# kb

id: lysenkoism-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism-0.md
category: reference
title: Lysenkoism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:13.510646+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: lysenkoism-20260505-0
summary:
Lysenkoism was a pseudoscientific political campaign led by the Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko against genetics and science-based agriculture in the mid-20th century, rejecting natural selection in favour of a form of Lamarckism, as well as expanding upon the techniques of vernalization and grafting. More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were dismissed or imprisoned, and numerous scientists were executed in the Soviet campaign to suppress scientific opponents. The president of the Soviet Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, who had been Lysenko's mentor, but later denounced him, was sent to prison and died there, while Soviet genetics research was effectively destroyed. Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines were harmed or banned. The government of the Soviet Union (USSR) supported the campaign, and Joseph Stalin personally edited a speech by Lysenko in a way that reflected his support for what would come to be known as Lysenkoism, despite his skepticism toward Lysenko's assertion that all science is class-orientated in nature. Lysenko served as the director of the USSR's Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Other countries of the Eastern Bloc including the People's Republic of Poland, the Republic of Czechoslovakia, and the German Democratic Republic accepted


id: lysenkoism-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism-1.md
category: reference
title: Lysenkoism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:13.510646+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: lysenkoism-20260505-0
summary:
In 1928, rejecting natural selection and Mendelian genetics, Trofim Lysenko claimed to have developed agricultural techniques which could radically increase crop yields. These included vernalization, species transformation (one species turning into another), inheritance of acquired characteristics, and vegetative hybridization (see below). He claimed in particular that vernalization, exposing wheat seeds to humidity and low temperature, could greatly increase crop yield. He claimed further that he could transform one species, Triticum durum (durum spring wheat), into Triticum vulgare (common autumn wheat), through 2 to 4 years of autumn planting. This species transition he claimed to occur without an intermediate form. However, this was already known to be impossible since T. durum is a tetraploid with 28 chromosomes (4 sets of 7), while T. vulgare is hexaploid with 42 chromosomes (6 sets). This objection did not faze Lysenko, as he claimed that the chromosome number changed as well. Lysenko claimed that the concept of a gene was a "bourgeois invention", and he denied the presence of any "immortal substance of heredity" or "clearly defined species", which he claimed belong to Platonic metaphysics rather than strictly materialist Marxist science. Instead, he proposed a "Marxist genetics" postulating an unlimited possibility of transformation of living


id: lysenkoism-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism-2.md
category: reference
title: Lysenkoism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:13.510646+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: lysenkoism-20260505-0
summary:
=== Peak === From July 31 to August 7, 1948, the Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VASKhNIL) held a week-long session (August 1948 Session of VASKhNIL), organized by Lysenko and approved by Stalin. At the end of it, Lysenkoism was declared as "the only correct theory." As Lysenko performatively spoke at the end, "the Central Committee of the Communist Party has examined my report and approved it". Attendants recognized this as the birth of a new orthodoxy. Of the 8 scientists who advocated genetics during the session, 3 immediately announced repentance. Soviet scientists were required to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenko, and criticism was denounced as "bourgeois" or "fascist". The Ministry of Higher Education commanded all biological institutes to immediately follow the Lysenko orthodoxy:The Central University Administration and the Administration of Cadres are directed to review within two months all departments of biological faculties to free them from all opposed to Michurinist biology and to strengthen them by appointing Michurinists to them. Point 6 of the Order No. 1208 (August 23, 1948)For several months, similar central directives dismissed scientists, withdrew textbooks, and required the removal of any references to heredity in higher education. There was also an order to destroy


id: lysenkoism-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism-3.md
category: reference
title: Lysenkoism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:13.510646+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: lysenkoism-20260505-0
summary:
=== Reappearance === In the 21st century, Lysenkoism is again being discussed in Russia, including in respectable newspapers like Kultura and by biologists. The geneticist Lev Zhivotovsky has made the unsupported claim that Lysenko helped found modern developmental biology. Discoveries in the field of epigenetics are sometimes raised as alleged late confirmation of Lysenko's theories, but in spite of the apparent high-level similarity (heritable traits passed on without DNA alteration), Lysenko believed that environment-induced changes are the primary mechanism of heritability. Heritable epigenetic effects have been found, but are minor and unstable compared to genetic inheritance. == Scientific content == Heredity was reformulated as "the property of the living body to demand certain environmental conditions and to react in a certain way to them". Michurin attempted to explain Lamarckian heredity by theorizing that some sort of "heredity" is present all throughout an organism, which reacts to environmental influence. This is incompatible with the Weismann barrier, which leads Lysenkoists to denounce Weismann. Instead, they proposed a "physiological" theory, that the heredity diffused throughout the body is somehow collected in the germ cells, which are "built from molecules, granules, of various organs and parts of the organism", i.e. the pangenesis theory. When


id: lysenkoism-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism-4.md
category: reference
title: Lysenkoism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:13.510646+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: lysenkoism-20260505-0
summary:
== Further reading == Denis Buican, L'éternel retour de Lyssenko, Paris, Copernic, 1978. ISBN 2859840192 Ronald Fisher, "What Sort of Man is Lysenko?" Listener, 40 (1948): 874–875. Contemporary commentary by a British evolutionary biologist (pdf format) Loren Graham, Chapter 6. "Stalinist Ideology and the Lysenko Affair", in Science in Russia and the Soviet Union (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Oren Solomon Harman, "C. D. Darlington and the British and American Reaction to Lysenko and the Soviet Conception of Science." Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 36 No. 2 (New York: Springer, 2003) David Joravsky, The Lysenko Affair (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin, "Lysenkoism", in The Dialectical Biologist (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1985). Anton Lang, "Michurin, Vavilov, and Lysenko". Science, Vol. 124 No. 3215, 1956) doi:10.1126/science.124.3215.277b Valery N. Soyfer, Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1994). ISBN 0813520878 "The Disastrous Effects of Lysenkoism on Soviet Agriculture". Science and Its Times, ed. Neil Schlager and Josh Lauer, Vol. 6. (Detroit: Gale, 2001) == External links == SkepDic.com – 'Lysenkoism', The Skeptic's Dictionary Lysenkoism, BBC Radio 4 discussion with Robert Service, Steve Jones & Catherine Merridale (In


id: pavlovian-session-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlovian_session-0.md
category: reference
title: Pavlovian session
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlovian_session
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:14.700574+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: pavlovian-session-20260505-0
summary:
The Pavlovian session (Russian: Павловская сессия) was the joint session of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences held on June 28 to July 4, 1950. The session was organized by the Soviet Government headed by Joseph Stalin in order to fight Western influences in Russian physiological sciences. During the session, a number of Ivan Pavlov's former students attacked another group of his students (Leon Orbeli, Pyotr Anokhin, Aleksey Speransky, Ivan Beritashvili) whom they accused of deviating from Pavlov's teaching. As the result of this session, Soviet physiology excluded itself from the international scientific community for many years. == Preceding events == The Pavlovian session followed a sequence of Stalin's interferences in academic affairs during the post-war time: In 1947, Georgy Aleksandrov asked Stalin to review his textbook for university students entitled "History of West European Philosophy". Stalin criticized the book as an attempt to analyze philosophy from a pro-Western position rather than using the principles of Marxism–Leninism. In 1948, Stalin strongly supported Lysenko's work on the inheritance of acquired characteristics in plants which has now been discredited. Lysenko's research was thought to hold the promise of strengthening the Soviet Union's agriculture. In 1949, Stalin


id: pavlovian-session-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlovian_session-1.md
category: reference
title: Pavlovian session
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlovian_session
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:14.700574+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: pavlovian-session-20260505-0
summary:
=== Razenkov's speech === Ivan Razenkov spoke after Vavilov. He emphasized the importance of opposing the "reactionary idealist trend" in physiology following the example of Trofim Lysenko who contributed to a "decisive victory" of Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin's teachings over Weismannism-Morganism. Razenkov praised Pavlov's contribution to practical medicine and criticized Pavlov's students for not applying the progressive ideas of Pavlov and Ivan Sechenov to theoretical and practical medicine. He blamed Pavlov's immediate disciples and successors: L.N. Fydorov, the former director of the Institute of Experimental Medicine, Leon Orbeli, the director of the Pavlov Institute of Evolutionary Physiology, Pyotr Anokhin, the head of the Moscow Institute of Physiology, and Aleksey Speransky, the head of the Institute of General and Experimental Pathology. According to Razenkov, these scientists did not fight hard enough to defend Pavlov's materialist theory against the assaults of Western idealist physiologists, such as Sherrington, Lashley and Fulton, and Pavlov's opponents in Russia, such as Beritov. Razenkov also expressed some self-criticism for not conforming with the Party and the Government's expectation of the Academy of Medical Sciences. He informed that the Government had created a new scientific institution, the Institute of Physiology of the Higher Nervous System, to advance Pavlov's teachings,


id: pavlovian-session-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlovian_session-2.md
category: reference
title: Pavlovian session
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlovian_session
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:14.700574+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: pavlovian-session-20260505-0
summary:
In 1982, M.G. Yaroshevsky, criticizing the Pavlovian session, wrote that, in fact, Ivanov-Smolenskiy and his disciples did nothing but pervert the kernel of Pavlovian teaching, substituting for it a mechanistic view of the brain activity. These so-called scholars of Pavlov emasculated the ground of his theory and extremely damaged the prospects of Soviet science. A precursor of later abuses in psychiatry in the Soviet Union and the most somber event in the history of Russian-Soviet psychiatry was the so-called 'Joint Session' of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences and the Board of the All-Union Neurologic and Psychiatric Association, held in the name of Ivan Pavlov in October 1951, considered the matter of several leading neuroscientists and psychiatrists of the time (for example, Grunya Sukhareva, Vasily Gilyarovsky, Raisa Golant, Aleksandr Shmaryan, Mikhail Gurevich) who were charged with practicing 'anti-Pavlovian, anti-Marxist, idealistic, reactionary' science damaging to Soviet psychiatry. These talented psychiatrists had to admit publicly to their wrong beliefs and mistakes and promise to profess only Pavlov's teaching. During the Joint Session, scientists falsely acknowledged their 'wrongdoings' and gave up their beliefs, out of fear. But in the closing speech, the lead author of the policy report Andrei Snezhnevsky stated that they


id: science-policy-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy-0.md
category: reference
title: Science policy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:15.915635+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-policy-20260505-0
summary:
Science policy is concerned with the allocation of resources for the conduct of science towards the goal of best serving the public interest. Topics include the funding of science, the careers of scientists, and the translation of scientific discoveries into technological innovation to promote commercial product development, competitiveness, economic growth and economic development. Science policy focuses on knowledge production and role of knowledge networks, collaborations, and the complex distributions of expertise, equipment, and know-how. Understanding the processes and organizational context of generating novel and innovative science and engineering ideas is a core concern of science policy. Science policy topics include weapons development, health care and environmental monitoring. Science policy thus deals with the entire domain of issues that involve science. A large and complex web of factors influences the development of science and engineering that includes government science policymakers, private firms (including both national and multi-national firms), social movements, media, non-governmental organizations, universities, and other research institutions. In addition, science policy is increasingly international as defined by the global operations of firms and research institutions as well as by the collaborative networks of non-governmental organizations and of the nature of scientific inquiry itself. == History == State policy has influenced


id: science-policy-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy-1.md
category: reference
title: Science policy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:15.915635+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-policy-20260505-0
summary:
=== Basic versus applied research === The programs that are funded are often divided into four basic categories: basic research, applied research, development, and facilities and equipment. Translational research is a newer concept that seeks to bridge the gap between basic science and practical applications. Basic science attempts to stimulate breakthroughs. Breakthroughs often lead to an explosion of new technologies and approaches. Once the basic result is developed, it is widely published; however conversion into a practical product is left for the free market. However, many governments have developed risk-taking research and development organizations to take basic theoretical research over the edge into practical engineering. In the US, this function is performed by DARPA. In contrast, technology development is a policy in which engineering, the application of science, is supported rather than basic science. The emphasis is usually given to projects that increase important strategic or commercial engineering knowledge. One example is the Manhattan Project that developed nuclear weapons. Another example is the "X-vehicle" studies that gave the US a lasting lead in aerospace technologies. These exemplify two disparate approaches: The Manhattan Project was huge, and spent freely on the most risky alternative approaches. The project members believed that failure


id: science-policy-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy-2.md
category: reference
title: Science policy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:15.915635+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-policy-20260505-0
summary:
=== Brazil === In Brazil, two important research agencies are the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Portuguese: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico), an organization of the Brazilian federal government under the Ministry of Science and Technology, and São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, Portuguese: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo), a public foundation located in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. === European Union === The science policy of the European Union is carried out through the European Research Area, a system which integrates the scientific resources of member nations and acts as a "common market" for research and innovation. The European Union's executive body, the European Commission, has a Directorate-General for Research, which is responsible for the Union's science policy. In addition, the Joint Research Centre provides independent scientific and technical advice to the European Commission and Member States of the European Union (EU) in support of EU policies. There is also the recently established European Research Council, the first European Union funding body set up to support investigator-driven research. There are also European science agencies that operate independently of the European Union, such as the European Space Agency, and the


id: science-policy-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy-3.md
category: reference
title: Science policy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:15.915635+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-policy-20260505-0
summary:
== See also == Big science Evidence-based policy Funding bias Funding of science History of military science History of science policy Intellectual property policy List of books about the politics of science List of funding opportunity databases Metascience Open access Operations research Office of Science and Technology Policy Patent Politicization of science Right to science and culture Science of science policy == References == == Further reading == === Books === Bush, Vannevar (1960). Science, the endless frontier: a report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research (Repr ed.). Washington: National Science Foundation. ISBN 978-1-59740-026-8. OCLC 635336648. {{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) Stokes, Donald E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: basic science and technological innovation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. ISBN 0-8157-8178-4. OCLC 36656380. Neal, Homer A. (2008). Smith, Tobin L.; McCormick, Jennifer B. (eds.). Beyond Sputnik: U.S. science policy in the twenty-first century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-02745-3. OCLC 671654179. Pielke, Roger A. Jr. (2007). The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-511-27948-5. OCLC 162145073. Stephan, Paula E. (2012). How economics shapes science. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-04971-0. OCLC 709670355. Sarewitz, Daniel R.


