Religion and scientism: a shared cognitive conundrum

This article challenges the claim that the rise of naturalism is devastating to religious belief. This claim hinges on an extreme interpretation of naturalism called scientism, the metaphysical view that science offers an exhaustive account of the real. For those committed to scientism, religious di...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal for philosophy of religion
Main Author: Burch, Matthew I. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Springer Science + Business Media B. V [2016]
In: International journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2016, Volume: 80, Issue: 3, Pages: 225-241
Further subjects:B Phenomenology
B Scientism
B Atheism
B Rational Belief
B Cognition
B Epistemics
B Metaphysics
B Naturalism
Online Access: Presumably Free Access
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1559353686
003 DE-627
005 20221110132737.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 170601s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1007/s11153-016-9571-4  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1559353686 
035 |a (DE-576)489353681 
035 |a (DE-599)BSZ489353681 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |a 0  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Burch, Matthew I.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Religion and scientism  |b a shared cognitive conundrum  |c Matthew Burch 
264 1 |c [2016] 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a This article challenges the claim that the rise of naturalism is devastating to religious belief. This claim hinges on an extreme interpretation of naturalism called scientism, the metaphysical view that science offers an exhaustive account of the real. For those committed to scientism, religious discourse is epistemically illegitimate, because it refers to matters that transcend-and so cannot be verified by-scientific inquiry. This article reconstructs arguments from the phenomenological tradition that seem to undercut this critique, viz., arguments that scientism itself cannot be justified without recourse to matters that transcend scientific inquiry. If this is true, then scientism and religion share a cognitive conundrum: a commitment to truths that cannot in principle be known from our current perspective. 
601 |a Religion 
650 4 |a Atheism 
650 4 |a Cognition 
650 4 |a Epistemics 
650 4 |a Metaphysics 
650 4 |a Naturalism 
650 4 |a Phenomenology 
650 4 |a Rational Belief 
650 4 |a Scientism 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t International journal for philosophy of religion  |d Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 1970  |g 80(2016), 3, Seite 225-241  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)320442098  |w (DE-600)2005049-5  |w (DE-576)103746927  |x 1572-8684  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:80  |g year:2016  |g number:3  |g pages:225-241 
856 |u http://repository.essex.ac.uk/17390/1/%5E%20Final_Religion%20and%20Scientism%202.0.pdf  |x unpaywall  |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang  |h repository [oa repository (via OAI-PMH title and first author match)] 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-016-9571-4  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
936 u w |d 80  |j 2016  |e 3  |h 225-241 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 297085192X 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1559353686 
LOK |0 005 20170601162257 
LOK |0 008 170601||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixzo 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL