Barbour, Peters and Drees

The three typologies of Barbour, Peters and Drees Here are all three together, for comparison. Follow the links for discussion of the typologies separately.

Ian Barbour

Barbour's Typology of the possible relationships between science and religion
CONFLICT when there is a performed commitment to	Scientific Materialism Biblical literalism
INDEPENDENCE when there is a performed commitment to	Contrasting Methods Presuppositions and Limit Questions Differing Languages of Discourse
DIALOG is possible about	Methodological Parallels Natural Theology * Nature Centered Spirituality
INTEGRATION can take the form of	A Theology of Nature * A Systematic Synthesis

Ted Peters

Peters' Typology possible ways to understand the relation between science and religion
CATEGORY	Religion	Science
scientism	outdated	tells us all we need to know
scientific imperialism	no longer gives the best information	can replace religion as a source of information
ecclesiastical authoritarianism	the Church should have authority over science	scientists should obey the Church
scientific creationism	geological and biological data attest to biblical truth	true science does not contradict biblical truth
the two-language theory ("peace through separation")	has its own language and cannot understand science	has its own language and cannot understand religion
hypothetical consonance	should consider questions raised by science, and investigate	should consider questions raised by religion, and investigate
ethical overlap	must speak up on questions of value raised by science	should respect religious perspective especially in ecological matters
New Age spirituality	is seen as one with science in various ways	is seen as one with religion in various ways

Willem Drees

Drees's Typology of the relation between science and religion
		CHARACTER of RELIGION
		1. Cognitive	2. Experience	3. Tradition
CHALLENGES POSED BY SCIENCE	(a) New Knowledge	(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
	(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?