Neuroscience research evolves at a rapid rate due to the persistent implementation of new diagnostic techniques. At times advancement within neuroscience outruns philosophical and religious understanding. Thus, it is crucial for Christian neuroscientists to approach the field with openness as well as proper perspective. In order to make sense of discoveries in neuroscience, a Christian must adequately defend their interpretation of the relationship between science and religion. A good defense draws upon historical evidence specifically the convictions of prior scientists. With proper knowledge the Christian neuroscientist is better equipped to rationalize the implications of cutting edge neuroscience. Jeeves and Brown discuss a broad range
…show more content…
Within the book Hough presents four ways in which science and religion relate: independence, conflict, integration, and dialogue. Similarly, the authors of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Religion discussed the relationship between science and religion presenting it as either a warfare or partnership. Jeeves and Brown discuss the historical debate of science and religion depicting the tumultuous reversal of common ideology throughout the past. Certain early psychologists like William James used science as a resource for learning more about God and His creation. While others like Freud and BF Skinner pitted science and religion against one another affirming scientific discovery and dismissing religious practice. The debate remains ongoing continuing to go back and forth between partnership and warfare. I enjoyed reading about the multiple interpretations of science and religion because it stimulated a different form of thinking. Convinced of a warfare existed between science and religion, I found less joy in two crucial facets of my life. However, reading the ideas presented by Hough, Jeeves, and Brown I came to the conclusion that science and religion could work cohesively with one another. In effect, I adopted a partnership/dialogue approach to science and religion. A partnership interpretation suggests that certain theories and models within science advancement can increase religious understanding and vise versa. In contrast to warfare, partnership displayed an elegance and beauty. Forming personal belief with regard to science and religion provided a baseline upon which I was able to evaluate the knowledge in each
Within the book Hough presents four ways in which science and religion relate: independence, conflict, integration, and dialogue. Similarly, the authors of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Religion discussed the relationship between science and religion presenting it as either a warfare or partnership. Jeeves and Brown discuss the historical debate of science and religion depicting the tumultuous reversal of common ideology throughout the past. Certain early psychologists like William James used science as a resource for learning more about God and His creation. While others like Freud and BF Skinner pitted science and religion against one another affirming scientific discovery and dismissing religious practice. The debate remains ongoing continuing to go back and forth between partnership and warfare. I enjoyed reading about the multiple interpretations of science and religion because it stimulated a different form of thinking. Convinced of a warfare existed between science and religion, I found less joy in two crucial facets of my life. However, reading the ideas presented by Hough, Jeeves, and Brown I came to the conclusion that science and religion could work cohesively with one another. In effect, I adopted a partnership/dialogue approach to science and religion. A partnership interpretation suggests that certain theories and models within science advancement can increase religious understanding and vise versa. In contrast to warfare, partnership displayed an elegance and beauty. Forming personal belief with regard to science and religion provided a baseline upon which I was able to evaluate the knowledge in each