id: robert-n-proctor-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_N._Proctor-0.md
category: reference
title: Robert N. Proctor
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_N._Proctor
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:17.085212+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: robert-n-proctor-20260505-0
summary:
Robert Neel Proctor (born 1954) is an American historian of science and Professor of the History of Science at Stanford University, where he is also Professor by courtesy of Pulmonary Medicine. While a professor of the history of science at Pennsylvania State University in 1999, he became the first historian to testify against the tobacco industry. == Career == Robert N. Proctor graduated from Indiana University Bloomington in 1976 with a Bachelor of Science in biology. He then took up studies at Harvard University, earning master's and doctoral degrees in History of Science in 1977 and 1984, respectively. At Pennsylvania State University, he and his wife, Londa Schiebinger, co-directed the Science, Medicine and Technology in Culture Program for nine years. Proctor has worked on human origins and the history of evolution, including changing interpretations of the oldest tools. His 2003 Three Roots of Human Recency won the 2004/2005 Award for Exemplary Interdisciplinary Anthropological Research from the American Anthropological Association. In his Three Roots article he exposed the racism implicit in celebrating "leaving Africa" as a fundamental stage in human evolution (which he mocks as “out of Africa, thank God”); one of the points of this article was to show that


id: racial-hygiene-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_hygiene-0.md
category: reference
title: Racial hygiene
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_hygiene
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:18.348289+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: racial-hygiene-20260505-0
summary:
The term racial hygiene was used to describe an approach to eugenics in the early 20th century, which found its most extensive implementation in Nazi Germany (Nazi eugenics). It was marked by efforts to avoid miscegenation, analogous to an animal breeder seeking purebred animals. This was often motivated by the pseudoscientific belief in the existence of a racial hierarchy and the related fear that "lower races" would "contaminate" a "higher" one. As with most eugenicists at the time, racial hygienists believed that the lack of eugenics would lead to rapid social degeneration, the decline of civilization by the spread of inferior characteristics. Like eugenics, racial hygiene was largely discredited and abandoned following World War II. == Development == The German eugenicist Alfred Ploetz introduced the term "racial hygiene" (Rassenhygiene) in 1895 in his Racial Hygiene Basics (Grundlinien einer Rassenhygiene). He discussed the importance of avoiding "counterselective forces" such as war, inbreeding, free healthcare for the poor, alcohol and venereal disease. In its earliest incarnation it was more concerned by the declining birthrate of the German state and the increasing number of mentally-ill and disabled people in state-run institutions (and their costs to the state) than it was by the "Jewish


id: racial-hygiene-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_hygiene-1.md
category: reference
title: Racial hygiene
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_hygiene
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:18.348289+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: racial-hygiene-20260505-0
summary:
The doctors who carried out experiments on the prisoners in concentration camps specialised in racial hygiene and used the supposed science to back their medical experiments. Some of the experiments were used for general medical research, for example by injecting prisoners with known diseases to test vaccines or possible cures. Other experiments were used to further the Germans' war strategy by putting prisoners in vacuum chambers to see what could happen to pilots' bodies if they were ejected at a high altitude or immerse prisoners in ice water to see how long they would survive and what materials could be used to prolong life if worn by German pilots shot down over the English Channel. The precursors of this notion were earlier medical experiments which German doctors performed on African prisoners of war in concentration camps in Namibia during the Herero and Nama genocide. A key aspect of National Socialism was the concept of racial hygiene and it was elevated to the primary philosophy of the German medical community, first by activist physicians within the medical profession, particularly amongst psychiatrists. That was later codified and institutionalized during and after the Nazis' rise to power in 1933, during the process of


id: regulation-of-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_science-0.md
category: reference
title: Regulation of science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:19.556535+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: regulation-of-science-20260505-0
summary:
The regulation of science refers to use of law, or other ruling, by academic or governmental bodies to allow or restrict science from performing certain practices, or researching certain scientific areas. Science could be regulated by legislation if areas are seen as harmful, immoral, or dangerous. For these reasons science regulation may be closely related to religion, culture and society. Science regulation is often a bioethical issue related to practices such as abortion and euthanasia, and areas of research such as stem-cell research and cloning synthetic biology. == United States == === Biomedical research === Unjust events such as the St. Louis tragedy or the Tuskegee syphilis experiment have prompted regulations in biomedical research. Over the years, regulations have been extended to encompass animal welfare and research misconduct. The federal government also monitors the production and sale of the results of biomedical research such as drugs and biopharmaceuticals. The FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services oversee the implementation of these regulations. The Dickey–Wicker Amendment prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. ==== Human


id: repression-of-science-in-the-soviet-union-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repression_of_science_in_the_Soviet_Union-0.md
category: reference
title: Repression of science in the Soviet Union
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repression_of_science_in_the_Soviet_Union
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:20.731681+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: repression-of-science-in-the-soviet-union-20260505-0
summary:
Many fields of scientific research in the Soviet Union were banned or suppressed with various justifications. All humanities and social sciences were tested for strict accordance with dialectical materialism. These tests served as a cover for political suppression of scientists who engaged in research labeled as "idealistic" or "bourgeois". Many scientists were fired, others were arrested and sent to Gulags. The suppression of scientific research began during the Stalin era and continued after his death. The ideologically motivated persecution damaged many fields of Soviet science. == Examples == === Biology === In the mid-1930s, the agronomist Trofim Lysenko started a campaign against genetics and was supported by Stalin. If the field of genetics' connection to Nazis wasn't enough, Mendelian genetics was also suppressed due to beliefs that it was "bourgeoisie science" and its association with the priest Gregor Mendel due to hostility to religion because of the Soviet policy of state atheism. In 1950, the Soviet government organized the Joint Scientific Session of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, the "Pavlovian session". Several prominent Soviet physiologists (L.A. Orbeli, P.K. Anokhin, Aleksey Speransky, Ivane Beritashvili) were accused of deviating from Pavlov's teaching. As a consequence


id: repression-of-science-in-the-soviet-union-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repression_of_science_in_the_Soviet_Union-1.md
category: reference
title: Repression of science in the Soviet Union
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repression_of_science_in_the_Soviet_Union
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:20.731681+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: repression-of-science-in-the-soviet-union-20260505-0
summary:
=== Physics === In the late 1940s, some areas of physics, were also criticized on grounds of "idealism". In quantum mechanics Soviet physicists Dmitry Blokhintsev, Yaakov Terletsky and K. V. Nikolsky developed a version of the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, which was seen as more adhering to the principles of dialectical materialism. Special and general relativity were a matter of controversy among the Soviet scientists since 1920. Some of them argued that this theory is grounded in Machism (acutely criticized by Vladimir Lenin in his Materialism and Empiriocriticism), others were a group of so-called "mechanists" (see Mechanists and dialecticians controversy), later "Young Stalinists" joined the ranks of the relativity theory. At the same time a considerable number of prominent Soviet physicists defended the relativity theory. The attacks on the relativity theory intensified in 1949 under the auspices of the struggle against the "physical idealism" in the work of Leonid Mandelstam. Initially Sergey Vavilov, President of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, managed to defend Mandelstam, but in 1952 the political attacks on "reactionary Einsteinianism" intensified further. This pseudoscientific campaign sizzled after the death of Stalin. Although initially planned, the process of "ideological cleansing" in physics did not


id: science-for-the-people-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_for_the_People-0.md
category: reference
title: Science for the People
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_for_the_People
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:21.956294+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-for-the-people-20260505-0
summary:
Science for the People (SftP) is a left-wing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the late 1960s. Since 2014 it has experienced a revival focusing primarily on the dual nature of science. The organization advocates for a scientific establishment that is not isolated from society, rather one that uses scientific discoveries to advocate for and advance social justice and critically approach science as a social endeavor. == History == The original group was composed of professors, students, workers, and other concerned citizens who sought to end potential oppression brought on by pseudoscience, or by what it considered the misuse of science. SftP generated much controversy in the 1970s for the radical tactics of some of its members. Over the initial few years there was an emergence of multiple differing opinions about the nature and mission of SftP should be. A faction wanted SftP to pay special attention to scientific issues that support class struggle. Another wanted to develop "a science for the people." The majority, however, wanted to be the scientific community's critical conscience and expose, from within, the dangers of the misuse of science. After a bitter internal struggle and departure of many,


id: science-for-the-people-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_for_the_People-1.md
category: reference
title: Science for the People
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_for_the_People
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:21.956294+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-for-the-people-20260505-0
summary:
=== Position on science education === One of the core tenets of the SftP was that science and particularly biology and medicine cannot remain neutral. The organization not only believed that these disciplines should focus on correcting societal ills they also actively participated in educating people on work place hazards such as asbestos and other chemical and environmental exposures. In the early 1970s a Boston several SftP members known as the Boston Science Teaching Group, published and distributed series of pamphlets on topics such as genetics and ecology. Other members who were professional educators volunteered to teach biology in Boston’s underserved school districts. In 1971 two university professors, Rita Arditti and Tom Strunk, in an attempt to reform college biology curriculum, created a socially conscious first year college course called "Objecting to Objectivity: A Course in Biology". The course covered genetic engineering, physical and social limitations and implications of human gene maps, polygenic inheritance and prenatal diagnosis. It also discussed reproduction, birth control and abortion including the contemporary research and public policies about reproductive health. Other topics included population growth and Malthusian and Marxist theories and ethics of human research. === Positions on race and gender === Advocating for racial


id: science-for-the-people-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_for_the_People-2.md
category: reference
title: Science for the People
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_for_the_People
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:21.956294+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-for-the-people-20260505-0
summary:
=== International relations === From its inception SftP condemned the use of technology and science to oppress and colonize other countries. The organization gave the examples of both Vietnam and Cuba where, it stated, the US technological and scientific superiority was being used to both militarily and economically repress the smaller nations. In response to the US policy, in 1971, a group of SftP members in Cambridge, Massachusetts collected and shipped large amounts of scientific books and journals to Vietnam and Cuba to aid in science education there. The same year, molecular biologist Dr. Mark Ptashne and zoologist Dr. Bert Pfeiffer went to Hanoi and lectured to Vietnamese scientists and physicians. There were also successful efforts of networking with scientists in China, and, in the 1980s, with the scientific and technological community in Nicaragua. == 2014 revitalization == Since the fall of 2014, an effort to revive and reorganize SftP has been underway. The SftP revitalization efforts emerged from the convention held April 11–13, 2014, at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. At the 2014 conference various topics including the history of the SftP, health care, climate change, social justice, science education, gender and racial bias and militarization of science were


id: science-of-science-policy-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_science_policy-0.md
category: reference
title: Science of science policy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_science_policy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:23.169358+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-of-science-policy-20260505-0
summary:
Science of science policy (SoSP) is an emerging interdisciplinary research area that seeks to develop theoretical and empirical models of the scientific enterprise. This scientific basis can be used to help government, and society in general, make better R&D management decisions by establishing a scientifically rigorous, quantitative basis from which policy makers and researchers may assess the impacts of the nation's scientific and engineering enterprise, improve their understanding of its dynamics, and assess the likely outcomes. Examples of research in the science of science policy include models to understand the production of science, qualitative, quantitative and computational methods to estimate the impact of science, and processes for choosing from alternative science portfolios. == Federal effort == The federal government of the United States has long been a supporter of SoSP. In 2006, in response to Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John H. Marburger's challenge for a new "science of science policy", the National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) established an Interagency Task Group on Science of Science Policy (ITG) to serve as part of the internal deliberative process of the Subcommittee. In 2008, the SoSP ITG developed and published "The Science


id: sciencedebate-org-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceDebate.org-0.md
category: reference
title: ScienceDebate.org
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceDebate.org
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:26.926104+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: sciencedebate-org-20260505-0
summary:
Science Debate is a nonpartisan American nonprofit organization working to elevate the importance of science and technology in the national public dialogue. They ask candidates running of office to share their science policy perspectives before Election Day so that every politician arrives in office prepared to meet the 21st centuries greatest challenges on day one. Driven by the vital role that science and technology play in the health, environmental, and economic well-being of society, Science Debate strives to provide voters with sufficient and meaningful information on these key issues when electing people to serve in public office. The organization has the support of 24 Nobel laureates; 172 leaders of scientific institutions; 108 university presidents and provosts; and 55 current and former business leaders (such as company presidents, CEOs, and chairpersons). Well-known signatories include: actors Johnny Depp and Mark Ruffalo, presidential science adviser John Holdren, former energy secretary Steven Chu, inventor Elon Musk, actor/producer David Schwimmer, and educator Bill Nye. == History == === Founding of Science Debate === In the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, the lack of discussion about science and technology issues caught the attention of film director and screenwriter Matthew Chapman. Together with science journalist Chris


