Is nature ever evil?: religion, science, and value

New York: Routledge (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Can one call nature 'evil'? Or is life a matter of eating and being eaten, where value judgments should not be applied? Is nature beautiful? Or is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Scientists often pretend that their disciplines only describe and analyze natural processes in factual terms, without making evaluative statements regarding reality. However, scientists may also be driven by the beauty of that which they study. Or they may be appalled by suffering they encounter, and look for technical or medical means 'to improve nature'. Outside of the scientific community, value judgments are even more common. Humans evaluate nature and natural processes in moral, aesthetic and religious terms as cruel, beautiful, hopeful or meaningless. Is nature ultimately good, with all suffering and evil justified in the context of the larger evolutionary process? Or is nature to be improved, via culture or technology, as it is considered less adequate than it could be? In this book, some major scientists, theologians, and philosophers discuss these issues. As a study on the relations between religion and science, this is unique in emphasizing the evaluation of nature, rather than treating religion and science as competing or complementary casual explanations.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,642

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The moral relevance.Of Naturalness - 2003 - In Willem B. Drees (ed.), Is nature ever evil?: religion, science, and value. New York: Routledge. pp. 100--41.
Indeed, but humans do.Fred Spier - 2003 - In Willem B. Drees (ed.), Is nature ever evil?: religion, science, and value. New York: Routledge. pp. 100--101.
With cyborgs.Anne Kull - 2003 - In Willem B. Drees (ed.), Is nature ever evil?: religion, science, and value. New York: Routledge. pp. 100--236.
A response to Ward.Ronald Meester - 2003 - In Willem B. Drees (ed.), Is nature ever evil?: religion, science, and value. New York: Routledge. pp. 100--270.
Comment on Smit.Arthur C. Petersen - 2003 - In Willem B. Drees (ed.), Is nature ever evil?: religion, science, and value. New York: Routledge. pp. 100--98.
Some meta-historical reflections.Henk G. Geertsema - 2003 - In Willem B. Drees (ed.), Is nature ever evil?: religion, science, and value. New York: Routledge. pp. 100--173.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
4 (#1,644,260)

6 months
47 (#94,665)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Rationalist atheology.John R. Shook - 2015 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 78 (3):329-348.
John Haught on original sin: A conversation.Ernst M. Conradie - 2016 - HTS Theological Studies 72 (4):1-10.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references