In this paper several problems are raised concerning Ian Barbour's four ways of interrelating science and religion—Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration—as put forward in such publications as his highly influential Religion in an Age of Science (1990) and widely adopted by other writers in this field. The authors argue that this taxonomy is not very useful or analytically helpful, especially to historians seeking to understand past engagements between science and religion.

I explore how the notion of divine creation could be made understandable in a worldview dominated by empirical science. The crucial question concerns the empirical basis of belief in creation. Astronomical observations have changed our worldview in an exemplary manner. I show by an example from imaginative literature that human beings can perceive stars by means other than astronomical observation. This alternative mode may be described as “participatory perception,” in which a human experiences the world not by objectifying separation as (...) in science, but by personal involvement. I relate such perceptions to “embodied cognitive science,” a topical interdisciplinary field of research in philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience. Embodied cognitions initiate processes that can convey personal experiences of the stars. Such cognitions may involve religious apprehensions and give rise to sophisticated values. It is argued that the knowledge available through astrophysics and interpretation of the universe as divine creation represent two different ways of perceiving the same reality and should thus be seen as mutually complementary. (shrink)

While written by a prominent and active scientist, this book is based on personal experience and biblical theology. It doesn't try to derive God s existence from science and it's critical of scientific inferences on the notion of God (Natural Theology). Cosmic fine-tuning and other coincidences are no proof of God, but are amazing, astounding and will never be fully explained. Amazement is the appropriate emotional perception of reality. The objective world is not a matter of course and may well (...) not exist at all; thus reality, at times, is experienced to be very special. Human life, the beauty of nature, the habitability of planet Earth can be considered undeserved gifts. In the light of these gifts, the universe is metaphorically interpreted and existentially believed as a divine Creation. Science cannot create such faith but can foster it. Is God necessary to explain the universe? Is the idea of a Creator excluded by modern science? Why continue speaking of a Creator and to believe (trust and hope) in His continuing creation when God cannot be demonstrated in scientific data? Arnold Benz, a renowned astrophysicist and Christian, insists that human perception reaches further than science and demonstrates this in various examples, personal, biblical, and literary.". (shrink)

According to recent astrophysical evidence, the present universe has been forming for the past 14 billion years. New kinds of objects have emerged even recently. The reverse side of this creativity is the observed and predicted decay of all objects. Will new structures form in the future? This is a question of hope, which is not a scientific term but originates from experience on the level of personal and religious perceptions requiring participation. Anticipating the future, science and theology of creation (...) meet, and the tension between practical knowledge and visionary hope enters a constructive dialogue. (shrink)