id: sociobiology-study-group-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology_Study_Group-0.md
category: reference
title: Sociobiology Study Group
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology_Study_Group
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:28.103200+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: sociobiology-study-group-20260505-0
summary:
The Sociobiology Study Group was an academic organization formed to specifically counter sociobiological explanations of human behavior, particularly those expounded by the Harvard entomologist E. O. Wilson in Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975). The group formed in Boston, Massachusetts and consisted of both professors and students, predominantly left-wing and Marxist. Members of the Sociobiology Study Group included Richard C. Lewontin (geneticist, Harvard University), Stephen Jay Gould (paleontologist, Harvard University), Jon Beckwith (Harvard Medical School), Stephan Chorover (psychologist, MIT), David Culver (biologist, Northwestern University), Ruth Hubbard (biologist, Harvard University), Anthony Leeds (anthropologist, Boston University), Margaret Duncan (research assistant, Harvard Medical School), Hiroshi Inouye (resident fellow, Harvard Medical School), Chuck Madansky (graduate student, Harvard Medical School), Lawrence G. Miller (medical student, Harvard Medical School) Miriam Rosenthal (research associate, Harvard School of Public Health), Reed Pyeritz (doctor, Peter Bent Brigham Hospital), and Herb Schreier (psychiatrist, Massachusetts General Hospital). The Sociobiology Study Group later associated itself with the Boston chapter of Science for the People, thereby forming a larger coalition "The Sociobiology Study Group of Science for the People." The group met monthly, and often held meetings at Harvard lecture halls and in the homes of its members. The meetings often included guests such


id: space-policy-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy-0.md
category: reference
title: Space policy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:29.280773+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: space-policy-20260505-0
summary:
Space policy is the political decision-making process for, and application of, public policy of a state (or association of states) regarding spaceflight and uses of outer space, both for civilian (scientific and commercial) and military purposes. International treaties, such as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, attempt to maximize the peaceful uses of space and restrict the militarization of space. Space policy intersects with science policy, since national space programs often perform or fund research in space science, and also with defense policy, for applications such as spy satellites and anti-satellite weapons. It also encompasses government regulation of third-party activities such as commercial communications satellites and private spaceflight. Space policy also encompasses the creation and application of space law, and space advocacy organizations exist to support the cause of space exploration. == Space law == Space law is an area of the law that encompasses national and international law governing activities in outer space. There are currently six treaties that make up the body of international space law. The inception of the field of space law began with the launch of the world's first artificial satellite by the Soviet Union in October 1957. Named Sputnik 1, the satellite was launched as


id: space-policy-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy-1.md
category: reference
title: Space policy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:29.280773+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: space-policy-20260505-0
summary:
==== Liability Convention ==== The Liability Convention was ratified on September 1, 1972. The treaty expands on the liability rules created in the Outer Space Treaty. Its provisions state that a state bears international responsibility for all space objects that are launched within their territory. This means that regardless of who launches the space object, if it was launched from State A's territory, or from State A's facility, or if State A caused the launch to happen, then State A is fully liable for damages that result from that space object. In 1978, the crash of the nuclear-powered Soviet satellite Kosmos 954 in Canadian territory led to the only claim filed under the convention. More recently, in July and October 2021, China's Tiangong space station, with three astronauts aboard, performed "evasive maneuver(s)" to avoid collision with SpaceX's Starlink satellites. The Liability Convention does not introduce legal penalties for leaving space debris in Earth's orbit. ==== Registration Convention ==== The Registration Convention was ratified on September 15, 1976. The convention's provisions require states to provide details such as date and location of launch, as well as basic orbital parameters to the United Nations for each space object. ==== Moon Agreement ====


id: space-policy-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy-2.md
category: reference
title: Space policy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:29.280773+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: space-policy-20260505-0
summary:
The early history of United States space policy is linked to the US–Soviet Space Race of the 1960s. The National Aeronautics and Space Act creating NASA was passed in 1958, after the launch of the Soviet Sputnik 1 satellite. Thereafter, in response to the flight of Yuri Gagarin as the first man in space, Kennedy in 1961 committed the United States to landing a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. Although the costs of the Vietnam War and the programs of the Great Society forced cuts to NASA's budget as early as 1965, the first Moon landing occurred in 1969, early in Richard Nixon's presidency. Under the Nixon administration NASA's budget continued to decline and three of the planned Apollo Moon landings were cancelled. The Nixon administration approved the beginning of the Space Shuttle program in 1972, but did not support funding of other projects such as a Mars landing, colonization of the Moon, or a permanent space station. The Space Shuttle first launched in 1981, during Ronald Reagan's administration. Reagan in 1982 announced a renewed active space effort, which included initiatives such the construction of Space Station Freedom, and the military Strategic Defense Initiative, and,


id: space-policy-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy-3.md
category: reference
title: Space policy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:29.280773+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: space-policy-20260505-0
summary:
=== Russia and Ukraine === Russia inherited its space programs in 1991 from its predecessor state, the Soviet Union. Russia's civilian space agency is the Russian Federal Space Agency and its military counterpart is the Russian Aerospace Defence Forces. Ukraine's agency is the State Space Agency of Ukraine, which handles both civilian and military programs. The Soviet Union became the world's first spacefaring state by launching its first satellite, Sputnik 1, on 4 October 1957. The Soviet space program was active from 1955 until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. In the 1980s the Soviet Union was considered to be technologically behind the United States, but it outspent the United States in its space budget, and its cosmonauts had spent three times as many days in space as American astronauts. The Soviet Union had also been more willing than the United States to embark on long-term programs, such as the Salyut and Mir space station programs, and increased their investment in space programs throughout the 1970s and 1980s. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the 1990s saw serious financial problems because of the decreased cash flow, which encouraged Roskosmos to improvise and seek other ways to keep


id: united-states-house-committee-on-science-space-and-technology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Science,_Space,_and_Technology-0.md
category: reference
title: United States House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Science,_Space,_and_Technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:30.512652+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: united-states-house-committee-on-science-space-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is a committee of the United States House of Representatives. It has jurisdiction over non-defense federal scientific research and development. More specifically, the committee has complete jurisdiction over the following federal agencies: NASA, NSF, NIST, and the OSTP. The committee also has authority over R&D activities at the Department of Energy, the EPA, FAA, NOAA, the DOT, the NWS, the DHS and the U.S. Fire Administration. == History == In the wake of the Soviet Sputnik program in the late 1950s, Congress created the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration on 5 March 1958, chaired by majority leader John William McCormack, on the advice of National Defense Analyst Eilene Galloway. This select committee drafted the National Aeronautics and Space Act that created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). A staff report of the committee, the Space Handbook: Astronautics and its Applications, provided non-technical information about spaceflight to U.S. policy makers. The committee also chartered the permanent House Committee on Science and Astronautics, which officially began on January 3, 1959, and was the first new standing committee established in the House since 1946. The name was changed in 1974 to the House


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-0.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
The relationship between science and religion involves discussions that interconnect the study of the natural world, history, philosophy, and theology. Even though the ancient and medieval worlds did not have conceptions resembling the modern understandings of "science" or of "religion", certain elements of modern ideas on the subject recur throughout history. The pair-structured phrases "religion and science" and "science and religion" first emerged in the literature during the 19th century. This coincided with the refining of "science" (from the studies of "natural philosophy") and of "religion" as distinct concepts in the preceding few centuries—partly due to professionalization of the sciences, the Protestant Reformation, colonization, and globalization. Since then the relationship between science and religion has been characterized in terms of "conflict", "harmony", "complexity", and "mutual independence", among others. Both science and religion are complex social and cultural endeavors that may vary across cultures and change over time. Most scientific and technical innovations until the scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Ancient pagan, Islamic, and Christian scholars pioneered individual elements of the scientific method. Roger Bacon, often credited with formalizing the scientific method, was a Franciscan friar, and medieval Christians who studied nature emphasized natural explanations. Confucian


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-1.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
=== Concepts of science and religion === The concepts of "science" and "religion" are a recent invention: "religion" emerged in the 17th century in the midst of colonization, globalization and as a consequence of the Protestant reformation. "Science" emerged in the 19th century in the midst of attempts to narrowly define those who studied nature. Originally what is now known as "science" was pioneered as "natural philosophy". It was in the 19th century that the terms "Buddhism", "Hinduism", "Taoism", "Confucianism" and "World Religions" first emerged. In the ancient and medieval world, the etymological Latin roots of both science (scientia) and religion (religio) were understood as inner qualities of the individual or virtues, never as doctrines, practices, or actual sources of knowledge. The 19th century also experienced the concept of "science" receiving its modern shape with new titles emerging such as "biology" and "biologist", "physics", and "physicist", among other technical fields and titles; institutions and communities were founded, and unprecedented applications to and interactions with other aspects of society and culture occurred. The term scientist was coined by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell in 1834 and it was applied to those who sought knowledge and understanding of nature. From the ancient world,


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-2.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
"In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture." (Gen. ad lit. i, 18) In medieval universities, the faculty for natural philosophy and theology were separate, and discussions pertaining to theological issues were often not allowed to be undertaken by the faculty of philosophy. Natural philosophy, as taught in the arts faculties of the universities, was seen as an essential area of study in its own right and was considered necessary for almost every area of study. It was an independent field, separated from theology, and enjoyed a good deal of intellectual freedom as long as it was restricted to the natural


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-3.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
According to Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C and Avelina Espinosa, the historical conflict between evolution and religion is intrinsic to the incompatibility between scientific rationalism/empiricism and the belief in supernatural causation/faith. According to evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, views on evolution and levels of religiosity in some countries, along with the existence of books explaining reconciliation between evolution and religion, indicate that people have trouble in believing both at the same time, thus implying incompatibility. According to physical chemist Peter Atkins, "whereas religion scorns the power of human comprehension, science respects it." Planetary scientist Carolyn Porco describes a hope that "the confrontation between science and formal religion will come to an end when the role played by science in the lives of all people is the same played by religion today." Geologist and paleontologist Donald Prothero has stated that religion is the reason "questions about evolution, the age of the earth, cosmology, and human evolution nearly always cause Americans to flunk science literacy tests compared to other nations." However, Jon Miller, who studies science literacy across nations, states that Americans in general are slightly more scientifically literate than Europeans and the Japanese. According to cosmologist and astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss, compatibility or incompatibility is a


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-4.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history, was popularized in the 19th century by John William Draper's and Andrew Dickson White's accounts. It was in the 19th century that relationship between science and religion became an actual formal topic of discourse, while before this no one had pitted science against religion or vice versa, though occasional complex interactions had been expressed before the 19th century. Most contemporary historians of science now reject the conflict thesis in its original form and no longer support it. Instead, it has been superseded by subsequent historical research which has resulted in a more nuanced understanding. Historian of science, Gary Ferngren, has stated: "Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule." Most historians today have moved away from a conflict model, which is based mainly on two historical episodes


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-5.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to put science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist. According to Archbishop John Habgood, both science and religion represent distinct ways of approaching experience and these differences are sources of debate. He views science as descriptive and religion as prescriptive. He stated that if science and mathematics concentrate on what the world ought to be, in the way that religion does, it may lead to improperly ascribing properties to the natural world as happened among the followers of Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C. In contrast, proponents of


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-6.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
=== Integration === As a general view, this holds that while interactions are complex between influences of science, theology, politics, social, and economic concerns, the productive engagements between science and religion throughout history should be duly stressed as the norm. Scientific and theological perspectives often coexist peacefully. Christian and non-Christian religions have historically integrated well with scientific ideas, as in the ancient Egyptian technological mastery applied to monotheistic ends, the scientific advances made by Muslim scholars during the Ottoman Empire and mathematics under Hinduism and Buddhism. Even many 19th-century Christian communities welcomed scientists who claimed that science was not at all concerned with discovering the ultimate nature of reality. According to Lawrence M. Principe, the Johns Hopkins University Drew Professor of the Humanities, from a historical perspective this points out that much of the current-day clashes occur between limited extremists—both religious and scientistic fundamentalists—over a very few topics, and that the movement of ideas back and forth between scientific and theological thought has been more usual. To Principe, this perspective would point to the fundamentally common respect for written learning in religious traditions of rabbinical literature, Christian theology, and the Islamic Golden Age, including a Transmission of the Classics from


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-7.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
Among early Christian teachers, Tertullian (c. 160–220) held a generally negative opinion of Greek philosophy, while Origen (c. 185–254) regarded it much more favorably and required his students to read nearly every work available to them. Earlier attempts at reconciliation of Christianity with Newtonian mechanics appear quite different from later attempts at reconciliation with the newer scientific ideas of evolution or relativity. Many early interpretations of evolution polarized themselves around a struggle for existence. These ideas were significantly countered by later findings of universal patterns of biological cooperation. According to John Habgood, the universe seems to be a mix of good and evil, beauty and pain, and that suffering may somehow be part of the process of creation. Habgood holds that Christians should not be surprised that suffering may be used creatively by God, given their faith in the symbol of the Cross. Robert John Russell has examined consonance and dissonance between modern physics, evolutionary biology, and Christian theology. Christian philosophers Augustine of Hippo (354–430) and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) held that scriptures can have multiple interpretations on certain areas where the matters were far beyond their reach, therefore one should leave room for future findings to shed light on the


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-8
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-8.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
==== Perspectives on evolution ==== In recent history, the theory of evolution has been at the center of some controversy between Christianity and science. Christians who accept a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation find incompatibility between Darwinian evolution and their interpretation of the Christian faith. Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for a literal reading of the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and attempts to disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the geological history of the Earth, cosmology of the early universe, the chemical origins of life and biological evolution. It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and falsify the scientific evidence for evolution. It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide. In 1925, The State of Tennessee passed the Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in all schools in the state. Later that year, a similar law was passed in Mississippi, and likewise, Arkansas in 1927. In 1968, these "anti-monkey" laws were struck


