Affiliation:
1. Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of California, Irvine
Abstract
In this paper, I critique conceptual analysis as used in the religion-and-science literature as a means of determining how to characterize the relationship between religion and science. “Conceptual analysis,” as discussed in this paper, begins by defining the terms “religion” and “science” and then derives their relation logically on the basis of those definitions. Scholars from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds (not just philosophers!) employ this method. Although it is widely criticized, I argue that the method should not be abandoned, and the critiques can instead be read as providing ways of improving conceptual analysis. The paper starts by explaining the method and canvassing some exemplars. I then consider three general issues with the method—it employs monolithic conceptions, over-essentializes religion/science, and ignores whose conceptions are analyzed—and show how it ought to be reformed. I close with a discussion of what public audiences might find conceptual analysis especially useful.
Publisher
Open Library of the Humanities
Reference27 articles.
1. “Theological Correctness: Cognitive Constraint and the Study of Religion.”;Barrett, Justin L;Method & Theory in the Study of Religion,1999
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor. 2023. Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2022. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes190000.htm.
3. “Barbour’s Fourfold Way: Problems with his Taxonomy of Science-Religion Relationships.”;Cantor, GeoffreyChris Kenny;Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science,2001