Peters’ Typology
Ted Peters offers eight possibilities for understanding
the relation between science and religion, varying ‘from pitched battle to an
uneasy truce’
His categories are:
-
scientism - religion is outdated, science tells us all we need to know;
-
scientific
imperialism - science can give us good information
even about what were formerly religious questions (as in for example Frank
Tipler’s ‘physical eschatology’ - see the strong anthropic principle);
-
ecclesiastical
authoritarianism - the Church should have authority
over science (effectively the Roman Catholic Church claimed this until the
Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s);
-
scientific
creationism - geological and biological data attest
to biblical truth. Peters points out that creationists are usually seen as
anti-science, but scientific creationists see themselves as within science;
-
the
two-language theory - ‘peace through separation’ -
the two disciplines speak in their own discourse and shared understanding is
impossible;
-
hypothetical
consonance - the two disciplines do raise questions
of concern to the other, and should be open to subjecting their assertions to
further investigation;
-
ethical
overlap - theology has a vital role in speaking to
questions of value raised by science and technology, especially in respect of
the ecological crisis;
-
New
Age spirituality - a term covering certain recent
attempts to fuse science and spirituality.
Oddly, Peters’ scheme does not develop the
nuances of the crucial area between ‘two-languages’ (‘independence’ in Barbour’s Typology), and ‘hypothetical consonance’
(‘dialogue/integration’ in Barbour’s Typology).
Peters does however clarify the nature of positions at the extremes.
To explore the character of the two types
of subject see critical realism in science and
religion.
See also consonances between science and
religion.
Email
link | Feedback | Contributed by: Dr. Christopher Southgate
Source: God, Humanity and the Cosmos (T&T Clark, 1999)
|
