This paper analyzes the thought on science and religion of two thinkers that share essentially the same position: Stephen Jay Gould and Karl Popper. We first make a comparison between those passages of their works where this similarity emerges more explicitly. We then recall some of the critiques that have been extended to Gould on this topic; they can be extended to Popper as well. Moreover, we highlight another critical issue—taken from evolutionary theory—that Gould’s theorization is not able to handle (...) adequately from the theological standpoint. We finally place Gould’s proposal inside Barbour’s fourfold typology for the science-religion relationship, and we conclude by recommending further critical reflection on these interdisciplinary issues. (shrink)

Some intellectual attitudes and views of Professor Artigas: Mariano Artigas is one of the authors that has significantly contributed to the philosophical study of nature and the philosophy of science in the 20th century. He initiated, in addition, some interdisciplinary studies about the relations between science and religion making him a pioneer in this intellectual debate in Spain. His contributions in this field began to be studied while he was alive and has continued to generate interest after his death. A (...) less considered aspect of his thoughts is his teaching and investigative style full of educative value. Over and beyond his writings, and also through them, his teaching task has had significant impact on the intellectual formation of a good number of professionals who are currently dedicated to exploring the wealth of scientific knowledge in its epistemological and humanistic openness. This work considers some attitudes and intellectual approaches of Professor Artigas which have led many scholars, especially scientific ones, to deepen the value of science and its relation with other dimensions of knowledge and human life. (shrink)

Some concepts widely used in science are fundamental keys in the work of Mariano Artigas. Words like ‘order’, ‘dynamism’, ‘activity’, ‘chaos’, ‘randomness’, ‘patterns’, ‘structure’, ‘emergence’ or ‘complexity’, which are also used in other fields of thinking, have been used to build M. Artigas’ worldview. From this point of view, he presents the existence of philosophical bridges to overcome the methodological gaps between science and religion. Since the years in which Artigas wrote his work up to now, the scientific meanings of (...) many of these concepts have evolved until reaching today a better level of accuracy, maturity and stability. This article discusses the concept of worldview in M. Artigas related to some notions he used. It is important to remark that the change in the meaning of some words does not affect the general framework introduced by M. Artigas. His understanding of the relations between science and religion still preserves both validity and profit. (shrink)

This article highlights certain recurring themes in Mariano Artigas’s works by examining a judicial decision made in the United States in 1982 concerning the teaching of “creation-science” alongside “evolution-science” in public schools. These themes include: the proper delimitation of the boundaries of science, the importance of philosophy as a bridge between science and religion, and the misunderstandings concerning the limits of science inherent in scientism.

After a few general observations on scientific activity, the author briefly comments on different versions of naturalism. Subsequently, he suggests that the birth of evolutionary biology and its successive developments may show how the natural world comes to be differently conceived as scientific advancements are accomplished. Then the main thesis is outlined by introducing the principles of a heuristic science-based naturalism not conclusively defining the real and the knowable. From the epistemological perspective, heuristic naturalism is meant to be framed in (...) critical realism, whereas from the ontological standpoint it may be framed in emergent monism, given that the latter can also underpin recent trends in investigation addressing human specificity. Finally, attention is turned to some implications of heuristically guided scientific activity with regard to the issues of divine action and of imago Dei. (shrink)

Reviewing the last fifty years of interaction between religion and science in Catholicism in Southern Europe, common traits are clearly evident: a late awareness of the importance of this interaction and a theological reluctance to address science or to account for its progress. Early signs of the engagement between religion and science appear as a consequence of the work of the French anthropologist and theologian Teilhard de Chardin. In Italy and Spain in the last fifteen years, we see a substantive (...) growth in the rise of research centers and academic activities devoted to exploring the common ground between science, philosophy, and theology. However, despite all these efforts and the many positive signs, there remains a long way to go for theology to consider science as a true challenge and an inspiration and to integrate it into the theological curriculum. (shrink)