Showing papers in "Zygon in 2021"
TL;DR: Pandeism is the belief that God chose to wholly become our universe, imposing principles at this Becoming that have fostered the lawful evolution of multifarious structures, including life and consciousness.
Abstract: Pandeism is the belief that God chose to wholly become our Universe, imposing principles at this Becoming that have fostered the lawful evolution of multifarious structures, including life and consciousness. This article describes and defends a particular form of pandeism: living God pandeism (LGP). On LGP, our Universe inherits all of God’s unsurpassable attributes—reality, unity, consciousness, knowledge, intelligence, and effectiveness—and includes as much reality, conscious and unconscious, as is possible consistent with retaining those attributes. God and the Universe, together “God-andUniverse,” is also eternal into the future and the past. The article derives testable hypotheses from these claims and shows that the evidence to date confirms some of these while falsifying none. Theism cannot be tested in the same way.
12 citations
TL;DR: A cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) expanded process shows how experiences of human worth and dignity are keys to this new awareness and provides speculation for a brain function and evolutionary explanation as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: William James wrote that the life of religion “consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.” Naturalism organizes our experiences of the universe within a science-grounded philosophical and/or religious framework aligning it with what is supremely good for our lives. This article describes a science-grounded specific “Framework of Spirituality” identifying part of this unseen order that opens a “spiritual core” within persons as a source of healing and happiness. A cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) expanded process shows how experiences of human worth and dignity are keys to this new awareness and provides speculation for a brain function and evolutionary explanation. Details of this knowledge are related to various perspectives and authors of naturalism—scientific, religious, ecstatic, and ecological—to contribute to a future direction for the understanding, development, and further expression of naturalism.
12 citations
8 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a broad sampling of world philosophies that show that secular and religious Western forms of thought strongly value life over non-life as do many Asian traditions is presented, and the cultural valuations of life overnon-life become infused in human psychologies globally and astonish us at the discovery of extraterrestrial life.
Abstract: A 2020 scientific report indicated the presence of phosphine, a potential biosignature chemical, in the atmosphere of Venus. As a result, Venus instantly became a global cultural celebrity. How did Venus become so fashionable, so cool in colloquial language, so quickly? I contend that Venus became the center of attention at least temporarily because Venus became moral. Since life at present is a concept that is as much moral as it is scientific, I explain this point by offering a geographically broad sampling of world philosophies that show that secular and religious Western forms of thought strongly value life over nonlife as do many Asian traditions. These cultural valuations of life over nonlife become infused in human psychologies globally and astonish us at the discovery of extraterrestrial life. This essay’s substantial culture sample thereby demonstrates that Venus became revered because of deep-seated but also widespread attitudes of special moral attendance to the presence of life especially in extraterrestrial settings.
7 citations
5 citations
5 citations
4 citations
4 citations
TL;DR: This paper examined the views of 12 bishops of the Church of England in understanding the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of divine action and found that strong resistance among the bishops interviewed to a narrative of divine punishment in particular is ultimately grounded in a desire to disable the blunt but effective tool of making moral judgments in the name of divine authority that regularly follow in the wake of global disasters.
Abstract: This article examines the views of 12 bishops of the Church of England in understanding the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of divine action. The most consistently mentioned unhelpful narratives hinge on an understanding of the pandemic as an act of God. Although there are several possible contextual explanations for this resistance to understand the pandemic as divine action, an analysis of the data shows that it is grounded in a desire to maintain (1) a space for the pandemic, the suffering, and the virus that caused it to be understood as part of creation and (2) focus on human agency and responsibility as the appropriate response to the pandemic. I argue that the strong resistance among the bishops interviewed to a narrative of divine punishment in particular is ultimately grounded in a desire to disable the blunt but effective tool of making moral judgments in the name of divine authority that regularly follow in the wake of global disasters.
4 citations
TL;DR: Gould later made increased use of the more positive notion of a “consilience of equal regard,” which recognized the porous nature of disciplinary disagreements and the propriety of interdisciplinary dialogue as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: This paper considers the views of the American biologist Stephen Jay Gould on the
relation of science and religion in the context of his important critique of Edward O.
