It would be worth having a science vs religion discussion if evidence still mattered, but…
|September 10, 2017||Posted by News under Culture, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Religion, Science|
Application Deadline: 15 September 2017
Bridging the Two Cultures of Science and the Humanities II, 2017–19, is a significant opportunity for up to 25 early- to mid-level career faculty members from the CCCU and across the globe to experience an enhanced summer programme aimed at developing interdisciplinary skills in Science and Religion.
The Oxford-based seminars, which will take place from 1 to 29 July 2018 and from 30 June to 28 July 2019, will focus on the development of interdisciplinary skills and understanding central to the field of Science and Religion, within the unique setting of Oxford. Social and natural scientists will join those in the humanities to explore established and emerging Science and Religion issues, guided by eminent scholars in the field, in a respectful and research-rich learning environment. The seminars aim to train a new generation of leaders in Science and Religion. Campus activities at the participants’ home institutions will develop young scholars, support conversations across the wider student body, and help campus leaders to engage with current issues in Science and Religion. A roundtable in Oxford for presidents of participating institutions and a colloquium in North America for the senior academic officers, chief student development officers, and chaplains will seek to foster further engagement with a wide range of institutional leaders. These complementary project elements will shape participants and their institutions for years to come. More.
From what some of us can see, the subject is a waste of time unless we take into account the speed at which science is hurtling into post-modernism. Science vs. religion battles used to turn on questions of evidence but evidence is a concept science is moving away from.
So it’s really just going to be a conflict between people who doubt naturalism as a ruling philosophy and people who seek to impose it, irrespective of evidence.
See also: Nature: Stuck with a battle it dare not fight, even for the soul of science. Excuse me guys but, as in so many looming strategic disasters, the guns are facing the wrong way.
How naturalism rots science from the head down
The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide
Question for multiverse theorists: To what can science appeal, if not evidence?