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-9
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-9.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
According to Andrew Dickson White's 1896 book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, a biblical world view affected negatively the progress of science through time. Dickinson also argues that immediately following the Reformation matters were even worse. The interpretations of Scripture by Luther and Calvin became as sacred to their followers as the Scripture itself. For instance, when Georg Calixtus ventured, in interpreting the Psalms, to question the accepted belief that "the waters above the heavens" were contained in a vast receptacle upheld by a solid vault, he was bitterly denounced as heretical. Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was originally based is considered to be inaccurate. For instance, the claim that early Christians rejected scientific findings by the Greco-Romans is false, since the "handmaiden" view of secular studies was seen to shed light on theology. This view was widely adapted throughout the early medieval period and afterwards by theologians (such as Augustine) and ultimately resulted in fostering interest in knowledge about nature through time. Also, the claim that people of the Middle Ages widely believed that the Earth was flat was first propagated in the same period that originated the


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-10
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-10.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
==== Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century ==== In Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain, historian of biology Peter J. Bowler argues that in contrast to the conflicts between science and religion in the U.S. in the 1920s (most famously the Scopes Trial), during this period Great Britain experienced a concerted effort at reconciliation, championed by intellectually conservative scientists, supported by liberal theologians but opposed by younger scientists and secularists and conservative Christians. These attempts at reconciliation fell apart in the 1930s due to increased social tensions, moves towards neo-orthodox theology and the acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis. In the 20th century, several ecumenical organizations promoting a harmony between science and Christianity were founded, most notably the American Scientific Affiliation, The Biologos Foundation, Christians in Science, The Society of Ordained Scientists, and The Veritas Forum. === Confucianism and traditional Chinese religion === The historical process of Confucianism has largely been antipathic towards scientific discovery. However the religio-philosophical system itself is more neutral on the subject than such an analysis might suggest. In his writings On Heaven, Xunzi espoused a proto-scientific world view. However, during the Han Synthesis the more anti-empirical Mencius was favored and


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-11
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-11.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
Pratyakṣa or Dṛṣṭam – direct sense perception, Anumāna – logical inference and Śabda or Āptavacana – verbal testimony. Nyaya, the Hindu school of logic, accepts all these 3 means and in addition accepts one more – Upamāna (comparison). The accounts of the emergence of life within the universe vary in description, but classically the deity called Brahma, from a Trimurti of three deities also including Vishnu and Shiva, is described as performing the act of 'creation', or more specifically of 'propagating life within the universe' with the other two deities being responsible for 'preservation' and 'destruction' (of the universe) respectively. In this respect some Hindu schools do not treat the scriptural creation myth literally and often the creation stories themselves do not go into specific detail, thus leaving open the possibility of incorporating at least some theories in support of evolution. Some Hindus find support for, or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in scriptures, namely the Vedas. The incarnations of Vishnu (Dashavatara) is almost identical to the scientific explanation of the sequence of biological evolution of man and animals. The sequence of avatars starts from an aquatic organism (Matsya), to an amphibian (Kurma), to a land-animal (Varaha), to a humanoid (Narasimha),


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-12
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-12.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
The Ahmadiyya movement emphasize that "there is no contradiction between Islam and science". For example, Ahmadi Muslims universally accept in principle the process of evolution, albeit divinely guided, and actively promote it. Over the course of several decades the movement has issued various publications in support of the scientific concepts behind the process of evolution, and frequently engages in promoting how religious scriptures, such as the Qur'an, supports the concept. For general purposes, the second Khalifa of the community, Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad says: The Holy Quran directs attention towards science, time and again, rather than evoking prejudice against it. The Quran has never advised against studying science, lest the reader should become a non-believer; because it has no such fear or concern. The Holy Quran is not worried that if people will learn the laws of nature its spell will break. The Quran has not prevented people from science, rather it states, "Say, 'Reflect on what is happening in the heavens and the earth.'" (Al Younus) === Jainism === ==== Biology ==== Jainism classifies life into two main divisions those who are static by nature (sthavar) and those who are mobile (trasa). Jain texts describes life in plant long


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-13
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-13.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
==== United States ==== In 1916, 1,000 leading American scientists were randomly chosen from American Men of Science and 42% believed God existed, 42% disbelieved, and 17% had doubts/did not know; however, when the study was replicated 80 years later using American Men and Women of Science in 1996, the results were very much the same with 39% believing God exists, 45% disbelieved, and 15% had doubts/did not know. In the same 1996 survey, for scientists in the fields of biology, mathematics, and physics/astronomy, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" was most popular among mathematicians (about 45%) and least popular among physicists (about 22%). In terms of belief in God among elite scientists, such as "great scientists" in the "American Men of Science" or members of the National Academies of Science; 53% disbelieved, 21% were agnostic, and 28% believed in 1914; 68% disbelieved, 17% were agnostic, and 15% believed in 1933; and 72% disbelieved, 21% were agnostic, and 7% believed in 1998. However Eugenie Scott argued that there are methodological issues in the study, including ambiguity in the questions such using a personal definition of God instead of broader definitions of God. A


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-14
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-14.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
==== Other or multiple countries ==== According to the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture's report on 1,100 scientists in India: 66% are Hindu, 14% did not report a religion, 10% are atheist/no religion, 3% are Muslim, 3% are Christian, 4% are Buddhist, Sikh or other. 39% have a belief in a god, 6% have belief in a god sometimes, 30% do not believe in a god but believe in a higher power, 13% do not know if there is a god, and 12% do not believe in a god. 49% believe in the efficacy of prayer, 90% strongly agree or somewhat agree with approving degrees in Ayurvedic medicine. Furthermore, the term "secularism" is understood to have diverse and simultaneous meanings among Indian scientists: 93% believe it to be tolerance of religions and philosophies, 83% see it as involving separation of church and state, 53% see it as not identifying with religious traditions, 40% see it as absence of religious beliefs, and 20% see it as atheism. Accordingly, 75% of Indian scientists had a "secular" outlook in terms of being tolerant of other religions. According to the Religion Among Scientists in International Context (RASIC) study on 1,581 scientists from


id: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-15
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-15.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between science and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:32.242604+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
==== United States ==== According to a 2015 Pew Research Center Study on the public perceptions on science, people's perceptions on conflict with science have more to do with their perceptions of other people's beliefs than their own personal beliefs. For instance, the majority of people with a religious affiliation (68%) saw no conflict between their own personal religious beliefs and science while the majority of those without a religious affiliation (76%) perceived science and religion to be in conflict. The study noted that people who are not affiliated with any religion, also known as "religiously unaffiliated", often have supernatural beliefs and spiritual practices despite them not being affiliated with any religion and also that "just one-in-six religiously unaffiliated adults (16%) say their own religious beliefs conflict with science." Furthermore, the study observed, "The share of all adults who perceive a conflict between science and their own religious beliefs has declined somewhat in recent years, from 36% in 2009 to 30% in 2014. Among those who are affiliated with a religion, the share of people who say there is a conflict between science and their personal religious beliefs dropped from 41% to 34% during this period." In a 2024 Pew


id: bah-views-on-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_views_on_science-0.md
category: reference
title: Baháʼí views on science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_views_on_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:33.477017+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: bah-views-on-science-20260505-0
summary:
The Bahá'í Faith teaches that there is a harmony or unity between science and religion, and that true science and true religion can never conflict. This principle is rooted in various statements in the Bahá'í scriptures. Some scholars have argued that ideas in the philosophy of science resonate with the Bahá'í approach. In addition, scholars have noted the Bahá'í view of interpreting religious scriptures symbolically rather than literally as conducive to harmony with scientific findings. The Bahá'í community and leadership have also applied their teachings on science and religion with the goal of the betterment of society, for instance by providing education and technology. == The principle of the harmony of science and religion == The principle of the harmony of science (or reason) and religion (or faith) has been a verbalized principle of the religion since ʻAbdu'l-Bahá's journeys to the West from 1910 to 1913 as an extension of the view of the singularness of reality to be explored through independent investigations by reasoned and spiritual methods. It had been discussed without the specific wording a decade earlier via a compilation Anton Haddad put together with Mírzá Abu'l-Faḍl along with their own perspective - a subject that was subsequently


id: bah-views-on-science-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_views_on_science-1.md
category: reference
title: Baháʼí views on science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_views_on_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:33.477017+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: bah-views-on-science-20260505-0
summary:
For the vast majority of the world’s population, the idea that human nature has a spiritual dimension—indeed that its fundamental identity is spiritual—is a truth requiring no demonstration. It is a perception of reality that can be discovered in the earliest records of civilization and that has been cultivated for several millennia by every one of the great religious traditions of humanity’s past. Its enduring achievements in law, the fine arts, and the civilizing of human intercourse are what give substance and meaning to history. In one form or another its promptings are a daily influence in the lives of most people on earth and, as events around the world today dramatically show, the longings it awakens are both inextinguishable and incalculably potent. and further: Future generations … will find almost incomprehensible the circumstance that, in an age paying tribute to an egalitarian philosophy and related democratic principles, development planning should view the masses of humanity as essentially recipients of benefits from aid and training. Despite acknowledgment of participation as a principle, the scope of the decision making left to most of the world’s population is at best secondary, limited to a range of choices formulated by agencies inaccessible to


id: bah-views-on-science-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_views_on_science-2.md
category: reference
title: Baháʼí views on science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_views_on_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:33.477017+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: bah-views-on-science-20260505-0
summary:
that ultimate reality is ineffable that humility about what can be understood and applied is itself "the highest degree of human attainment" that religious scripture is metaphorical, not literal. Farzam Arbab, project developer and Bahá'í administrator, also states that religious literalism is a problem. Ian Kluge, independent scholar, observed a relationship between the Bahá'í stance of science and reason and the Bahá'í teaching on independent investigation for the individual where without reason and faith together, quoting `Abdu'l-Bahá, "...the heart finds no rest in it, and real faith is impossible..." and beyond the individual to societal progress which would be "...trapped in traditional worldviews or paradigms, be they religious, cultural, intellectual, or scientific..." and appealed to Aristotle’s four-fold causality which to him "...suggests that science deals with material and efficient causality whereas religion deals with issues related to formal and final causality." Scholars have also drawn parallels between Bahá'í views of science and the views of various philosophers. Karlberg and Smith underscore and summarize the work of Alan Chalmers and Peter Godfrey-Smith who had published university press texts, in relation to the Bahá'í Faith on a number of points. Arbab appealed to Thomas Nagel's thoughts on "sophisticated secularism." Roland Faber elaborated


id: bah-views-on-science-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_views_on_science-3.md
category: reference
title: Baháʼí views on science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_views_on_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:33.477017+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: bah-views-on-science-20260505-0
summary:
== Applications == Others have addressed the work of a relationship between science and religion in practical expressions of development. Matthew Weinberg and Arbab, Boicu and Zabihi-Maghaddam, reviewed cases of a social engagement in locally meaningful progress that included a cooperative engagement between religion and science in particular processes. The influence of the Bahá'í teaching on science and religion was visible in the practice of the religion dating back to the 1870s in the face of a perception of a lot of superstition of Iranian society and taking a stance towards education, science, and technology. Scholars Filip Boicu and Siyamak Zabihi-Maghaddam underscored the Bahá'í view on education directly related to this teaching of the religion which led to some early Bahá'í schools in Iran. Boicu and Zabihi-Maghaddam, recalling the Bahá'í experience in Iran on early schooling which had been extended about education of girls, followed developments of three models of education - Anisa, FUNDAEC, and the Core Curriculum - all of which had direct applications of the teaching and only being distinguished on the application between the individual alone, the individual in a society, and the last one being of all people in the whole of society and a global


id: bah-views-on-science-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_views_on_science-4.md
category: reference
title: Baháʼí views on science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_views_on_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:33.477017+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: bah-views-on-science-20260505-0
summary:
...from the beginning of man's existence on this planet until he assumed his present shape, form, and condition, a long time must have elapsed, and he must have traversed many stages before reaching his present condition. But from the beginning of his existence man has been a distinct species. His teachings were widely interpreted as a kind of parallel evolution, in which humans had a separate line of descent to some primitive form, separate from animals. But the emphasis on the harmony of science and religion and the success of the modern evolutionary paradigm resulted in at least 19 books and articles from 16 authors over the period of 1990 to 2009 trying to address how Bahá'ís should view evolution in light of ʻAbdu'l-Bahá's statements, the majority of which took universal common ancestry as fact and attempted to reconcile with a new interpretation of the statements. Two articles by Keven Brown and Eberhard von Kitzing, jointly published under the title Evolution and Bahá'í Belief (2001), stand out as the only book-length review of the issue by Bahá'ís during the period, and has been well received. The new understanding viewed the apparent meaning of parallel evolution as an unfortunate misunderstanding that


id: anthropic-principle-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle-0.md
category: reference
title: Anthropic principle
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:34.679097+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: anthropic-principle-20260505-0
summary:
In cosmology and philosophy of science, the anthropic principle, also known as the observation selection effect, is the proposition that the range of possible observations that could be made about the universe is limited by the fact that observations are only possible in the type of universe that is capable of developing observers in the first place. Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why the universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate intelligent life. If either had been significantly different, no one would have been around to make observations. Anthropic reasoning has been used to address the question as to why certain measured physical constants take the values that they do, rather than some other arbitrary values, and to explain a perception that the universe appears to be finely tuned for the existence of life. There are many different formulations of the anthropic principle. Philosopher Nick Bostrom counts thirty, but the underlying principles can be divided into "weak" and "strong" forms, depending on the types of cosmological claims they entail. == Definition and basis == The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature


id: anthropic-principle-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle-1.md
category: reference
title: Anthropic principle
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:34.679097+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: anthropic-principle-20260505-0
summary:
== Origin == The phrase "anthropic principle" first appeared in Brandon Carter's contribution to a 1973 Kraków symposium. Carter, a theoretical astrophysicist, articulated the anthropic principle in reaction to the Copernican principle, which states that humans do not occupy a privileged position in the Universe. Carter said: "Although our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent." Specifically, Carter disagreed with using the Copernican principle to justify the Perfect Cosmological Principle, which states that all large regions and times in the universe must be statistically identical. The latter principle underlies the steady-state theory, which had recently been falsified by the 1965 discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation. This discovery was unequivocal evidence that the universe has changed radically over time (for example, via the Big Bang). Carter defined two forms of the anthropic principle, a "weak" one that referred only to anthropic selection of privileged spacetime locations in the universe, and a more controversial "strong" form that addressed the values of the fundamental constants of physics. Since Carter's 1973 paper, the term anthropic principle has been extended to cover a number of ideas that differ in important ways from his. Particular confusion was caused by


id: anthropic-principle-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle-2.md
category: reference
title: Anthropic principle
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:34.679097+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: anthropic-principle-20260505-0
summary:
The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the universe be old enough for it to have already done so. Unlike Carter, they restrict the principle to "carbon-based life" rather than just "observers". A more important difference is that they apply the WAP to the fundamental physical constants, such as the fine-structure constant, the number of spacetime dimensions, and the cosmological constant—topics that fall under Carter's SAP. According to Barrow and Tipler, the SAP states that "the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history." While this looks very similar to Carter's SAP, the "must" is an imperative, as shown by the following three possible elaborations of the SAP, each proposed by Barrow and Tipler: "There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers'." This can be seen as simply the classic design argument restated in the garb of contemporary cosmology. It implies that the purpose of the universe is to give rise to intelligent life, with


id: anthropic-principle-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle-3.md
category: reference
title: Anthropic principle
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:34.679097+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: anthropic-principle-20260505-0
summary:
== Character of anthropic reasoning == Carter chose to focus on a tautological aspect of his ideas, which has resulted in much confusion. In fact, anthropic reasoning interests scientists because of something that is only implicit in the above formal definitions, namely that humans should give serious consideration to there being other universes with different values of the "fundamental parameters"—that is, the dimensionless physical constants and initial conditions for the Big Bang. Carter and others have argued that life would not be possible in most such universes. In other words, the universe humans live in is fine tuned to permit life. Collins & Hawking (1973) characterized Carter's then-unpublished big idea as the postulate that "there is not one universe but a whole infinite ensemble of universes with all possible initial conditions". If this is granted, the anthropic principle provides a plausible explanation for the fine tuning of our universe: the "typical" universe is not fine-tuned, but given enough universes, a small fraction will be capable of supporting intelligent life. Ours must be one of these, and so the observed fine tuning should be no cause for wonder. Although philosophers have discussed related concepts for centuries, in the early 1970s the


id: anthropic-principle-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle-4.md
category: reference
title: Anthropic principle
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:34.679097+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: anthropic-principle-20260505-0
summary:
Some have argued that fine-tuning is not astonishing at all in itself, but only from our situated point of view, which must be factored out of the question. This argument was given in 2021 by David Chauvet in his writings on natural law, which is linked to the question of God and therefore to cosmology: the universe is only astonishing to those who value life, such as the humans who arose from it. In the same way, the number on a lottery ticket is nothing special, unless it is associated with a sum of money, which is itself valued. Without this valorization of life, fostered by the fact that observers spontaneously value it, the universe's parameters are no more astonishing than a winning lottery ticket would be to an observer for whom money holds no interest. As Chauvet argues: It is arguably not surprising that those who have emerged from and are part of a life-supporting universe value a life-supporting universe over one that does not support life, just as someone who has emerged from and is part of a society where money is important values drawing a winning lottery number rather than drawing a losing number. If we consider


id: anthropic-principle-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle-5.md
category: reference
title: Anthropic principle
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:34.679097+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: anthropic-principle-20260505-0
summary:
Don Page criticized the entire theory of cosmic inflation as follows. He emphasized that initial conditions that made possible a thermodynamic arrow of time in a universe with a Big Bang origin, must include the assumption that at the initial singularity, the entropy of the universe was low and therefore extremely improbable. Paul Davies rebutted this criticism by invoking an inflationary version of the anthropic principle. While Davies accepted the premise that the initial state of the visible universe (which filled a microscopic amount of space before inflating) had to possess a very low entropy value—due to random quantum fluctuations—to account for the observed thermodynamic arrow of time, he deemed this fact an advantage for the theory. That the tiny patch of space from which our observable universe grew had to be extremely orderly, to allow the post-inflation universe to have an arrow of time, makes it unnecessary to adopt any "ad hoc" hypotheses about the initial entropy state, hypotheses other Big Bang theories require. === String theory === String theory predicts a large number of possible universes, called the "backgrounds" or "vacua". The set of these vacua is often called the "multiverse" or "anthropic landscape" or "string landscape". Leonard


id: anthropic-principle-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle-6.md
category: reference
title: Anthropic principle
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:34.679097+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: anthropic-principle-20260505-0
summary:
There are two kinds of dimensions: spatial (bidirectional) and temporal (unidirectional). Let the number of spatial dimensions be N and the number of temporal dimensions be T. That N = 3 and T = 1, setting aside the compactified dimensions invoked by string theory and undetectable to date, can be explained by appealing to the physical consequences of letting N differ from 3 and T differ from 1. The argument is often of an anthropic character and possibly the first of its kind, albeit before the complete concept came into vogue. The implicit notion that the dimensionality of the universe is special is first attributed to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who in the Discourse on Metaphysics suggested that the world is "the one which is at the same time the simplest in hypothesis and the richest in phenomena". Immanuel Kant argued that 3-dimensional space was a consequence of the inverse square law of universal gravitation. While Kant's argument is historically important, John D. Barrow said that it "gets the punch-line back to front: it is the three-dimensionality of space that explains why we see inverse-square force laws in Nature, not vice-versa" (Barrow 2002:204). In 1920, Paul Ehrenfest showed that if there


id: anthropic-principle-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle-7.md
category: reference
title: Anthropic principle
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:34.679097+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: anthropic-principle-20260505-0
summary:
=== The Anthropic Cosmological Principle === A thorough extant study of the anthropic principle is the book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow, a cosmologist, and Frank J. Tipler, a cosmologist and mathematical physicist. This book sets out in detail the many known anthropic coincidences and constraints, including many found by its authors. While the book is primarily a work of theoretical astrophysics, it also touches on quantum physics, chemistry, and earth science. An entire chapter argues that Homo sapiens is, with high probability, the only intelligent species in the Milky Way. The book begins with an extensive review of many topics in the history of ideas the authors deem relevant to the anthropic principle, because the authors believe that principle has important antecedents in the notions of teleology and intelligent design. They discuss the writings of Fichte, Hegel, Bergson, and Alfred North Whitehead, and the Omega Point cosmology of Teilhard de Chardin. Barrow and Tipler carefully distinguish teleological reasoning from eutaxiological reasoning; the former asserts that order must have a consequent purpose; the latter asserts more modestly that order must have a planned cause. They attribute this important but nearly always overlooked distinction to an obscure 1883


id: anthropic-principle-20260505-8
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle-8.md
category: reference
title: Anthropic principle
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:34.679097+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: anthropic-principle-20260505-0
summary:
== Reception and controversies == Carter has frequently expressed regret for his own choice of the word "anthropic", because it conveys the misleading impression that the principle involves humans in particular, to the exclusion of non-human intelligence more broadly. Others have criticised the word "principle" as being too grandiose to describe straightforward applications of selection effects. A common criticism of Carter's SAP is that it is an easy deus ex machina that discourages searches for physical explanations. To quote Penrose again: "It tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts." Carter's SAP and Barrow and Tipler's WAP have been dismissed as truisms or trivial tautologies—that is, statements true solely by virtue of their logical form and not because a substantive claim is made and supported by observation of reality. As such, they are criticized as an elaborate way of saying, "If things were different, they would be different", which is a valid statement, but does not make a claim of some factual alternative over another. Critics of the Barrow and Tipler SAP claim that it is neither testable nor falsifiable, and thus is not a scientific statement but


id: astronomy-and-religion-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_and_religion-0.md
category: reference
title: Astronomy and religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_and_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:35.954431+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: astronomy-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
Astronomy has been a favorite and significant component of mythology and religion throughout history. Astronomy and cosmology are parts of the myths of many cultures and religion around the world. Astronomy and religion have long been closely intertwined, particularly during the early history of astronomy. Archaeological evidence of many ancient cultures demonstrates that celestial bodies were the subject of worship during the Stone and Bronze Ages. Amulets and stone walls in northern Europe depict arrangements of stars in constellations that match their historical positions, particularly circumpolar constellations. These date back as much as 30,000–40,000 years. In many ancient religions, the northern circumpolar stars were associated with darkness, death and the underworld of the dead. For the Aztecs, the northern stars were associated with Tezcatlipoca. In Peking, China, was a shrine devoted to the North Star deity. Such worship of the northern stars may have been associated with time keeping, as the positions of the stars could identify the annual seasons. Likewise, as agriculture developed, the need to keep accurate time led to more careful tracking of the positions of the sun, moon and planets; resulting with their deification when they became inextricably linked with the means of survival. In the


id: beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Belief:_Science,_Religion,_Reason_and_Survival-0.md
category: reference
title: Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Belief:_Science,_Religion,_Reason_and_Survival
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:37.409805+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival-20260505-0
summary:
Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival was the first gathering of The Science Network's annual Beyond Belief symposia, held from November 5–7, 2006, at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. It was described by The New York Times, as "a free-for-all on science and religion", which seemed at times like "the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told." == Conference goals and topics == The event was conceived to challenge the efforts of the Templeton Foundation to reconcile science with religion, according to its underwriter Robert Zeps, who told an interviewer:I am not anti-Templeton in the sense of funding scientists to say mean things about religion. I simply believe that all study should be free of any particular agenda besides learning... Most take the position that the religious right are just nuts who are loud but frankly undeserving of a response... I believe that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and pretty much all of the tech age wealth is firmly on the side of science


id: black-cat-analogy-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cat_analogy-0.md
category: reference
title: Black cat analogy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cat_analogy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:38.750729+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: black-cat-analogy-20260505-0
summary:
The black cat analogy is an analogy accounting for the differences between science and religion, or in some versions also between other disciplines such as philosophy and metaphysics. == Description == The analogy can be described like this: Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat. Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there. Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there, and shouting "I found it!" Science is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat while using a flashlight. Social Science is like being in a dark room suspecting from the beginning that there is a black cat somewhere, and emerging from the room with scratches on the forearm as vindication. It can also be applied to other bodies of knowledge or learning, for example by Ernest Gellner to Marxism. == Explanation == Vincent Barry explains the difference between philosophy and theology as lying in the fact that philosophy is scientific and open-minded, concerned with proof, while theologians "have found their final truth" before they begin the search. == Origin ==


id: book-of-nature-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nature-0.md
category: reference
title: Book of Nature
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nature
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:39.973281+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: book-of-nature-20260505-0
summary:
The Book of Nature (Lat. liber naturae/liber mundi, Ar. kitāb takwīnī) is a religious and philosophical cosmological metaphor known from Antiquity in various cultures, and prominent in the Latin and Romance literature of the European Middle Ages. The idea of a cosmos formed by letters is already found in the fragments of Heraclitus, where it relates to the Greek concept of logos, in Plato’s Timaeus, and in Lucretius’ De rerum natura. The metaphor of the Book of Nature straddles the divide between religion and science, viewing nature as a readable text open to knowledge and understanding. Early theologians, such as St. Paul, believed the Book of Nature was a source of God's revelation to humankind. He believed that when read alongside sacred scripture, the "book" and the study of God's creations would lead to a knowledge of God himself. This type of revelation is often referred to as a general revelation. The concept corresponds to the early Greek philosophical concept of logos, which implies that humans, as part of a coherent universe, are capable of understanding the design of the natural world through reason. The phrase liber naturae was famously used by Galileo when writing about how "the book of


id: book-of-nature-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nature-1.md
category: reference
title: Book of Nature
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nature
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:39.973281+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: book-of-nature-20260505-0
summary:
== Christianity and Greek culture == The Greeks constructed a view of the natural world in which all references to mythological origins and causes were removed. Greek philosophers inadvertently left the upper world vacant by abandoning ancient ties to free-acting, conspiring gods of nature. The new philosophy of nature made unseen mythological forces irrelevant. While some philosophers drifted toward atheism, others worked within the new philosophy to reconstitute the concept of a divine being. Consequently, the new outlook toward the natural world inspired the belief in one supreme force compatible with the new philosophy—in other words, monotheistic. However, the path from nature to rediscovering a divine being was uncertain. The belief in causality in nature implied an endless, interconnected chain of causation acting upon the natural world. It is presumed, however, that Greek thought denied the existence of a natural world where causality was infinite, which gave rise to the notion of "first cause", upon which the order of other causes must rely. The first contact between Christianity and Greek culture occurred in Athens in the first century CE. The Christian Scriptures note that within a few years of Christ’s crucifixion, Paul and Silas were debating with Epicureans and Stoics


