There are at least twelve major virtues of good theories: evidential accuracy, causal adequacy, explanatory depth, internal consistency, internal coherence, universal coherence, beauty, simplicity, unification, durability, fruitfulness, and applicability. These virtues are best classified into four classes: evidential, coherential, aesthetic, and diachronic. Each virtue class contains at least three virtues that sequentially follow a repeating pattern of progressive disclosure and expansion. Systematizing the theoretical virtues in this manner clarifies each virtue and suggests how they might have a coordinated and cumulative role in theory formation and evaluation across the disciplines-with allowance for discipline specific modification. An informal and flexible logic of theory choice is in the making here. Evidential accuracy (empirical fit), according to my systematization, is not a largely isolated trait of good theories, as some (realists and antirealists) have made it out to be. Rather, it bears multifaceted relationships, constituting significant epistemic entanglements, with other theoretical virtues.
Many people assume that there has been ceaseless conflict between science and Christianity. I argue that the real conflict has been between scientism and religion. Scientism is the view that only the sciences generate knowledge or rational belief. Scientism, as typically articulated, entails the opinion that reliable belief about divinity (theological realism) is impossible. I debunk four historic science–Christianity conflict myths and show how they have promoted scientism. These four science–religion myths function as part of a larger warfare narrative about science and Christianity. This misleading warfare thesis often comes packaged with an alternative anti-theistic “myth” in the anthropological sense—in this case, a worldview-shaping narrative that awakens the imagination to interpret the world in scientistic and non-theistic ways. I call this the scientistic warfare myth and explore its major flaws.
Peer review declarationThe publisher (AOSIS) endorses the South African 'National Scholarly Book Publishers Forum Best Practice for Peer Review of Scholarly Books.' The manuscript underwent an evaluation to compare the level of originality with other published works and was subjected to rigorous two-step peer review before publication, with the identities of the reviewers not revealed to the editor(s) or author(s). The reviewers were independent of the publisher, editor(s), and author(s). The publisher shared feedback on the similarity report and the reviewers' inputs with the manuscript's editor(s) or author(s) to improve the manuscript. Where the reviewers recommended revision and improvements, the editor(s) or author(s) responded adequately to such recommendations. The reviewers commented positively on the scholarly merits of the manuscript and recommended that the book be published. v Research justificationScience and Faith in Dialogue presents a cogent, compelling case for concordance between science and theism. The term theism used in this book refers to the belief in God's existence. Within theology, the term theism is often used to convey a range of presuppositions about the nature and attributes of God. The topic of God's attributes does not fall within the scope of this study. Based on scientific and natural theological perspectives, two pillars of natural theology are revisited: the Cosmological Argument and the Argument from Design. The book argues that modern science provides undeniable evidence and a scientific basis for these classical arguments to infer a rationally justifiable endorsement of theism as being concordant with reason and science -nature is seen as operating orderly on comprehensible, rational, consistent laws, in line with the conviction that God is Creator. The expression 'undeniable evidence and scientific basis' is not understood as scientific proof but rather as inference, footprint, signature, deductive reasoning and rational justification for theism in world view. The premise that theism asserts a more causally adequate explanation of recent developments in modern natural science (than naturalism) is based upon: (1) Strong epistemological support: explanatory power and confirmation of hypothesis (rather than just deductive entailment); and (2) the contemporary cosmological consensus, building upon the rigour of the physical sciences and illuminating biological discoveries. The discovery that the universe had a beginning and the abundant scientific evidence for fine-tuning is best explained by theism. The phrase 'global fine-tuning' refers to fine-tuning of initial conditions, fundamental forces and other physical laws and constants for an expanding universe and the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. The phrase 'local fine-tuning' refers to the protection of the earth by the planetary giants, earth's life-sustaining capabilities, water and its miraculous properties for life, earth's rare habitability fine-tuned for life and scientific discovery. The phrase 'biological fin...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.