Abstract
There is no consensus as to whether, and if so, in which regard and to what extent science and religion is needed for human survival. Here a circumscribed domain is taken up: the sovereignty and sufficiency of the human brain in this context. Several of its shortcomings are pointed out. Religion and other aspects of culture are needed for remedial action. To determine such an action, a broad-based dialogue is required, based on the most promising ontology and epistemology as well as on appropriate logics.
Résumé
Il n’existe pas de consensus, et si c’est le cas, sur la manière et dans quelle mesure la science et la religion sont nécessaires à la survie des êtres humains. C’est dans ce contexte que seront évoqués des travaux qui soutiennent que l’esprit humain est souverain et, en quelque sorte, adapté à la réalisation de ce projet. Certaines limites de cette position seront présentées. La religion et certains autres aspects de la culture doivent êtres convoqués dans la perspective où il y a possibilité de rémédiation de l’action. Pour que celle-ci soit possible, elle doit s’inscrire dans le cadre d’un dialogue élargi qui s’appuie sur une ontologie et une épistémologie qui s’ouvre sur des possibles, de même que sur une logique appropriée.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atran, S. (2006). The scientific landscape of religion: Evolution, culture, and cognition. In P. Clinton & Z. Simpson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of religion and science (pp. 407–429). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Barbour, I. G. (1990). Religion in an age of science. The Gifford lectures 1989–1991 (Vol. 1). London: SCM Press.
Bartley, W. W. III. (1984). The retreat to commitment. Chicago & La Salle, IL: Open Court.
Clayton, P., & Simpson, Z. (2006). The Oxford handbook of religion and science. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Dyson, F. (2000). Progress in science and religion. A talk on the occasion of receiving the 2000 templeton prize. Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Science/sciencee/sciencee02.htm.
Hollingsworth, A. (2008). Implications of interpersonal neurobiology for a spirituality of compassion. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 43, 837–860.
Losch, A. (2009). On the origin of critical realism. Theology and Science, 4, 85–106. doi:10.1080/14746700802617105.
McGrath, A., & McGrath, J. C. (2007). The Dawkins delusion?: Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine. London: SPCK.
Muntz, P. (2008). Why homo sapiens had to be saved by culture. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15(12), 57–73.
Myers, D. G. (2008). A friendly letter to skeptics and atheists: Musings on why God is good and faith isn’t evil. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Puddefoot, J. C. (1992). Information and creation. In C. Wassermann, R. Kirby, & B. Rordorff (Eds.), The science and theology of information. Proceedings of the third European conference on science and theology, Geneva, March 29–April 1, 1990 (pp. 7–25). Geneva: LABOR ET FIDES.
Reich, K. H. (1996). Relational and contextual reasoning in religious education: A theory-based empirical study. In L. J. Francis, W. K. Kay, & W. S. Campbell (Eds.), Research in religious education (pp. 129–144). Leominster, England: Gracewing.
Reich, K. H. (1999). Logotrope or paedotrope education in religion-and-science: What is the difference? In N. H. Gregersen, U. Görman, & W. B. Drees (Eds.), Studies in science and theology 7. Yearbook of the European society for the study of science and theology (pp. 139–150). Aarhus: University of Aarhus.
Reich, K. H. (2002). Developing the horizons of the mind. Relational and contextual reasoning and the resolution of cognitive conflict. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Reich, K. H. (2003/2004). Value-fostering education in an age of science and technology. In U. Görman, W. B. Drees, & H. Meisinger (Eds.), Studies in science and theology (SSTh), vol. 9. Yearbook of the European society for the study of science and theology (pp. 257–269). Lund: Centre for Theology and Religious Studies (CTR), Lund University.
Reich, K. H. (2003a). Teaching genesis. A present-day approach inspired by prophet Nathan. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 38, 633–641.
Reich, K. H. (2003b). Some German (pre-)adolescents’ views on the importance of friends and God: A pilot study. Journal of Christian Education, 46(3), 47–61.
Reich, K. H. (2008). Science-and-religion/spirituality/theology dialogue: What for and by whom? Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 43, 705–718.
Rogers, M. (2008). The science and religion debate in schools across the world. http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/68/id/10327/Default.aspx.
Shermer, M. (2008). Patternicity. Noun. The tendency Scientific American December 2008 to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. Scientific American, 299(6, December), 24.
Teske, J. (1996). The spiritual limits of neuropsychological life. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 31, 209–234.
Teske, J. (1999). The haunting of the human spirit. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 34, 307–322.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reich, K.H. Shortcomings of the human brain and remedial action by religion. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 5, 157–162 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9213-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9213-6