Drees's Typology: Difference between revisions
From Reconciling understandings of Scripture and Science
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
! scope="col"| '''3. Tradition''' | ! scope="col"| '''3. Tradition''' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| rowspan="3" |< | <!-- 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 font-size:180%;line-height:1.3;>CHALLENGES<br>POSED BY<br>SCIENCE</p> | |||
! scope="row"| '''(a) New Knowledge''' | ! scope="row"| '''(a) New Knowledge''' | ||
| <br>'''(1a''') Content: | | <br>'''(1a''') Content: | ||
Revision as of 10:11, 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? | |
