‘Science and Religion’: - Moving away from the shallow end

3 This phrase is used throughout (instead of fundamentalist) to denote those respondents who agreed that the Bible [or the Qur’an] is “the actual word of God and to be taken literally, word for word.” 16 Introduction 17 ‘Science and Religion’ This report is written from the conviction that the science and religion conversation is one of the most interesting and complex we can engage in, but that i. [...] The dimensions of the science and religion debate What, then, are the dimensions of science and of religion that are relevant to the science and religion debate? Our work drew on the existing literature, some of which we have cited above, but also on the views from over a hundred expert interviews (details of which are given in Appendix 1). [...] These were things like the reliability of the senses, the existence of an external world, the effectiveness of mathematics, the comprehensibility of the cosmos, or the alignment of the human brain with truth (or reality) as opposed to just survival (or appearance). [...] In other words, like I said, what is presupposed in the practising of science, which is different from the practice of theology.” (#82) Hermeneutics: how do you read holy books? If, as we have been arguing, the relationship between science and religion depends on the nature of science and the nature of religion, then the nature of religion significantly depends on the perceived content of authorit. [...] This is central to the history of science and religion.13 In reality, the question of who has the authority to pronounce on ‘scientific’ matters was largely settled by the end of the nineteenth century.