FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W253132024> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W253132024 abstract "Abstract The metaphysical implications of some of the scientific advances of the twentieth century have been under-appreciated to a considerable degree in terms of their potential to provide a theoretical bridge between science-based and faith-based understanding. In fact, even the bedrock scientific disciplines, such as physics and mathematics, can be seen to contribute greatly to a theoretical perspective that provides a deeper appreciation of the validity of these different approaches to knowledge, both through rational science and intuitive faith. The complementarity paradigm of quantum mechanics and the incompleteness theorems of mathematical logic provide examples supporting the existence of a mind-independent reality, akin to the Platonic ideal form, which cannot be entirely explained on a rational basis alone but which must be partly appreciated intuitively. Although it remains unclear this perspective may help resolve all conflicts of science and faith, another area of recent scientific and religious inquiry, namely the environment, appears to offer great promise for uniting these theoretical lines of thought to provide some reconciliation of the two on a practical level. For example, environmental science and ecotheology both share a common understanding of rational and intuitive arguments for protecting the environment that incorporate appreciation of principles of science as well as religion. Furthermore, applications that combine the strengths of both environmental science and ecotheology are much more likely to be successful in influencing environmental policies and practices than reliance on either alone. Thus, environmental studies can make a significant contribution not only to building a better world but also to building a better bridge between science and faith. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein Introduction Recent public clashes between science and faith, perhaps best epitomized by the creationism/intelligent design versus evolution debate in the United States, have raised public perception of the existence of a great, seemingly unbridgeable cosmologic divide which is clearly the cause of considerable unease among professionals and the public alike. (1) One easy response has been to declare that the divide exists but it is not a problem because, as Stephen Jay Gould has characterized them, science and faith are non-overlapping magisteria (2). They belong to separate realms where science can explain the how and faith can explain the why, and ne'er the twains shall meet or shall need to meet. And yet in court rooms over evolution and in government policy on stem cells and in many other instances the twains have collided forcibly and the outcomes seem to suggest that the divide and the problems it engenders are real and urgent. Is one world-view right and the other wrong, or is it possible to have a more measured conversation and attempt to bridge the divide and find a common ground? The work of science over the past few centuries must certainly be considered one of the crowning achievements of human reason in the modern age. Despite the fears of religious authorities dating back at least to Galileo that the success of science in explaining the natural world threatened to replace god with materialism and drain moral meaning from humanity, the proponents of including a faith-based understanding of our existence remain strong among the general public. However, even such a conservative faith-based institution as the Catholic Church does not deny the value of scientific rationality in helping to explain the workings of the world, including in clearly controversial areas such as evolution. Thus, from a faith-based perspective there seems to be room for accommodation. This same may be true among scientists. Though a far greater proportion (>60%) of American scientists classify themselves as non-believers in a supernatural deity compared to the general public (" @default.
• W253132024 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W253132024 creator A5045500968 @default.
• W253132024 date "2006-09-22" @default.
• W253132024 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W253132024 title "Bridging the Gap between Science and Faith through Environmental Studies: Theoretical Considerations and Implications for Environmental Policy and Practice" @default.
• W253132024 cites W173256201 @default.
• W253132024 cites W1970216613 @default.
• W253132024 cites W2005007009 @default.
• W253132024 cites W2005886497 @default.
• W253132024 cites W2028514556 @default.
• W253132024 cites W2087686774 @default.
• W253132024 cites W2095485131 @default.
• W253132024 cites W2114804254 @default.
• W253132024 cites W2145080569 @default.
• W253132024 cites W2312394204 @default.
• W253132024 cites W3150608420 @default.
• W253132024 cites W397123247 @default.
• W253132024 cites W89950973 @default.
• W253132024 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W253132024 type Work @default.
• W253132024 sameAs 253132024 @default.
• W253132024 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W253132024 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W253132024 hasAuthorship W253132024A5045500968 @default.
• W253132024 hasConcept C110099512 @default.
• W253132024 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W253132024 hasConcept C12713177 @default.
• W253132024 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W253132024 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W253132024 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W253132024 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W253132024 hasConcept C182744844 @default.
• W253132024 hasConcept C202269582 @default.
• W253132024 hasConcept C2778692574 @default.
• W253132024 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W253132024 hasConcept C539667460 @default.
• W253132024 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W253132024 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
• W253132024 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W253132024 hasConceptScore W253132024C110099512 @default.
• W253132024 hasConceptScore W253132024C111472728 @default.
• W253132024 hasConceptScore W253132024C12713177 @default.
• W253132024 hasConceptScore W253132024C127413603 @default.
• W253132024 hasConceptScore W253132024C138885662 @default.
• W253132024 hasConceptScore W253132024C144024400 @default.
• W253132024 hasConceptScore W253132024C154945302 @default.
• W253132024 hasConceptScore W253132024C182744844 @default.
• W253132024 hasConceptScore W253132024C202269582 @default.
• W253132024 hasConceptScore W253132024C2778692574 @default.
• W253132024 hasConceptScore W253132024C41008148 @default.
• W253132024 hasConceptScore W253132024C539667460 @default.
• W253132024 hasConceptScore W253132024C54355233 @default.
• W253132024 hasConceptScore W253132024C55587333 @default.
• W253132024 hasConceptScore W253132024C86803240 @default.
• W253132024 hasLocation W2531320241 @default.
• W253132024 hasOpenAccess W253132024 @default.
• W253132024 hasPrimaryLocation W2531320241 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W1489635977 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W1616289697 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W1934691009 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W1979137706 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W2024079059 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W2073680744 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W2082992899 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W2099006188 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W2109416942 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W2151891401 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W2320072444 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W2325851145 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W243553317 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W257722561 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W3112444227 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W37462608 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W566848934 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W823953853 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W2189012528 @default.
• W253132024 hasRelatedWork W2485167406 @default.
• W253132024 isParatext "false" @default.
• W253132024 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W253132024 magId "253132024" @default.
• W253132024 workType "article" @default.