Wilson’s Consilience (1998). Gould is best known for his celebrated notion of “nonoverlapping magisteria,” which is often seen in somewhat negative terms as inhibiting
dialogue. However, as a result of his critique of Wilson’s unificationist approach to
knowledge, Gould later made increased use of the more positive notion of a
“consilience of equal regard,” which recognized the porous nature of disciplinary
divides and the propriety of interdisciplinary dialogue. His final approach to the
relation of science and religion, set out in The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister’s
Pox (2003), published after Gould’s death, affirms the distinctiveness and autonomy
of science and religion on the one hand, while encouraging their constructive dialogue
and productive interaction on the other. This, it is argued, should now be seen as
Gould’s definitive statement on this question.
4 citations
TL;DR: It is shown that a proper understanding of the biology of viruses actually adds another level of complexity to the authors' perception of good and evil.
Abstract: The coronavirus pandemic has stirred interest in viruses This has been accompanied by a proliferation of popular works trying to explain how viruses fit into the Christian worldview In an anthropocentric perspective, viruses are easily regarded as malicious entities This article, however, shows that a proper understanding of the biology of viruses actually adds another level of complexity to our perception of good and evil Interestingly, this additional layer of complexity might help us solve some of the most urgent difficulties in the discussion about good and evil, if we recognize the subjective nature of what we call natural evil We need to be more nuanced not merely in our theological discussion about good and evil, but also in the way we talk about viruses © 2020 by the Joint Publication Board of Zygon
TL;DR: The authors argue that the humanities do form a coherent domain, shaped by two fundamental orientations: the quest to understand fellow humans and self-involvement, and they defend their definition of the humanities as neither too wide nor too narrow.
Abstract: In this issue of Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Donald Drakeman, Peter Harrison, Douglas Ottati, Michael Ruse, and Lisa Stenmark reflect on Willem B. Drees, What Are the Humanities For? In my response to Harrison, I argue that the humanities do form a coherent domain, shaped by two fundamental orientations—the quest to understand fellow humans and self-involvement. In response to Ruse, I defend my definition of the humanities as neither too wide nor too narrow. With Ottati, I concur that institutional proximity of religious studies and theology is beneficial to both. Against Stenmark, who considers my approach typically Western, I challenge the distinction she makes. Her contribution confirms what Drakeman writes, that ambitions about “value-free” scholarship are controversial. His own contribution makes clear that this aspiration is necessary to serve the well-being of peoples around the world. These five responses to my book provide an opportunity to reflect on my proposal for envisaging the humanities.
TL;DR: In 2018, 115 last year bachelor students (surveyed as freshmen in 2014 for a previous study) from Chile, and 283 first/last year bachelor student, graduate students, and professors from Colombia, all belonging to biology, chemistry, or physics, were surveyed. as discussed by the authors found that Chilean students/faculty were significantly more agnostic/atheist, more accepting of Darwinian evolution, and less creationist than their Colombian counterparts.
Abstract: Relationships between degree/area of academic formation and religious and Darwinian views are controversial. This study aimed to compare the religious beliefs and acceptance of Darwinian evolution between two contrasting South American scientific communities (Chile and Colombia), accounting for different degrees and areas of academic formation. In 2018, 115 last year bachelor students (surveyed as freshmen in 2014 for a previous study) from Chile, and 283 first/last year bachelor students, graduate students, and professors from Colombia, all belonging to biology, chemistry, or physics, were surveyed. Chilean students/faculty were significantly more agnostic/atheist, more accepting of Darwinian evolution, and less creationist than their Colombian counterparts. Academic degree and area differently affected these views in both countries, as only in Chile there was a clear tendency among biologists and physicists with higher degrees to hold less religious and creationist views. Marked differences between the history, socioeconomic contexts, and especially in high school and university curricula of both countries might explain these results.
TL;DR: The authors compare the ways in which the humanities and natural sciences have established their relevance and social legitimacy and conclude that the humanities are perhaps not as coherent as Drees suggests, although a rhetoric of coherence might well be crucial for establishing their contemporary relevance.
Abstract: In response to Willem Drees's What Are the Humanities For?, this article compares the ways in which, historically, the humanities and natural sciences have established their relevance and social legitimacy. Initially, from the period of the scientific revolution, the sciences had usually sought to justify themselves in terms of the moral and religious goals characteristic of the humanities. During the nineteenth century, however, considerations of practical utility came to displace the more traditional forms of justification. These new criteria have made it increasingly difficult for humanities disciplines to establish their legitimacy. This situation is related to patterns of secularization and also has implications for science-religion relations. Along with the secularization of the humanities, their increasing pluralization has also weakened their capacity to present a united front. The humanities are perhaps not as coherent as Drees suggests, although a rhetoric of coherence might well be crucial for establishing their contemporary relevance.