The Pragmatic and Jamesian Limit and Purpose of Religion in a Scientific Age (original) (raw)
Related papers
William James Revisted: “Pragmatic” Approaches to Religion
2020
This essay examines how William James conceptualized the philosophy of religion, including his view about the future of religion, for the purpose of aiding our own view on the future of this field in the present age. It focuses on three different aspects of his thought about religion against a backdrop of the centrality of our evolutionary, creaturely frame. First, I talk about selected pre-Varieties essays, in which James focuses on the relations of thought and action. In so doing, I will note where theism fits in for James then, and attend to his very straightforward conceptual generalizations about what religion implies. Second, I talk about James’s psychological findings about religion, glossing some of the details of Varieties with regard to the individual and social aspects of religion. And third, I turn briefly to the developed “pragmatic” and “radical-empiricist” period of James’s thought, where he delineates religion’s connection to his pluralistic meliorism. This culminate...
Pragmatic Theology and the Natural Sciences at the Intersection of Human Interests
Zygon?, 2002
This paper elicits a twentieth-century American story that is deeply rooted in the legacy of American philosophical pragmatism, its impact on a particular school, and its reconstruction of American theology. The paper focuses on three generations of American theologians, and it centers on how these theologians reconstruct theology in light of the science of their day and how they maintain a true plurality of insights about human life in the world. The pragmatic theologian regards the creative exchange between theology and natural science as an opportunity for renewing our understanding of religious life and appreciating the various commitments of scientists and theologians as they meet at the juncture of human interests. The first voice is that of the early Chicago School of Theology represented by Shailer Mathews, Gerald Birney Smith, and George Burman Foster. The second voice is that of Henry Nelson Wieman, a secondgeneration theologian at Chicago. The final theologian discussed is James M. Gustafson, former Professor of Theological Ethics at Chicago.
William James on Pragmatism and Religion
Critics and defenders of William James both acknowledge serious tensions in his thought, tensions perhaps nowhere more vexing to readers than in regard to his claim about an individual’s intellectual right to their “faith ventures.” Focusing especially on “Pragmatism and Religion,” the final lecture in Pragmatism (1906), this chapter will explore certain problems James’ pragmatic pluralism. Some of these problems are theoretical, but others are practical in the sense of bearing upon the real-world upshot of adopting James quite permissive ethics of belief. The chief theoretical puzzlement we will explore is the tension constituted on the one side by James supporting the general function of religious “overbeliefs” as valuable for the meaning and moral motivation they afford to people, and on the other side by his insistence on the speculative and passion-driven nature of these beliefs.
On a productive dialogue between religion and science
Scientia et Fides
Searching for common ground in philosophy, science and theology, it seems to us that it would be reasonable to maintain the position of realistic pragmatism that Charles Sanders Peirce had called pragmaticism. In the pragmaticist manner, we typify the knowledge and select the types of knowledge that might be useful for understanding the problems that are of interest to us. We pose a question of how it would be possible to obtain practically useful information about reality, first from the perspective of natural sciences, and then from that of theology; that is, to diversify the ways of knowledge and just maybe, to move toward a productive dialogue between science and religion.
Searching for common ground in philosophy, science and theology, it seems to us that it would be reasonable to maintain the position of realistic pragmatism that Charles Sanders Peirce had called pragmaticism. In the pragmaticist manner, we typify the knowledge and select the types of knowledge that might be useful for understanding the problems that are of interest to us. We pose a question of how it would be possible to obtain practically useful information about reality, first from the perspective of natural sciences, and then from that of theology; that is, to diversify the ways of knowledge and just maybe, to move toward a productive dialogue between science and religion.
Zygon, 2023
Recent scholars have called into question the categories “science” and “religion” because they bring metaphysical and theological assumptions that theologians should find problematic. The critique of the categories “science” and “religion” has above all been associated with Peter Harrison and his influential argument in The Territories of Science and Religion (2015). This article evaluates the philosophical conclusions that Harrison draws from his antiessentialist philosophy in the two volumes associated with his “After Science and Religion Project.” I argue that Harrison's project is too skeptical toward the categories “science” and “religion” and places too much emphasis on naturalism being incompatible with Christian theology. One can accept the lessons of antiessentialism—above all, how meanings of terms shift over time—and still use the terms “science” and “religion” in responsible ways. This article defends the basic impulse of most scholars in science and religion who promote dialogue and argues for a more moderate reading of the lesson of Territories.
Zygon, 2016
Clifford Cain, editor and also author of six of the ten chapters in this book, is the Harrod-C.S. Lewis Professor of Religious Studies at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri. He solicited contributions by colleagues from the sciences-biology and physics-as well as from philosophy from his home institution to address the issue of cosmology (Laura Stumpe, "The Big Bang Theory," 17-34), evolution (Gabe McNett, "Seeing the Reality of Evolution," 45-71), genetics (Jane Kenney-Hunt, "The Complex Relationship between Nature and Nurture," 95-112), and intelligent design (Rich Green, "Intelligent Design," 123-43), providing theological commentaries himself to each of these topics besides writing the Introduction (1-15) and the Conclusion (153-58). The book "is intentionally directed toward a general, nonspecialist audience, because the contributors believe that the attempt to relate science and religion should not be reserved for, or monopolized by, experts talking only to each other" (ix). This overarching goal is well achieved. The individual contributors not only explain almost every technical term they use and provide essential references in "notes" at the end of their chapters, but also unfold complex matters in plain language and in such a way that these easily can be grasped (a nice proof of their didactic skills). While, then, nothing much needs to be said regarding the straightforward, very basic presentations of the scientific topics; it is the theological interpretations that warrant a closer examination, because it is these to which the book's title refers when speaking of "re-vision." What is revised and reimagined here is not scientific theory or research as such, but the theological interpretation of scientific and, as in the case of intelligent design, pseudo-scientific theories and research in light of process theology. Process theology "picks up on both the God of the philosophers and the God of the Bible" (147, original emphasis), "promotes a view of the world that involves change, development, novelty, and organic unity," and "posits a concept of God as having two natures. .. a transcendent aspect and also an immanent" one (76). Properly understood, process theology abolishes the concept of an omnipotent God and renders the literalistic, fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible impossible. To thus revise the concept of God and the study of the Bible "is critical" because in light of scientific findings "it is no longer tenable" to cling to a religiously informed deterministic worldview by asserting "a notion of God as divine Regulator with infinite power and meticulous providence" (154). The same applies to "biblical literalism," for this "not only creates (unnecessary) conflict with science, it also does not do justice to religion's scriptures themselves" (153; original parenthesis). With an almost pastoral concern, Cain pleads for a nonconfrontational "conversation" (12) between science and religion for mutual benefit, since both "are needed for a complete picture of reality. .. and make necessary contributions to