東華大學圖書館 |

Methods in Religion-and-Science /

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Methods in Religion-and-Science // Adam J Chin.
作者:	Chin, Adam J.,
面頁冊數:	1 electronic resource (347 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-04, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International86-04A.
標題:	Philosophy. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31487571
ISBN:	9798384497509

Methods in Religion-and-Science /
Chin, Adam J.,

Methods in Religion-and-Science /Adam J Chin. - 1 electronic resource (347 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-04, Section: A.

This dissertation analyzes the ways in which scholars talk about the relation between religion and science. In the late 1980s, the physicist and theologian Ian Barbour proposed that we approach this massive scholarship through the lens of a fourfold typology: scholars tend to conceive of the religion-science relationship (RSR) as one of Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, or Integration. This model, though acknowledged as problematic, still dominates the field of religion-and-science-an interdisciplinary field with hundreds of specialists drawn from philosophy, history, and the natural and social sciences. Extant work which analyzes the discipline as a whole either extends or slightly modifies Barbour's four original categories. In my dissertation, I propose an entirely new way of approaching the religion-and-science literature, by focusing on the methods that scholars employ to reach their conclusions about the RSR rather than focusing on the conclusions themselves. Doing so, I argue, will help to resolve the current widespread feeling that scholars are talking past one another and also help public readerships of the literature clarify what is actually going on in the literature by highlighting the modes of reasoning being used.I identify four main methods that scholars tend to use when characterizing the RSR: conceptual analysis, (historical) case studies, deconstruction, and fieldwork. Conceptual analysis focuses on the definitions of 'religion' and 'science,' and seeks to derive their relation logically from those definitions. The method of case studies instead proceeds by first surveying a variety of of historical encounters between religion and science and then arguing, via induction, for some general characterization of the RSR. Deconstruction, on the other hand, emphasizes the contingency of the concepts "religion" and "science", either historically or cross-culturally, and explains the emergence of the current RSR on the basis of that contingency. Finally, scholars employing fieldwork extract their characterization of the RSR from empirical data gathered from scientists and religious folk themselves. Although these different methods often draw from particular disciplinary backgrounds, they can be-and are-used by scholars in any discipline.Each of these methods faces unique issues and challenges which I discuss and further develop, proposing recommendations for those who use these methods in light of the critiques. I argue that no method is better "on the whole" than any other, for such a determination will depend essentially on the aims, goals, and values scholars and other readers may have in trying to understand the RSR. Thus, I also explain what kinds of audiences may find the different methods relevant, with an especial focus on non-academic audiences.Throughout the dissertation, I pay especial attention to scholarship in public-facing contexts. Hence, the main sources I consider are academic, book-length tracts written by scholars with public-facing aims. The various critiques I discuss also focus on the public-facing nature of the works examined. An issue all of the current scholarship faces, which has so far gone unrecognized in the literature, revolves around the question, "Whose 'science,' whose 'religion'?" Scholars almost always focus on religion and (especially) science as practiced among elites. Standard treatments of science, for instance, draw on the large-scale theories produced by famous scientists, or examine the personal beliefs of scientists employed at prestigious research universities. Left out are the vast majority of practicing scientists which members of the public may interact with (or be), many of whom work in non-research, nontheory-oriented spaces. This leads to a sense in which prevailing accounts of the RSR work with notions of science which fail to accurately reflect the nature of science as practiced in the world. I thus show how the religion-and-science scholarship can be improved by taking these non-research, non-theory-oriented sciences seriously-not only will it make the work more relevant to the publics scholars often wish to reach, but it will also open up new avenues of research in understanding how religion and science are related by real-world actors, not just in the minds of academics.Overall, my dissertation provides a novel approach to the field of religion-and-science by providing a high-level, overview analysis of the methods used in the literature on the religion-science relationship.

