Dialogue of Theology and Science

Joey Lawsin's simple quote, "One person's duality is two people's unity", he said a lot. We can relate this sentence to our lives in various ways, but today I chose to link it to science and religion. This allowed Paul Davis to open a dialogue between religion and science through his theoretical beliefs. Ian Barbour proposed four different positions in his typology. It was confrontation that he first said. People who belong to the category of conflict are those who try to prove religion with science.

One possible way to treat the dialogue between theology and science as unimportant is to show that science and theology are too different to interact in a completely meaningful way. There are many ways to keep this independent view. For example, theology and science are two very different language games, religion does not focus on facts that are actually available, just like science. Such a position is known as the Wittgenstein-style faith 129 Many theological metaphysics of the natural theology (explained in section 2.4) are also thought to be incorrect. Theoretical metaphysics requires realistic concepts of religious languages, but we believe that religious languages ​​are close to poetry and music, but some people express emotions rather than trying to say something to God I will.

The problem with dialogue between theology and science is that it is like a political dialogue between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party on the Internet. Theologians are not interested in progress and are interested in being proved correct. If such a plan exists in the seminary, then all their powers. Seminary members become leading leaders of the world and they should know as much information as possible. For this reason, I admire the seminar for doing this (for example, the theology department I am working on - Yes, my office is in the seminary of Boston University, did you see that?) , Theologians need to recognize the limit of this dialogue. Given theological and scientific epistemological rules in the ideal world, theologians can say what they want and say, the scientists will say what they can do. There is really no dialogue between religion and science This is a monologue promoted by theologians.