Response: The Problem of Shifting Scientific Paradigms: On Avoiding Premature Closure of Questions in Science and Religion

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Alister E. McGrath
{"title":"Response: The Problem of Shifting Scientific Paradigms: On Avoiding Premature Closure of Questions in Science and Religion","authors":"Alister E. McGrath","doi":"10.1111/heyj.14403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper responds to the papers gathered together in this volume on biocultural evolution by focusing particularly on two of them that raise questions of particular interest. Victoria Lorrimar's critique of purely rationalist accounts of both the scientific enterprise in general, and human quest for truth and meaning on the other. It develops Lorrimar's argument that the human sense-making apparatus is complex and dispersed, enfolding what are generally described as ‘reason’, ‘imagination’, and ‘intuition’. Michael Burdett's reflection on evolutionary theory indirectly raises a neglected problem that clearly requires further attention—the question of follow-through on theological assessments of developments in the natural sciences, particularly evolutionary biology. Discussion of some questions in the field of science and religion often tends to be ‘frozen’ at a specific historical point, and subsequently discussed without reference to downstream reflections. This point is illustrated by reflecting on the 2013 collaborative project between the theologian Sarah Coakley and the evolutionary biologist Martin Nowak, which emphasised the role of cooperation within the evolutionary framework. It is important to ensure ongoing engagement with such questions, rather than leaving them suspended in an incomplete state of resolution, or ‘freezing’ the provisional answers given decades ago, as if these were definitive. [Correction added on 12 April 2025: Abstract section have been included in this version.]</p>","PeriodicalId":54105,"journal":{"name":"HEYTHROP JOURNAL","volume":"66 2","pages":"174-177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/heyj.14403","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HEYTHROP JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/heyj.14403","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper responds to the papers gathered together in this volume on biocultural evolution by focusing particularly on two of them that raise questions of particular interest. Victoria Lorrimar's critique of purely rationalist accounts of both the scientific enterprise in general, and human quest for truth and meaning on the other. It develops Lorrimar's argument that the human sense-making apparatus is complex and dispersed, enfolding what are generally described as ‘reason’, ‘imagination’, and ‘intuition’. Michael Burdett's reflection on evolutionary theory indirectly raises a neglected problem that clearly requires further attention—the question of follow-through on theological assessments of developments in the natural sciences, particularly evolutionary biology. Discussion of some questions in the field of science and religion often tends to be ‘frozen’ at a specific historical point, and subsequently discussed without reference to downstream reflections. This point is illustrated by reflecting on the 2013 collaborative project between the theologian Sarah Coakley and the evolutionary biologist Martin Nowak, which emphasised the role of cooperation within the evolutionary framework. It is important to ensure ongoing engagement with such questions, rather than leaving them suspended in an incomplete state of resolution, or ‘freezing’ the provisional answers given decades ago, as if these were definitive. [Correction added on 12 April 2025: Abstract section have been included in this version.]

答:科学范式转移的问题:避免科学与宗教问题的过早终结
这篇论文回应了在这一卷中聚集在一起的关于生物文化进化的论文,特别关注其中两个提出特别感兴趣的问题。维多利亚·洛里玛对科学事业和人类对真理和意义的追求的纯理性主义的批判。它发展了Lorrimar的观点,即人类的感觉制造装置是复杂而分散的,包含了通常被描述为“理性”、“想象”和“直觉”的东西。迈克尔·伯德特对进化论的反思间接地提出了一个被忽视的问题,这个问题显然需要进一步关注——对自然科学,尤其是进化生物学的发展进行神学评估的后续问题。在科学和宗教领域的一些问题的讨论往往倾向于“冻结”在一个特定的历史点上,随后的讨论没有参考下游的反思。这一点可以通过反思2013年神学家Sarah Coakley和进化生物学家Martin Nowak之间的合作项目来说明,该项目强调了合作在进化框架中的作用。重要的是要确保对这些问题的持续参与,而不是让它们处于不完整的解决状态,或者“冻结”几十年前给出的临时答案,就好像这些答案是确定的一样。[2025年4月12日补充更正:摘要部分已包含在此版本中。]
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
HEYTHROP JOURNAL
HEYTHROP JOURNAL Multiple-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: Founded on the conviction that the disciplines of theology and philosophy have much to gain from their mutual interaction, The Heythrop Journal provides a medium of publication for scholars in each of these fields and encourages interdisciplinary comment and debate. The Heythrop Journal embraces all the disciplines which contribute to theological and philosophical research, notably hermeneutics, exegesis, linguistics, history, religious studies, philosophy of religion, sociology, psychology, ethics and pastoral theology. The Heythrop Journal is invaluable for scholars, teachers, students and general readers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信