id: book-of-nature-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nature-2.md
category: reference
title: Book of Nature
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nature
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:39.973281+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: book-of-nature-20260505-0
summary:
From a single print shop in Mainz, Germany around 1440, the movable type printing-press had spread to no less than around 270 cities in Central, Western and Eastern Europe and had already produced more than 20 million volumes by the end of the 15th century. At the same time, the number of universities had grown to more than 60. By revealing a "New World" unknown to the ancients, the European encounter with the Americas specifically undermined the authority of Claudius Ptolemy, the 2nd-century scholar whose geographic and astronomical models had long been considered infallible. Tycho Brahe's unprecedentedly accurate astronomical observations in the late 16th century and Galileo Galilei’s early 17th-century telescopic observations combined to turn astronomy into the first modern science. Galileo's observations ended a millenium of pre-modern astronomical orthodoxy. Johannes Kepler used Brahe's data to discover that planets have elliptical, not circular, orbits and develop the laws of planetary motion. Because of Kepler, astronomical phenomena came to be seen as being governed by physical laws, a kind of clockwork. Ancient texts and doctrines were disputed, knowledge of the natural world was incomplete, interpretation of Christian Scripture was challenged, and Greek philosophy—which helped draft the Book of Nature—and Christian Scripture


id: bridgewater-treatises-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgewater_Treatises-0.md
category: reference
title: Bridgewater Treatises
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgewater_Treatises
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:41.294844+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: bridgewater-treatises-20260505-0
summary:
The Bridgewater Treatises (1833–36) are a series of eight works that were written by leading scientific figures appointed by the President of the Royal Society in fulfilment of a bequest of £8000, made by Francis Henry Egerton, 8th Earl of Bridgewater, for work on "the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation." Despite being voluminous and costly, the series was very widely read and discussed, becoming one of the most important contributions to Victorian literature on the relationship between religion and science. They made such an impact that Charles Darwin began On the Origin of Species with a quotation from the Bridgewater Treatise of William Whewell. == The Bridgewater Bequest == Before unexpectedly becoming the 8th Earl of Bridgewater in 1823, Francis Henry Egerton spent most of his life as an absentee parson. He published works of classical scholarship and issued others praising the historical achievements of his family, including those of his father's cousin, Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater, the "father of British inland navigation." In 1781, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society; after 1802 he lived mostly in Paris, where he amassed a collection of manuscripts later donated to the


id: bridgewater-treatises-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgewater_Treatises-1.md
category: reference
title: Bridgewater Treatises
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgewater_Treatises
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:41.294844+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: bridgewater-treatises-20260505-0
summary:
=== Medical practitioners: Kidd and Bell, Roget and Prout === The two medical professors John Kidd and Charles Bell wrote shorter and theologically lightweight contributions. Kidd's work, on the "physical constitution of man," was claimed to be "but a moderate thousand pounds worth," Like Bell, whose limited subject was "the hand," Kidd set out to show that modern developments in anatomy did not support either materialism or the transmutation of species, instead confirming belief in the reality of divine design. The two other medical authors, Peter Mark Roget and William Prout, wrote lengthier contributions considering how the emergence of physiological laws enhanced the belief in divine design, rather than diminishing it. In his treatise on "animal and vegetable physiology," Roget argued that the laws of "philosophical anatomy" provided a grander vision of divine action. Prout's rag-bag treatise on "chemistry, meteorology, and the function of digestion" was more ambivalent, arguing that God's action was strikingly evident in the laws of chemical action, but also that many phenomena seemed to subvert the general laws. === The Bible and science: Kirby and Buckland === The final two treatises, those of William Kirby and William Buckland, both addressed the relationship of the Bible to


id: bridgewater-treatises-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgewater_Treatises-2.md
category: reference
title: Bridgewater Treatises
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgewater_Treatises
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:41.294844+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: bridgewater-treatises-20260505-0
summary:
== Further reading == Addinall, Peter (1991). Philosophy and Biblical Interpretation: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alexander, Denis R.; Numbers, Ronald L. (2010). Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-60842-6. "Authors of the Bridgewater Treatises (act. c. 1833–1836)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/96360. Retrieved 2022-09-12. Brock, W. H. (1966). "The Selection of the Authors of the Bridgewater Treatises". Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London. 21 (2): 162–179. ISSN 0035-9149. Clark, John F. M. (2009). Bugs and the Victorians. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15091-9. Desmond, Adrian. The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-14453-5. Gillispie, Charles Coulston (1996). Genesis and Geology: A Study in the Relations of Scientific Thought, Natural Theology, and Social Opinion in Great Britain, 1790-1850. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-34481-5. Hilton, Boyd (1988). The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicalism on Social and Economic Thought, 1795-1865. Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-820107-6. Rehbock, Philip F. (1983). The Philosophical Naturalists: Themes in Early Nineteenth-century British Biology. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 978-0-299-09430-0. Robson, John M. "The Fiat and Finger of God: The Bridgewater Treatises". In Helmstadter, Richard


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-0.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
This is a list of Christians in science and technology. People in this list should have their Christianity as relevant to their notable activities or public life, and who have publicly identified themselves as Christians or as of a Christian denomination. == Before the 18th century == Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179): also known as Saint Hildegard and Sibyl of the Rhine, was a German Benedictine abbess. She is considered to be the founder of scientific natural history in Germany Robert Grosseteste (c. 1175–1253): Bishop of Lincoln, he was the central character of the English intellectual movement in the first half of the 13th century and is considered the founder of scientific thought in Oxford. He had a great interest in the natural world and wrote texts on the mathematical sciences of optics, astronomy and geometry. He affirmed that experiments should be used in order to verify a theory, testing its consequences and added greatly to the development of the scientific method. Albertus Magnus (c. 1193–1280): patron saint of scientists in Catholicism who may have been the first to isolate arsenic. He wrote that: "Natural science does not consist in ratifying what others have said, but in seeking the causes of


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-1.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
== 18th century (1701–1800) == John Ray (1627–1705): English botanist who wrote The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation (1691) and was among the first to attempt a biological definition for the concept of species. The John Ray Initiative of Environment and Christianity is also named for him. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723): Dutch Reformed Calvinist who is remembered as the "father of microbiology". Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716): He was a philosopher who developed the philosophical theory of the Pre-established harmony; he is also most noted for his optimism, e.g., his conclusion that our Universe is, in a restricted sense, the best possible one that God could have created. He also made major contributions to mathematics, physics, and technology. He created the Stepped Reckoner and his Protogaea concerns geology and natural history. He was a Lutheran who worked with convert to Catholicism John Frederick, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg in hopes of a reunification between Catholicism and Lutheranism. Pierre Varignon (1654–1722): French mathematician and Catholic priest known for his contributions to statics and mechanics. Guido Grandi (1671–1742): Italian monk, priest, philosopher, theologian, mathematician, and engineer. Stephen Hales (1677–1761): Copley Medal winning scientist significant to the study of plant physiology. As


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-2.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
Joseph Priestley (1733–1804): Nontrinitarian clergyman who wrote the controversial work History of the Corruptions of Christianity. He is credited with discovering oxygen. Luigi Galvani (1737–1798): Italian physician, physicist, biologist and philosopher who studied animal electricity. Jean-Louis-Marc Alibert said of Galvani that he never ended his lessons “without exhorting his hearers and leading them back to the idea of that eternal Providence, which develops, conserves, and circulates life among so many diverse beings.” John Robison (1739–1805): Scottish physicist and mathematician, professor of natural philosophy at the University of Edinburgh. He was the first general secretary to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Robison invented the siren and also worked with James Watt on an early steam car. He was a devout Christian, and vehemently opposed radical secular currents in the Enlightenment as a threat to the moral fabric of society. John Playfair (1748–1819): Church of Scotland minister, scientist, mathematician, professor of natural philosophy. He was a co-founder of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and served as General Secretary to the society. Alessandro Volta (1745–1827): Italian physicist who invented the first electric battery. The unit Volt was named after him. Samuel Vince (1749–1821): Cambridge astronomer and clergyman. He wrote Observations on the Theory


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-3.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
John Bachman (1790–1874): wrote numerous scientific articles and named several species of animals. He also was a founder of the Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary and wrote works on Lutheranism. Robert Stirling (1790–1878): Scottish clergyman and engineer, minister in the Church of Scotland, best known for inventing the Stirling engine. Temple Chevallier (1794–1873): priest and astronomer who did Of the proofs of the divine power and wisdom derived from the study of astronomy. He also founded the Durham University Observatory, hence the Durham Shield is pictured. John Blissard (1803–1875): Church of England vicar, educator, and mathematician who invented what came to be known as the umbral calculus. Robert Main (1808–1878): Anglican priest who won the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1858. Robert Main also preached at the British Association of Bristol. James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879): Although Clerk as a boy was taken to Presbyterian services by his father and to Anglican services by his aunt, while still a young student at Cambridge he underwent an Evangelical conversion that he described as having given him a new perception of the Love of God. Maxwell's evangelicalism "committed him to an anti-positivist position." He is known for his contributions in establishing


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-4.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
John Hall Gladstone (1827–1902): served as president of the Physical Society between 1874 and 1876 and during 1877–1879 was president of the Chemical Society. He also belonged to the Christian Evidence Society. George Stokes (1819–1903): minister's son, he wrote a book on Natural Theology. He was also one of the Presidents of the Royal Society and made contributions to Fluid dynamics. Henry Baker Tristram (1822–1906): founding member of the British Ornithologists' Union. His publications included The Natural History of the Bible (1867) and The Fauna and Flora of Palestine (1884). Enoch Fitch Burr (1818–1907): astronomer and Congregational Church pastor who lectured extensively on the relationship between science and religion. He also wrote Ecce Coelum: or Parish Astronomy in 1867. He once stated that "an undevout astronomer is mad" and held a strong belief in extraterrestrial life. Lord Kelvin (1824–1907): At the University of Glasgow he did important work in the mathematical analysis of electricity and formulation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. He gave a famous address to the Christian Evidence Society. In science he won the Copley Medal and the Royal Medal. William Dallinger (1839–1909): British minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church and an accomplished scientist who


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-5.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
Robert Millikan (1868–1953): second son of Reverend Silas Franklin Millikan, he wrote about the reconciliation of science and religion in books like Evolution in Science and Religion. He won the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics. Karl Landsteiner (1868–1943): Austrian biologist, physician, and immunologist. In 1930, he received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Landsteiner converted from Judaism to Roman Catholicism in 1890. Dmitri Egorov (1869–1931): Russian and Soviet mathematician known for his contributions to differential geometry and mathematical analysis. Defended the Church after the Russian Revolution, and was persecuted by the Soviet government for his Christian beliefs with arrest and imprisonment. Charles Stine (1882–1954): son of a minister who was VP of DuPont. In religion he wrote A Chemist and His Bible and as a chemist he won the Perkin Medal. E. T. Whittaker (1873–1956): converted to Catholicism in 1930 and member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. His 1946 Donnellan Lecture was entitled on Space and Spirit. Theories of the Universe and the Arguments for the Existence of God. He also received the Copley Medal and had written on Mathematical physics before conversion. Walter C. Alvarez (1884–1978): was an American medical doctor and a Congregationalist deacon. He authored


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-6.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
Ernest Walton (1903–1995): Irish physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1951 for his work with John Cockcroft with "atom-smashing" experiments done at Cambridge University in the early 1930s, and so became the first person in history to artificially split the atom, thus ushering the nuclear age. He spoke on science and faith topics. Nevill Francis Mott (1905–1996): Anglican, was a Nobel Prize-winning physicist known for explaining the effect of light on a photographic emulsion. He was baptized at 80 and edited Can Scientists Believe?. Mary Celine Fasenmyer (1906–1996): member of the Sisters of Mercy known for Sister Celine's polynomials. Her work was also important to WZ Theory. Antoinette Rodez Schiesler (1934–1996): American chemist and Director of Research at Villanova University. A former nun, she was ordained as an Episcopal deacon and served as associate to the dean at the Cathedral of St. John in Wilmington, Delaware, until her death. She also served on the executive board of the Episcopal Women's Caucus and on the executive council of the Episcopal Diocese of Delaware. John Eccles (1903–1997): Australian neuropsychologist who won the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for his work on synapse. Arthur Leonard Schawlow (1921–1999): American


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-7.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
== 21st century (2001–2100) == Sir Robert Boyd (1922–2004): pioneer in British space science who was vice president of the Royal Astronomical Society. He lectured on faith being a founder of the "Research Scientists' Christian Fellowship" and an important member of its predecessor Christians in Science. Richard Smalley (1943–2005): Nobel laureate in Chemistry known for buckyballs. In his last years he renewed an interest in Christianity and supported Old Earth Creationism Mariano Artigas (1938–2006): had doctorates in both physics and philosophy. He belonged to the European Association for the Study of Science and Theology and also received a grant from the Templeton Foundation for his work in the area of science and religion. J. Laurence Kulp (1921–2006): Plymouth Brethren member who led major studies on the effects of nuclear fallout and acid rain. He was a prominent advocate in American Scientific Affiliation circles in favor of an Old Earth and against flood geology. Arthur Peacocke (1924–2006): Anglican priest and biochemist, his ideas may have influenced Anglican and Lutheran views of evolution. Winner of the 2001 Templeton Prize John Billings (1918–2007): Australian physician who developed the Billings ovulation method of Natural family planning. In 1969, Billings was made a Knight Commander


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-8
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-8.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
Hewish also wrote in his introduction to John Polkinghorne's 2009 Questions of Truth, "The ghostly presence of virtual particles defies rational common sense and is non-intuitive for those unacquainted with physics. Religious belief in God, and Christian belief ... may seem strange to common-sense thinking. But when the most elementary physical things behave in this way, we should be prepared to accept that the deepest aspects of our existence go beyond our common-sense understanding." Paul Farmer (1959–2022): American medical anthropologist, physician and proponent of liberation theology. He was co-founder of Partners In Health, the Kolokotrones University Professor at Harvard University and Chief of the Division of Global Health Equity at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Lindon Eaves (1944–2022): British behavioral geneticist who published on topics as diverse as the heritability of religion and psychopathology. In 1996, he and Kenneth Kendler founded the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics at Virginia Commonwealth University, where he was professor emeritus and engaged in research and training. Andrew Wyllie (1944–2022): Scottish pathologist who discovered the significance of natural cell death, later naming the process apoptosis. Prior to retirement, he was head of the Department of Pathology at the University of Cambridge.


