the case because of the Christian emphasis of God becoming man rather than the man Jesus being God. This entails that the Trinity is not a necessity as God would still be able to become man, something every day