Abstract
According to the common view scientific belief (i.e. belief in scientific hypotheses or theories) has nothing to do with religious belief (i.e. belief in the creed of some religion). Though this common view is very widespread, it is usually not reflected upon or analyzed in some detail. One of the points in my paper is that on a closer look and deeper analysis it will turn out that there are a number of interesting similarities between the two. And also the differences show interesting and important characteristics. But to show that there are similarities and that there are differences is only one important task. It will become clearer on a more detailed analysis that both “similarity” and “difference” should not be taken too literally. Since in many cases a particular similarity will show some new differences in special details and a particular difference will show some new similarities on a deeper level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Anderson, A. R. and Belnap, N. D.: 1975, Entailment. The Logic of Relevance and Necessity. Volume I, Princeton University Press, Princeton and London.
Aristotle: (Post. An.) ‘Posterior Analytics’, in Prior and Posterior Analytics, intr. comm. W.D. Ross, Oxford 1957.
Augustinus: (Lib Arb) II, De Libero Arbitrio, ML Vol. 32, 1231–1310, (Ord) 2,18,47
De Ordine, ML Vol. 32, 959–976
Bocheński, J. M.: 1965, The Logic of Religion, New York University Press, New York.
Bocheński, J. M.: 1974, ‘An Analysis of Authority’, in: Authority, F.J. Adelmann, S.J. (ed.), Boston College Studies in Philosophy, Bd. 3, Chestnut Hill/The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 56–85.
Boeihius: (Con) III,10; De Consolatione Philosophie, ML Vol. 63, 579–862;
Quomodo Trinitas unus Deus ac non tres Dii, ML vol. 64, 1247–1256.
Clemens von Alexandrien: (Strom) V,12; Stromata, O. Stählin (ed.), Vol. 1–6 (1906)
Cohen, P.: 1963/64, “The Independence of the Continuum Hypothesis”, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 50 (1963), 1143–1148
Cohen, P.: 1966, Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis, Benjamin, New York and Amster dam.
Gödel, K.: 1940, The Consistency of the Axiom of Choice and of the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis with the Axioms of Set Theory, Annals of Mathematics Studies 3, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Meessen, A.: 1989, ‘Is it logically Possible to Generalize Physics through Space-Time Quantization?’ in Philosophy of Natural Science, Proceedings of the 13th International Wittgenstein Symposium, Paul Weingartner and Gerhard Schurz (eds.), Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, Wien, 19–47.
Neumann, J. v.: 1951, ‘Tribute to Dr. Gödel’ in Foundations of Mathematics, J. J. Bulloff, Th.C. Holyoke, S.W. Hahn (eds.), Springer, Berlin 1969.
Popper, K. R.: 1934, 1969, Logik der Forschung, Julius Springer, Wien/J.C.B. Mohr, Tübingen.
Popper, K. R.: 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (English translation of Popper (1934)).
Popper, K. R.: 1963, Conjectures and Refutations, Routlege-Kegan Paul, London.
Popper, K. R.: 1974, The Philosophy of Karl Popper, Part Three: The Philosopher Replies, P.A. Schilpp (ed.), Open Court, La Salle.
Popper, K. R.: 1984, Auf der Suche nach einer besseren Welt, Piper, München.
Schurz, G. and Weingartner P.: 1987, ‘Verisimilitude Defined by Relevant Consequence-Elements. A new Reconstruction of Popper’s Original Idea’, in What is Closer-to-the-Truth?, Th. Kuipers (ed.), Rodopi, Amsterdam, 47–77.
Solovay, R.: 1976, ‘Provability Interpretations of Modal Logic’, in Israel Journal of Mathema tics 25, 287–304.
Thomas Aquinas (STh) I,2,3; 12,11 and 13,1. Summa Theologica, transl. by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Christian Classics, Westminster, Maryland 1981.
Weingartner, P. and Schurz, G.: 1986, ‘Paradoxes Solved by simple Relevance Criteria’, Logique et Analyse 113, 3–40.
Weingartner, P.: 1988, ‘Remarks on the Consequence-Class of Theories’, in The Role of Experience in Science, E. Scheibe (ed.). De Gruyter, Berlin, 161–180.
Weingartner, P.: 1993, ‘Can there be Reasons for Putting Limitations on Classical Logic’, in Mathematical Philosopher, P. Humphreys (ed.), Patrick Suppes, Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1994 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weingartner, P. (1994). Similarities and Differences Between Scientific and Religious Belief. In: Weingartner, P. (eds) Scientific and Religious Belief. Philosophical Studies Series, vol 59. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0804-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0804-1_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-4346-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-0804-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive