What Needs to Be Done in Order to Bring the Science‐and‐religion Dialogue Forward?

Abstract

If one looks at the flourishing activities of the science-and-religion dialogue, one might conclude that all is well, and we need only to go on as before. However, a deeper analysis shows that often the dialogue consists in agreeing that we disagree, which diminishes its potential usefulness. Also, despite the flood of science-and-religion books for the general reader, how much has the dialogue really influenced the thinking of working scientists or of pastors and members of congregations?This does not have to be a reason for discouragement if the issues in question are tackled appropriately. History provides helpful examples. Take the search for understanding the nature of light. For more than two centuries Newton's corpuscle theory of 1704 and the wave theory of light vied for dominance until in the 1940s the quantum electrodynamics (QED) theory unified the two. This enabled physicists to deal successfully with many previously unsolvable problems. The main steps that led to this success were: (1) New experiments were carried out and the results accepted after critical examination, even though they were extraordinary at first glance; (2) The results were expressed in mathematical terms; (3) A new theory was formulated, even though it did not fit the existing (philosophical) framework; (4) The breakthrough was interpreted in a wider context. Correspondingly, the following procedure suggests itself for the scienceand-religion dialogue: (1) Formulate all results, including those of religious/spiritual research, in scientific terms (natural sciences, humanities, social sciences, etc.); (2) Attempt to interpret all findings in an enlarged common framework; (3) Consider their impact on the current conceptualizations and worldviews and, if need be, amend and, most important, apply them.

Explorando a relação mente-cérebro: reflexões e diretrizes

“…(...) Aquela crença não é uma afirmação científica, mas uma profissão de fé" (p. 367) 21 . Dado o equivocado amalgamamento de ciência com materialismo, é compreensível que a maioria das discussões acadêmicas evite a investigação de experiências que possam sugerir uma realidade transcendente ou não material, ou, ao menos, levar em consideração esses fenômenos como experiências humanas que merecem ser estudadas a fundo 22,23 . Na realidade, é um equívoco utilizar a visão de mundo materialista como uma limitação ou fronteira para a empreitada científica.…”

“…Na realidade, é um equívoco utilizar a visão de mundo materialista como uma limitação ou fronteira para a empreitada científica. Hefner 24,25 e Reich 23 argumentam, de modo convincente, sobre o alargamento da base empírica para o estudo científico dos aspectos espirituais da experiência humana, mesmo (ou principalmente) se os dados observacionais não se encaixem nos princípios teóricos (filosóficos) predominantes. Vale ressaltar que já há atualmente um considerável conjunto de evidências sobre experiências espirituais produzidas por rigorosas investigações científicas recentes 11,12 .…”