PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Religion and Science”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Despite their inevitable conflicts--science, religion and New Age spirituality are essentially compatible and complementary activities.

Until recently it seemed that the continued expansion of scientific ways of thinking was destined to render religion extinct and spirituality unfeasible. But the example of the United States disproves this, since America is the most successful scientific nation of this era, church-going remains strong and New Age spiritualities are thriving. Therefore, despite the obvious conflicts; science, religion and spirituality are essentially compatible. Future science will continue to win territory from religion since its validation procedures are more objective and reliable. However, churches can survive and grow by dropping those aspects of doctrine which clash with science, and expanding their social functions. The fast-growing US 'mega-church' movement shows the way - since these organizations are minimally dogmatic but instead provide a family-orientated and morally-cohesive social milieu. Like organized religion, New Age spirituality comes into conflict with science when it makes incredible or bizarre factual claims. However, in practice modern spirituality is based on subjective evaluations which do not clash with the procedures of science. Indeed, the reliance upon individual, emotion-based evaluations (e.g., 'my truth', 'whatever works for you') renders New Age spirituality 'science-proof', and has enabled it to expand massively in an age of science. Science, religion and spirituality perform different functions in the modern world, and their relationship is therefore one of mutual-dependence. Borderline disputes will inevitably occur, but as part of a broader context of complementarity. Science, 'social' churches and New Age spirituality all have a bright future.

Conflict, Psychological↗

Reflections on change in science and religion.

Science and the Catholic church are both conservative, slow-to-change institutions. However, science has institutionalized procedures that ensure that ample amounts of criticism of currently accepted theories and methodologies will always be present. This arrangement of continuous conjectures and refutation in science ensures often slow but steady change. Because supporters often think of religions as trafficking in timeless truths, criticism of church beliefs and practices (even when intended to stimulate reflection and improvement) is frequently seen as being disloyal to the institution. Because of the growing crises caused by world overpopulation, I argue that the Catholic church's opposition to all artificial methods of birth control now lacks whatever moral force it might have had when originally promulgated. By highlighting theological perspectives that might be appropriate for the ecological realities of the 21st century, I hope the church will see the wisdom of reevaluating many of its positions in the light of rapidly approaching ecological imperatives.

Catholicism↗

Medical profession changes between religion, science, skill, ethics, law and economics.

How has the medical profession changed during the centuries? How has the evolution of the profession been influenced by the balance of different issues, e.g. magic, religion, philosophy, science, technology, ethics, law and/or economics? One needs to examine many historical changes leading from the hierarchized medicine of Ancient Egypt to the Asklepiadic and Hippocratic medicine at the time of Plato, from the newly organized medicine of the Renaissance to the emerging social medicine of the XIX century, from the nosological medicine centered on the evaluation of the symptoms to the medicine which explores the human body through technologies. Furthermore, an overview from the past to the future should analyze the new doctor-patient relationship in a health system of managed care, between market and solidarity, between the efficientistic guidelines of the providers (hospitals, physicians, etc.) and an anthropocentric view of the rights of the citizen-customers. These problems are presented and discussed by many Authors in three issues of Medicina nei Secoli (II/III.1997-I, 1998) as an aid to understanding what it means to be a physician today, from the past to the future.

History, Ancient↗

Science and religion.

Religion and science have often been in conflict throughout human history. There are many who think that they can never be reconciled. In this essay, it will be argued that religion and science are in harmony, and, in fact, they are both necessary for the advancement of human civilization. In essence, religion and sciences represent to pathways in the search for truth. In general, religion deals with spiritual matters and science with physical matters. In some cases they overlap. The very word, "science" has had different meanings throughout the centuries. The sciences studied in the ancient world, such as alchemy, would have no meeting today. It is likely that some sciences, which are considered very important today, will in future centuries become irrelevant. (Ref. 15.).

Humans↗

Galileo and the embryos: religion and science in parliamentary debate over research on human embryos.

Confrontation between science and religion was a significant feature of the lengthy public appraisal of research on human embryos in Britain during the 1880s. The series of formal debates over embryo research in the House of Lords is chosen as a particularly appropriate setting to study this confrontation. It is shown that religious opposition to embryo research was repeatedly attacked in these debates by means of a stereotyped contrast between religious and scientific styles of thought. Leading figures in the movement for embryo research attempted to discredit their opponents by claiming that, whereas their own case was built upon reasoned assessment of the facts, the other side relied on religious dogma, clerical authority and faith. It is shown that, although there were genuine differences between those critical of embryo research on religious grounds and those supporting such research on grounds furnished by scientists, this account of the differences is inaccurate: dogma, reliance on authority and faith were as characteristic of the discourse associated with science as they were of that associated with religion. It is argued that these features were not generated by the presence of religious or scientific beliefs as such, but by the struggle between advocates of science and religion for intellectual and moral dominance.

Beginning of Human Life↗