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-9
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-9.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
=== Biological and biomedical sciences === Nii Addy: American neuroscientist who is an associate professor of Psychiatry and of Cellular and Molecular Physiology at the Yale School of Medicine. His research considers the neurobiological basis of substance abuse, depression and anxiety. He has worked on various initiatives to mitigate tobacco use and addiction. Denis Alexander (born 1945): Emeritus Director of the Faraday Institute at the University of Cambridge and author of Rebuilding the Matrix – Science and Faith in the 21st Century. He also supervised a research group in cancer and immunology at the Babraham Institute. Werner Arber (born 1929): Swiss microbiologist and geneticist. Along with American researchers Hamilton Smith and Daniel Nathans, he shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of restriction endonucleases. In 2011, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Arber as president of the Pontifical Academy—the first Protestant to hold that position. Robert T. Bakker (born 1945): paleontologist who was a leading figure in the "dinosaur renaissance" and known for the theory some dinosaurs were warm-blooded. He is also a Pentecostal preacher who advocates theistic evolution and has written on religion. Dan Blazer (born 1944): American psychiatrist and medical researcher who is Professor of


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-10
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-10.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
He is also known for the research he has done related to the Isthmus of Panama and its historical significance on the evolution of South American species. Raina MacIntyre (born 1964): Sri Lankan epidemiologist and Professor of Global Biosecurity and NHMRC Principal Research Fellow at the University of New South Wales, where she leads a research program on the prevention and control of infectious diseases. She is an expert media advisor and commentator on Australia's response to COVID-19. Noella Marcellino (born 1951): American Benedictine nun with a doctorate in microbiology. Her field of interests include fungi and the effects of decay and putrefaction. Joel W. Martin (born 1955): American marine biologist and invertebrate zoologist who is currently Chief of the Division of Invertebrate Studies and Curator of Crustacea at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC). His main area of research is the morphology and systematics of marine decapod crustaceans. Paul R. McHugh (born 1931): American psychiatrist whose research has focused on the neuroscientific foundations of motivated behaviors, psychiatric genetics, epidemiology, and neuropsychiatry. He is Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and former psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Kenneth


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-11
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-11.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
=== Chemistry === Peter Agre (born 1949): American physician, Bloomberg Distinguished Professor, and molecular biologist at Johns Hopkins University who was awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (which he shared with Roderick MacKinnon) for his discovery of aquaporins. Agre is a Lutheran. Peter Budd (born 1957): British chemist and a professor in the Department of Chemistry at The University of Manchester. His research in general is based on polymer chemistry, energy and industrial separation processes, specifically on the areas of Polymers of intrinsic microporosity (PIMs), energy storage, polyelectrolytes and separation membranes. Andrew B. Bocarsly (born 1954): American chemist known for his research in electrochemistry, photochemistry, solids state chemistry, and fuel cells. He is a professor of chemistry at Princeton University. Gerhard Ertl (born 1936): 2007 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry. He has said in an interview that "I believe in God. (...) I am a Christian and I try to live as a Christian (...) I read the Bible very often and I try to understand it." Brian Kobilka (born 1955): American Nobel Prize winner of Chemistry in 2012, and is professor in the departments of Molecular and Cellular Physiology at Stanford University School of Medicine. Kobilka attends the


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-12
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-12.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
=== Physics and astronomy === Edgar Andrews (born 1932): British physicist, founder and former head of the Department of Materials and emeritus Professor of Materials Science, Queen Mary University of London; author of "Who made God? Searching for a theory of everything" and "What is Man? Adam, alien or ape?" Preacher and author of the podcast and former president of the Biblical Creation Society, UK. Stephen Barr (born 1953): physicist who worked at Brookhaven National Laboratory and contributed papers to Physical Review as well as Physics Today. He also is a Catholic who writes for First Things and wrote Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. He teaches at the University of Delaware. Jocelyn Bell Burnell (born 1943): astrophysicist from Northern Ireland who discovered the first radio pulsars in 1967. She is currently visiting professor of astrophysics at the University of Oxford. Arnold O. Benz (born 1945): Swiss astrophysicist, currently professor emeritus at ETH Zurich. He is known for his research in plasma astrophysics, in particular heliophysics, and received honorary doctoral degrees from the University of Zurich and The University of the South for his contributions to the dialog with theology. Katherine Blundell: British astrophysicist who is a professor of astrophysics at


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-13
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-13.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
He is the former Goldsmiths' Professor of Materials Science and a current director of research at the University of Cambridge, professor of experimental physics at the Royal Institution in London and a Fellow of Selwyn College, Cambridge. Humphreys also "studies the Bible when not pursuing his day-job as a materials scientist." Ian Hutchinson (scientist): physicist and nuclear engineer. He is currently Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at the Plasma Science and Fusion Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Christopher Isham (born 1944): theoretical physicist who developed HPO formalism. He teaches at Imperial College London. In addition to being a physicist, he is a philosopher and theologian. Stephen R. Kane (born 1973): Australian astrophysicist who specializes in exoplanetary science. He is a professor of Astronomy and Planetary Astrophysics at the University of California, Riverside and a leading expert on the topic of planetary habitability and the habitable zone of planetary systems. Ard Louis: professor in theoretical physics at the University of Oxford. Prior to his post at Oxford he taught theoretical chemistry at the University of Cambridge where he was also director of studies in Natural Sciences at Hughes Hall. He has written for The BioLogos Forum. Jonathan Lunine (born 1959):


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-14
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-14.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
An aerial of the center is shown. In addition she is a co-discoverer of 114P/Wiseman-Skiff. In religion is a Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation and on June 16, 2010, became the new director for the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion. Antonino Zichichi (born 1929): Italian nuclear physicist and former president of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare. He has worked with the Vatican on relations between the Church and Science.


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-15
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-15.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
=== Earth sciences === Katey Walter Anthony (born 1976): American aquatic ecologist and biogeochemist researching carbon and nutrient cycling between terrestrial and aquatic systems, and the cryosphere and atmosphere. She is a professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Lorence G. Collins (born 1931): American petrologist, best known for his extensive research on metasomatism. He is known for his opposition to creationism and has written several articles presenting his Christian philosophy. Katharine Hayhoe (born 1972): atmospheric scientist and professor of political science at Texas Tech University, where she is director of the Climate Science Center. Mike Hulme (born 1960): professor of human geography in the department of geography at the University of Cambridge. He was formerly professor of Climate and Culture at King's College London (2013–2017) and is the author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change. He has said of his Christian faith, "I believe because I have not discovered a better explanation of beauty, truth and love than that they emerge in a world created – willed into being – by a God who personifies beauty, truth and love." John Suppe (born 1942): professor of geology at National Taiwan University, Geosciences Emeritus at Princeton University. He has written


id: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-16
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology-16.md
category: reference
title: List of Christians in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:43.961382+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-christians-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
=== Others === Justin L. Barrett (born 1971): American experimental psychologist and director of the Thrive Center for Human Development and Professor of Psychology at Fuller Graduate School of Psychology after being a researcher at the University of Oxford, Barrett is a cognitive scientist specializing in the cognitive science of religion. He has published "Cognitive Science, Religion, and Theology" (Templeton Press, 2011). Barrett has been described by the New York Times as "an observant Christian who believes in 'an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good God who brought the universe into being,' as he wrote in an e-mail message. 'I believe that the purpose for people is to love God and love each other.'" David A. Booth (born 1938): British applied psychologist whose research and teaching centre on the processes in the mind that situate actions and reactions by people, members of other species, and socially intelligent engineered systems. He is an honorary professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Sussex. John Lennox (born 1943): Northern Irish mathematician (Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford), bioethicist, and Christian apologist. He has written many books on religion, ethics, the relationship between science and God. Robert A. Emmons (born


id: clergy-letter-project-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project-0.md
category: reference
title: Clergy Letter Project
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:45.182222+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: clergy-letter-project-20260505-0
summary:
The Clergy Letter Project is a project that maintains statements in support of the teaching of evolution and collects signatures in support of letters from American Christian, Jewish, Unitarian Universalist, Buddhist, and Humanist clergy. The letters make reference to points raised by intelligent design proponents. There are five separate letters: A Christian Clergy Letter, a Rabbi Letter, a Unitarian Universalist Clergy Letter, a Buddhist Clergy Letter, and a Humanist Clergy Letter. As of October, 2022, there were 15,679 signatures from Christian clergy, 839 signatures from Jewish rabbis, 688 signatures from Unitarian Universalist clergy, 75 signatures from Buddhist clergy, and 58 signatures from Humanist clergy. This effort was initiated in 2004 by the biologist Michael Zimmerman, past vice president for academic affairs and provost at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. The letter was written by John McFadden, pastor of the First Congregational United Church of Christ in Appleton, Wisconsin. The project also encourages congregations to participate in Religion and Science Weekend by sponsoring events in which clergy and congregations are encouraged to learn about and discuss the positive intersections of religion and science. The weekend chosen is the closest Sunday to Charles Darwin's birthday, February 12. Evolution Sunday events first


id: clergy-letter-project-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project-1.md
category: reference
title: Clergy Letter Project
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:45.182222+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: clergy-letter-project-20260505-0
summary:
The Clergy Letter - from Unitarian Universalist Clergy – An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science As Unitarian Universalists, we draw from many sources, including "Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life," and "Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit." While most Unitarian Universalists believe that many sacred scriptures convey timeless truths about humans and our relationship to the sacred, we stand in solidarity with our Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters who do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. We believe that religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts. Fundamentalists of various traditions, who perceive the science of evolution to be in conflict with their personal religious beliefs, are seeking to influence public school boards to authorize the teaching of creationism. We see this as a breach in the separation of church and state. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation are free to teach their perspective


id: clergy-letter-project-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project-2.md
category: reference
title: Clergy Letter Project
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:45.182222+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: clergy-letter-project-20260505-0
summary:
We believe that evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. Omitting evolution from science teaching, or treating it dismissively as “only a theory,” miscommunicates its centrality in modern biology and threatens students’ understanding of the very nature of science. Along with our religious allies of other traditions, we ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion. We urge public education authorities to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of evolutionary theory as a core component of human knowledge. == History == The project was organized in 2004 by Michael Zimmerman, then a biology professor and dean of the College of Science and Letters at University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh. He was motivated to create a petition by the actions of the school board in Grantsburg, Wisconsin, which had passed some anti-evolution policies in the summer of 2004. Zimmerman was a veteran of similar disputes in Ohio, when he was a professor at Oberlin College. After Zimmerman watched Christian fundamentalist clergy from Dover, Pennsylvania, on the television program Nightline insisting that decisions about teaching evolution in schools was equivalent


id: clergy-letter-project-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project-3.md
category: reference
title: Clergy Letter Project
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:45.182222+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: clergy-letter-project-20260505-0
summary:
== Reaction from creationists == The creationist Discovery Institute, which arranged its own anti-evolution petition called A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism in 2001 criticized the project. Discovery Institute communications director Rob Crowther asserted that the disputes about evolution was "purely a scientific debate" and that clergy petitions are irrelevant, stating that clergy "don't make any difference," since "We don't think there is anything religious at all to the theory of intelligent design." Zimmerman described this argument as part of the problem, as intelligent design tried to undermine science by changing it from a study of the natural world to include supernatural explanations, and it was important for clergy to defend science against these attacks. Ken Ham and Mark Looy of the creationist organization Answers in Genesis have repeatedly condemned Evolution Sunday/Evolution Weekend activities as a "Darwin praise service" and expressing dismay that "over 10,200 clergy had signed this awful letter." Ham and Looy also criticized Zimmerman's fundraising efforts through the Christian Alliance for Progress. Answers in Genesis published a list of "modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation." The majority are not biologists. The group has also organized "Creation Sunday" in response to Evolution Weekend, and has


id: cognitive-science-of-new-religious-movements-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_new_religious_movements-0.md
category: reference
title: Cognitive science of new religious movements
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_new_religious_movements
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:46.474634+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: cognitive-science-of-new-religious-movements-20260505-0
summary:
Cognitive science of new religious movements is the study of new religious movements (NRMs) from the perspective of cognitive science. The field employs methods and theories from a variety of disciplines, including cognitive science of religion, sociology of religion, scientific study of religion, anthropology, and artificial life. Scholars in the field seek to explain the origin and evolution of new religious movements in terms of ordinary universal cognitive processes. == History == The field traces its roots to the beginnings of the field of cognitive science of religion in the 1990s, especially in Harvey Whitehouse's work on 'cargo cults' in Papua New Guinea and cognitivist work by sociologists of religion William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark. In a 2005 article titled "Towards a Cognitive Science of New Religious Movements", Afzal Upal conceptualized the field and proposed agent-based social simulation as a good complement for Whitehouse's anthropological approach to investigate the origin of new religious movements. Upal developed an information entrepreneurship model-based social simulation to study the origin and evolution of new religious movements. In 2008, Kimmo Ketola used an anthropological case study of Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda (1896–1977), the founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON, the Hare Krishna


