Drees's Typology: Difference between revisions
From Reconciling understandings of Scripture and Science
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Relating Science and Religion| ← back to Relating Science and Religion]]<br><br> | |||
Theodore (Ted) Peters (1941– ) at [https://counterbalance.org/bio/drees-body.html Counterbalance] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_B._Drees Wikipedia]. Drees's typology covers aspects of religion not covered in other efforts to organise our thinking about the relationship between science and religion. | Theodore (Ted) Peters (1941– ) at [https://counterbalance.org/bio/drees-body.html Counterbalance] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_B._Drees Wikipedia]. Drees's typology covers aspects of religion not covered in other efforts to organise our thinking about the relationship between science and religion. | ||
| Line 4: | Line 5: | ||
See also [https://counterbalance.org/ghc-outl/acrit-body.html A Critique of Willem B Drees’ Typology] by [https://counterbalance.org/bio/csouthg-body.html Christopher Southgate] at [[Commentators and Authorities#counterbalance|Counterbalance Foundation]] | See also [https://counterbalance.org/ghc-outl/acrit-body.html A Critique of Willem B Drees’ Typology] by [https://counterbalance.org/bio/csouthg-body.html Christopher Southgate] at [[Commentators and Authorities#counterbalance|Counterbalance Foundation]] | ||
<onlyinclude> | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|- | |||
! colspan="5" |Drees's Typology of the relation between science and religion | |||
|- | |||
| rowspan="2" colspan="2" | | |||
| colspan="3" |<p style="font-size:180%;line-height:2"> CHARACTER of RELIGION</p> | |||
|- | |||
! scope="col"| '''1. Cognitive''' | |||
! scope="col"| '''2. Experience''' | |||
! scope="col"| '''3. Tradition''' | |||
|- | |||
<!-- bah! | rowspan="3"|<span writing-mode="sideways-lr;"><p font-size:180%;line-height:1.3;style="writing-mode=sideways-lr;">CHALLENGES POSED BY SCIENCE</p></span> --> | |||
| rowspan="3" |<p style="font-size:180%;line-height:1.3"> CHALLENGES<br>POSED BY<br>SCIENCE</p> | |||
! scope="row"| '''(a) New Knowledge''' | |||
| <br>'''(1a''') Content: | |||
:i: Conflicts | |||
:ii: Separation | |||
:iii: Partial adoption | |||
:iv: Integration | |||
| '''(2a)''' Opportunities for experiential religion? Religious experience and the brain | |||
| '''(3a)''' Religions traditions as products of evolution | |||
|- | |||
! scope="row"| <br>'''(b) New views of knowledge'''<br> | |||
| <br>'''(1b)''' Philosophy of science and opportunities for theology<br> | |||
| <br>'''(2b)''' Philosophical defenses of religious experiences as data<br> | |||
| <br>'''(3b)''' Criticism and development of religions as ‘language games’<br> | |||
|- | |||
! scope="row"| <br>'''(c) Appreciation of the world'''<br> | |||
| <br>'''(1c)''' A new covenant between humans and the universe?<br> | |||
| <br>'''(2c)''' Ambivalence of the world and implications for the concept of God<br> | |||
| <br>'''(3c)''' A basis for hope? Or religions as local traditions without universal claim?<br> | |||
|} | |||
</onlyinclude> | |||
Latest revision as of 10:19, 30 October 2020
← back to Relating Science and Religion
Theodore (Ted) Peters (1941– ) at Counterbalance and Wikipedia. Drees's typology covers aspects of religion not covered in other efforts to organise our thinking about the relationship between science and religion.
See also A Critique of Willem B Drees’ Typology by Christopher Southgate at Counterbalance Foundation
| Drees's Typology of the relation between science and religion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
CHARACTER of RELIGION | ||||
| 1. Cognitive | 2. Experience | 3. Tradition | ||
CHALLENGES |
(a) New Knowledge | (1a) Content:
|
(2a) Opportunities for experiential religion? Religious experience and the brain | (3a) Religions traditions as products of evolution |
(b) New views of knowledge |
(1b) Philosophy of science and opportunities for theology |
(2b) Philosophical defenses of religious experiences as data |
(3b) Criticism and development of religions as ‘language games’ | |
(c) Appreciation of the world |
(1c) A new covenant between humans and the universe? |
(2c) Ambivalence of the world and implications for the concept of God |
(3c) A basis for hope? Or religions as local traditions without universal claim? | |