English

ISBN: 9798384497509Subjects--Topical Terms:

516511
Philosophy.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Conceptual analysis

Methods in Religion-and-Science /
LDR:05914nmm a22004213i 4500 001 2432997
005 20250818063906.5
006 m o d
007 cr|nu||||||||
008 261011s2024 miu||||||m |||||||eng d
020 $a 9798384497509
035 $a (MiAaPQD)AAI31487571
035 $a AAI31487571
040 $a MiAaPQD $b eng $c MiAaPQD $e rda
100 1 $a Chin, Adam J., $e author. $3 3822432
245 1 0 $a Methods in Religion-and-Science / $c Adam J Chin.
264 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2024
300 $a 1 electronic resource (347 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-04, Section: A.
500 $a Advisors: Heis, Jeremy Committee members: Maddy, Penelope; Ross, Lauren; Raphael, Renee.
502 $b Ph.D. $c University of California, Irvine $d 2024.
520 $a This dissertation analyzes the ways in which scholars talk about the relation between religion and science. In the late 1980s, the physicist and theologian Ian Barbour proposed that we approach this massive scholarship through the lens of a fourfold typology: scholars tend to conceive of the religion-science relationship (RSR) as one of Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, or Integration. This model, though acknowledged as problematic, still dominates the field of religion-and-science-an interdisciplinary field with hundreds of specialists drawn from philosophy, history, and the natural and social sciences. Extant work which analyzes the discipline as a whole either extends or slightly modifies Barbour's four original categories. In my dissertation, I propose an entirely new way of approaching the religion-and-science literature, by focusing on the methods that scholars employ to reach their conclusions about the RSR rather than focusing on the conclusions themselves. Doing so, I argue, will help to resolve the current widespread feeling that scholars are talking past one another and also help public readerships of the literature clarify what is actually going on in the literature by highlighting the modes of reasoning being used.I identify four main methods that scholars tend to use when characterizing the RSR: conceptual analysis, (historical) case studies, deconstruction, and fieldwork. Conceptual analysis focuses on the definitions of 'religion' and 'science,' and seeks to derive their relation logically from those definitions. The method of case studies instead proceeds by first surveying a variety of of historical encounters between religion and science and then arguing, via induction, for some general characterization of the RSR. Deconstruction, on the other hand, emphasizes the contingency of the concepts "religion" and "science", either historically or cross-culturally, and explains the emergence of the current RSR on the basis of that contingency. Finally, scholars employing fieldwork extract their characterization of the RSR from empirical data gathered from scientists and religious folk themselves. Although these different methods often draw from particular disciplinary backgrounds, they can be-and are-used by scholars in any discipline.Each of these methods faces unique issues and challenges which I discuss and further develop, proposing recommendations for those who use these methods in light of the critiques. I argue that no method is better "on the whole" than any other, for such a determination will depend essentially on the aims, goals, and values scholars and other readers may have in trying to understand the RSR. Thus, I also explain what kinds of audiences may find the different methods relevant, with an especial focus on non-academic audiences.Throughout the dissertation, I pay especial attention to scholarship in public-facing contexts. Hence, the main sources I consider are academic, book-length tracts written by scholars with public-facing aims. The various critiques I discuss also focus on the public-facing nature of the works examined. An issue all of the current scholarship faces, which has so far gone unrecognized in the literature, revolves around the question, "Whose 'science,' whose 'religion'?" Scholars almost always focus on religion and (especially) science as practiced among elites. Standard treatments of science, for instance, draw on the large-scale theories produced by famous scientists, or examine the personal beliefs of scientists employed at prestigious research universities. Left out are the vast majority of practicing scientists which members of the public may interact with (or be), many of whom work in non-research, nontheory-oriented spaces. This leads to a sense in which prevailing accounts of the RSR work with notions of science which fail to accurately reflect the nature of science as practiced in the world. I thus show how the religion-and-science scholarship can be improved by taking these non-research, non-theory-oriented sciences seriously-not only will it make the work more relevant to the publics scholars often wish to reach, but it will also open up new avenues of research in understanding how religion and science are related by real-world actors, not just in the minds of academics.Overall, my dissertation provides a novel approach to the field of religion-and-science by providing a high-level, overview analysis of the methods used in the literature on the religion-science relationship.
546 $a English
590 $a School code: 0030
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 516511
650 4 $a Philosophy of science. $2 bicssc $3 2079849
650 4 $a Religion. $3 516493
653 $a Conceptual analysis
653 $a Non-theory-oriented science
653 $a Religion-science relationship
653 $a Personal beliefs
690 $a 0422
690 $a 0402
690 $a 0318
710 2 $a University of California, Irvine. $b Philosophy. $e degree granting institution. $3 3822433
720 1 $a Heis, Jeremy $e degree supervisor.
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 86-04A.
790 $a 0030
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2024
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31487571