This article compares justifications of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) presented by scientists with ideational constructs associated with cargo cults in Melanesia. In focusing on similarities between cargoism and SETI, I argue that, understood in terms of cultural practice, aspects of the science of SETI have significant similarities to the religious elements that characterize cargoism. Through a focus on the construction of meanings, I consider how SETI and cargoism use similar signification systems to communicate meaning related to local social (...) contexts and I draw a parallel with the religious and meaning structure of cargoism to show that SETI and cargoism employ similar strategies to justify beliefs. As a result, in some ways SETI represents a scientific framework that inhabits cultural and epistemological space that overlaps with religious space. (shrink)

The experience of feeling safe even in the midst of trials and temptations seems to be a central feature of the Christian faith. In this article I will try to solve some possible difficulties in understanding this kind of absolute safety by discussing some problems noted by philosophers in connection with the related statements by Socrates that a good man cannot be harmed, and by Wittgenstein that he sometimes feels absolutely safe, that nothing can injure him whatever happens. First, I (...) will investigate whether there is an invalid prediction implied in this feeling of absolute safety: how can someone know that nothing will hurt him or her? Second, I will examine whether this experience of complete safety is dependent upon impossible requirements, such as to be a good man or an impeccable Christian. Third, I will consider the character of the people who claim absolute safety as portrayed by different philosophers: do these people really need to be so cold and inhumanly detached from the world for them to be able to say that nothing can hurt them? I will argue that if, instead of asking how someone can claim absolute safety, we ask to what someone commits him- or her-self in making this claim, these difficulties disappear. (shrink)

We do not need ‘the earth’ as the space for encounter and cooperation between world religions in the way Moltmann suggests. Firstly, this fails to do justice to the contemporary situation concerning religious diversity: people from different religions have no problem in working together either for promoting ecological goals or for fighting them together. Within religions, there are often greater divergences between eco-friendly and anti-ecological adherents of that same religion. Secondly, Moltmann’s proposal misguidedly confuses boundaries of beliefs and boundaries of (...) grammar concerning religious diversity. Paying attention to religions as grammar provides a more accurate picture of the reality concerning world religions from an ecological perspective. In the final section of this article, I present some suggestions on moving forward in the debate about ecology from within this new perspective. We need to keep in mind that it is not religions but people who have opinions about ecology. The dialogue that needs to take place is not a high-level bureaucratic one between officials of different religions but one between people. In this grassroots-level discussion, it is important to listen to the other person rather than to consider him or her as a representative of his or her religion. We should not allow people to claim an entire religion for their position, dismissing others as revisionists. Religions are grammars that can express both eco-friendly and anti-ecological messages.Contribution: This article contributes to an in-depth understanding of religious diversity; it proves the usefulness of the distinction between grammar and beliefs in the study of religion and demonstrates this using the case of ecotheology as an example. (shrink)

The purpose of this study is to develop a religion-science relationship attitude scale prepared to determine the approaches of the students studying at the faculties of theology/Islamic sciences towards the religion-science relationship. The relationship between religion and science constitutes one of the most important intersection points of religion, science and philosophy. In the modern period, the debates on the questioning of this relationship have reached quite advanced dimensions with the influence of different elements. In recent years, one of the environments (...) in which this situation has intensified in our country is theology/Islamic sciences faculties. Especially for the students of these faculties, it is important to deal with the issue from different dimensions. However, the studies are mainly carried out in the theoretical dimension and it can be said that the quantitative dimensions are inadequate. In this respect, the article is the first example in the field. Ian G. Barbour's quartet typology, which is one of the most comprehensive studies on the religion-science relationship was used as a basis in the formation of the scale questions. Especially conflict, separation and reconciliation approaches in this typology have been decisive. Three different study groups were formed and a total of 594 students studying at Atatürk University Faculty of Theology were studied. In the development of the scale, exploratory sequential pattern model from mixed method research was used and there are four steps. In the first step, the items were written by the researchers and corrections were made by taking the opinions of the field experts. In the second step, an application was made for item analysis; in the third step, an application was made for exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and in the fourth and final step, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. According to the findings obtained from the study, a scale consisting of two sub-dimensions called conflict/separation and dialogue/consensus was developed. The reliability of the scale was analyzed with the internal consistency (cronbach alpha) method, and the cronbach alpha values for each sub-dimension were calculated as.90 for the conflict sub-dimension and.77 for the dialogue consensus sub-dimension. These results indicate that each sub-dimension of the scale is reliable. (shrink)