{"title":"经验根源","authors":"J. P. Baggett","doi":"10.18574/nyu/9781479874200.003.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Even though the science versus religion “conflict myth” has been debunked by scholars for some time now, this chapter shows that most American atheists still presume it is true today. Methodologically, they prefer science’s integrity over religion’s comfort; attitudinally, they elevate science’s open-mindedness above religion’s closed-mindedness; and in terms of consequences, they believe science leads to progress while religion leads to regression. Yet, unlike the New Atheist authors whom many atheists have read, their worldviews do not come so close to scientism, the perception that science is the only way of knowing about the world. Instead they complement their esteem for science with strong convictions about things that are personally meaningful to them and, in some cases, even feel comfortable with describing themselves as spiritual.","PeriodicalId":300188,"journal":{"name":"The Varieties of Nonreligious Experience","volume":"125 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Empirical Root\",\"authors\":\"J. P. Baggett\",\"doi\":\"10.18574/nyu/9781479874200.003.0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Even though the science versus religion “conflict myth” has been debunked by scholars for some time now, this chapter shows that most American atheists still presume it is true today. Methodologically, they prefer science’s integrity over religion’s comfort; attitudinally, they elevate science’s open-mindedness above religion’s closed-mindedness; and in terms of consequences, they believe science leads to progress while religion leads to regression. Yet, unlike the New Atheist authors whom many atheists have read, their worldviews do not come so close to scientism, the perception that science is the only way of knowing about the world. Instead they complement their esteem for science with strong convictions about things that are personally meaningful to them and, in some cases, even feel comfortable with describing themselves as spiritual.\",\"PeriodicalId\":300188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Varieties of Nonreligious Experience\",\"volume\":\"125 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Varieties of Nonreligious Experience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479874200.003.0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Varieties of Nonreligious Experience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479874200.003.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管科学与宗教的“冲突神话”已经被学者们揭穿了一段时间,但本章表明,大多数美国无神论者今天仍然认为这是正确的。在方法论上,他们更喜欢科学的完整性,而不是宗教的安慰;在态度上,他们把科学的开放思想置于宗教的封闭思想之上;就后果而言,他们认为科学导致进步,而宗教导致倒退。然而,与许多无神论者读过的新无神论作家不同,他们的世界观并不那么接近科学主义,即认为科学是了解世界的唯一途径。相反,他们对那些对他们个人有意义的事情有强烈的信念,以补充他们对科学的尊重,在某些情况下,他们甚至觉得把自己描述为精神上的人很舒服。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Empirical Root
Even though the science versus religion “conflict myth” has been debunked by scholars for some time now, this chapter shows that most American atheists still presume it is true today. Methodologically, they prefer science’s integrity over religion’s comfort; attitudinally, they elevate science’s open-mindedness above religion’s closed-mindedness; and in terms of consequences, they believe science leads to progress while religion leads to regression. Yet, unlike the New Atheist authors whom many atheists have read, their worldviews do not come so close to scientism, the perception that science is the only way of knowing about the world. Instead they complement their esteem for science with strong convictions about things that are personally meaningful to them and, in some cases, even feel comfortable with describing themselves as spiritual.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Acquiring Atheist Identities The Critical Root The Empirical Root The Agnostic Root Well, I’ll Be Damned!
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1