id: cognitive-science-of-religion-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion-0.md
category: reference
title: Cognitive science of religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:47.768163+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: cognitive-science-of-religion-20260505-0
summary:
Cognitive science of religion is the study of religious thought, theory, and behavior from the perspective of the cognitive sciences. Scholars in this field seek to explain how human minds acquire, generate, and transmit religious thoughts, practices, and schemas by means of ordinary cognitive capacities. == History == Although religion has been the subject of serious scientific study since at least the late nineteenth century, the study of religion as a cognitive phenomenon is relatively recent. While it often relies upon earlier research within anthropology of religion and sociology of religion, cognitive science of religion considers the results of that work within the context of evolutionary and cognitive theories. As such, cognitive science of religion was only made possible by the cognitive revolution of the 1950s and the development, starting in the 1970s, of sociobiology and other approaches explaining human behaviour in evolutionary terms, especially evolutionary psychology. While Dan Sperber foreshadowed cognitive science of religion in his 1975 book Rethinking Symbolism, the earliest research to fall within the scope of the discipline was published during the 1980s. Stewart E. Guthrie's "A cognitive theory of religion" was significant for examining anthropomorphism in religion. This work ultimately led to the development of


id: cognitive-science-of-religion-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion-1.md
category: reference
title: Cognitive science of religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:47.768163+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: cognitive-science-of-religion-20260505-0
summary:
=== Pro-social adaptation === According to the prosocial adaptation account of religion, religious beliefs and practices should be understood as having the function of eliciting adaptive prosocial behaviour and avoiding the free rider problem. Within the cognitive science of religion this approach is primarily pursued by Richard Sosis. David Sloan Wilson is another major proponent of this approach and interprets religion as a group-level adaptation, but his work is generally seen as falling outside the cognitive science of religion. === Costly signaling === Practices that, due to their inherent cost, can be relied upon to provide an honest signal regarding the intentions of the agent. Richard Sosis has suggested that religious practices can be explained as costly signals of the willingness to cooperate. A similar line of argument has been pursued by Lyle Steadman and Craig Palmer. Alternatively, D. Jason Slone has argued that religiosity may be a costly signal used as a mating strategy insofar as religiosity serves as a proxy for "family values". === Dual inheritance === In the context of cognitive science of religion, dual inheritance theory can be understood as attempting to combine the cognitive byproduct and prosocial adaptation accounts using the theoretical approach developed by


id: conflict-thesis-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis-0.md
category: reference
title: Conflict thesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:49.089600+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: conflict-thesis-20260505-0
summary:
The conflict thesis is a historiographical approach in the history of science that originated in the 19th century with John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. It maintains that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science, and that it inevitably leads to hostility. The consensus among historians of science is that the thesis has long been discredited, which explains the rejection of the thesis by contemporary scholars. Into the 21st century, historians of science widely accept a complexity thesis. The lack of engagement with the advancements in the history of science perpetuates belief in the thesis. Global studies on scientists show that most scientists do not see religion and science in conflict and studies on the views of the general public indicate that the conflict perspective is not prevalent either. == Historical conflict thesis == Before the 19th century, no one had pitted "science" against "religion" or vice versa in writing. The relationship between religion and science became an actual formal topic of discourse in the 19th century. More specifically, it was around the mid-19th century that discussion of "science and religion" first emerged because before this time, the term science still included moral and metaphysical dimensions,


id: conflict-thesis-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis-1.md
category: reference
title: Conflict thesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:49.089600+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: conflict-thesis-20260505-0
summary:
[T]he story of the supposed opposition of the Church and the Popes and the ecclesiastical authorities to science in any of its branches, is founded entirely on mistaken notions. Most of it is quite imaginary. Much of it is due to the exaggeration of the significance of the Galileo incident. Only those who know nothing about the history of medicine and of science continue to harbor it. That Dr. White's book, contradicted as it is so directly by all serious histories of medicine and of science, should have been read by so many thousands in this country, and should have been taken seriously by educated men, physicians, teachers, and even professors of science who want to know the history of their own sciences, only shows how easily even supposedly educated men may be led to follow their prejudices rather than their mental faculties, and emphasizes the fact that the tradition that there is no good that can possibly come out of the Nazareth of the times before the reformation, still dominates the intellects of many educated people who think that they are far from prejudice and have minds perfectly open to conviction. In God and Nature (1986), David Lindberg and


id: conflict-thesis-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis-2.md
category: reference
title: Conflict thesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:49.089600+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: conflict-thesis-20260505-0
summary:
=== Academic === Historians of science today have moved away from a conflict model, which is based mainly on two historical episodes (those involving Galileo and Darwin) in favor of a "complexity" model, because religious figures took positions on both sides of each dispute and there was no overall aim by any party involved in discrediting religion. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould said: "White's and Draper's accounts of the actual interaction between science and religion in Western history do not differ greatly. Both tell a tale of bright progress continually sparked by science. And both develop and use the same myths to support their narrative, the flat-earth legend prominently among them". In a summary of the historiography of the conflict thesis, Colin A. Russell, the former President of Christians in Science, said that "Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship". In Science & Religion, Gary Ferngren proposes a complex relationship between religion and science: While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying


id: conflict-thesis-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis-3.md
category: reference
title: Conflict thesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:49.089600+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: conflict-thesis-20260505-0
summary:
In 1559, Pope Paul IV promulgated the Pauline Index which is also known as Index Librorum Prohibitorum. While it has been described by some as "the turning-point for the freedom of enquiry in the Catholic world", the effects of the Index were actually minimal and it was largely ignored. After less than a year, it was replaced by the Tridentine Index which relaxed aspects of the Pauline Index that had been criticized and had prevented its acceptance. It is inaccurate to describe the Index as being an enduring and definitive statement of Catholic censorship. It contained a list of "heretical" or "amoral" publications that were forbidden for Catholics to read or print and included not just heretics but anti-clerical authors and Protestant Christians. === Scientists and public perceptions === The conflict thesis is still held to be true in whole or in part by some scientists, including the theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking, who said "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works." Others, such as Steven Weinberg, grant that it is possible for science and religion to be compatible


id: conflict-thesis-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis-4.md
category: reference
title: Conflict thesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:49.089600+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: conflict-thesis-20260505-0
summary:
Antireligion – Opposition to religion Antitheism – Opposition to theism, and usually to religion Boundary object – Sociology of information science Boundary-work – Study of boundaries between disciplines Continuity thesis – Hypothesis regarding European intellectual history Faith and rationality – Two approaches that exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility Fideism – Epistemological theory that faith is independent of reason Flat Earth – Archaic conception of Earth's shape Non-overlapping magisteria – Concept created by Stephen Jay Gould Relationship between religion and science Religious intolerance – Intolerance of another's religious beliefs or practices Trading zones (metaphor) – Metaphor applied to collaborations in science == References == == Further reading == Barbour, Ian G. When Science Meets Religion. HarperSanFrancisco, 2000. Brooke, John H., Margaret Osler, and Jitse M. van der Meer, (editors). "Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions," Osiris, 2nd ser., vol. 16 (2001), ISBN 0-226-07565-6 Mahner, M., Bunge, M. Is religious education compatible with science education?. Sci Educ 5, 101–123 (1996) Ferngren, Gary (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0 Jones, Richard H., For the Glory of God: The Role of Christianity in the Rise and Development of Modern Science. Lanham, Maryland:


id: continuity-thesis-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_thesis-0.md
category: reference
title: Continuity thesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_thesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:50.355903+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: continuity-thesis-20260505-0
summary:
In the history of ideas, the continuity thesis is the hypothesis that there was no radical discontinuity between the intellectual development of the Middle Ages and the developments in the Renaissance and early modern period. Thus the idea of an intellectual or scientific revolution following the Renaissance is, according to the continuity thesis, a myth. Some continuity theorists point to earlier intellectual revolutions occurring in the Middle Ages, usually referring to the European Renaissance of the 12th century as a sign of continuity. The continuity thesis has been seen by Paul Freedman and Gabrielle M. Spiegel as characteristic of Medieval studies in North America in the twentieth century. Despite the many points that have been brought up by proponents of the continuity thesis, however, a majority of scholars still support the traditional view of the Scientific Revolution occurring in the 16th and 17th centuries. == Duhem == The idea of a continuity, rather than contrast between medieval and modern thought, begins with Pierre Duhem, the French physicist and philosopher of science. It is set out in his ten-volume work on the history of science, Le système du monde: histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic. Unlike many former historians


id: continuity-thesis-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_thesis-1.md
category: reference
title: Continuity thesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_thesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:50.355903+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: continuity-thesis-20260505-0
summary:
There was a sudden dawning of a new outlook on the world after 1000 years of darkness. Ancient learning was rediscovered. New ideas about intellectual inquiry and freedom replaced reliance on authority. Scientific investigation replaced the sterile disputes of the schools. He claims that the Renaissance was in fact a period when thought declined significantly and brought to an end a period of advance in the Late Middle Ages and that the twelfth century was the "real, true, and unqualified renaissance". For example, the rediscovery of ancient knowledge, which the later Italian humanists claimed for themselves, was actually accomplished in the 12th century. Franklin cites many examples of scientific advances in the medieval period that predate or anticipate later 'discoveries'. For example, the first advances in geometrical optics and mechanics were in the 12th century. The first steps in understanding motion, and continuous variation in general, occurred in the 14th century with the work of the scientists of the Merton School, at Oxford in the 1330s and 1340s. (Franklin notes that there is no phrase in ancient Greek or Latin equivalent to "kilometres per hour"). Nicole Oresme, who wrote on theology and money, devoted much of his effort to science


id: continuity-thesis-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_thesis-2.md
category: reference
title: Continuity thesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_thesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:50.355903+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: continuity-thesis-20260505-0
summary:
== Hatfield == Gary Hatfield, in his "Was the Scientific Revolution Really a Revolution of Science?", argues that while the "Scientific Revolution" of the 17th century did have several individual "revolutions", he does not consider the period to be a "scientific" revolution. Some of his reasons include science still being tied to metaphysics at the time, experimental physics not being separated from natural philosophy until the end of the 18th century, and comparable individual "revolutions" in different sciences continued occurring before and after the 17th century, such as the optical revolution of Faraday and Maxwell. == Bala == Another contrary view has been recently proposed by Arun Bala in his dialogical history of the birth of modern science. Bala proposes that the changes involved in the Scientific Revolution — the mathematical realist turn, the mechanical philosophy, the atomism, the central role assigned to the Sun in Copernican heliocentrism — have to be seen as rooted in multicultural influences on Europe. He sees specific influences in Alhazen's physical optical theory, Chinese mechanical technologies leading to the perception of the world as a machine, the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, which carried implicitly a new mode of mathematical atomic thinking, and the heliocentrism rooted


id: conversion-therapy-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy-0.md
category: reference
title: Conversion therapy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:51.595146+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: conversion-therapy-20260505-0
summary:
Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific practice of attempting to change an individual's sexual orientation, romantic orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to align with heterosexual and cisgender norms. Conversion therapy is ineffective at changing a person's sexual orientation or gender identity and frequently causes significant long-term psychological harm. The position of evidence-based medicine and clinical guidance is that sexualities like homosexuality and bisexuality as well as gender variance are natural and healthy aspects of human sexuality and gender identity. When performed, conversion therapy may constitute fraud; when performed on minors it is considered to be a form of child abuse. It has been described by experts as torture; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; and contrary to human rights. Laws on conversion therapy vary, ranging from constitutional protection to a criminal offense. Conversion therapy often consists of methods that involve, but are not limited to: talk therapy, aversion therapy, brain surgery, chemical castration, surgical castration, hypnosis, psychoanalysis, corrective rape, and various religious practices, including prayer and exorcism. == Terminology == Medical professionals and activists consider "conversion therapy" a misnomer, as it does not constitute a legitimate form of therapy. Alternative terms include "sexual orientation change efforts" (SOCE) and "gender identity change


id: conversion-therapy-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy-1.md
category: reference
title: Conversion therapy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:51.595146+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: conversion-therapy-20260505-0
summary:
=== Sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) === The term homosexual was coined by German-speaking Hungarian writer Karl Maria Kertbeny and was in circulation by the 1880s. Into the middle of the twentieth century, competing views of homosexuality were advanced by psychoanalysis versus academic sexology. Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, viewed homosexuality as a form of arrested development. Later psychoanalysts followed Sandor Rado, who argued that homosexuality was a "phobic avoidance of heterosexuality caused by inadequate early parenting". This line of thinking was popular in psychiatric models of homosexuality based on the prison population or homosexuals seeking treatment. In contrast, sexology researchers such as Alfred Kinsey argued that homosexuality was a normal variation in human development. In 1970, gay activists confronted the American Psychiatric Association, persuading the association to reconsider whether homosexuality should be listed as a disorder. The APA delisted homosexuality in 1973, which contributed to shifts in public opinion on homosexuality. Despite their lack of scientific backing, some socially or religiously conservative activists continued to argue that if one person's sexuality could be changed, homosexuality was not a fixed class such as race. Borrowing from discredited psychoanalytic ideas about the cause of homosexuality, some of these individuals offered


id: conversion-therapy-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy-2.md
category: reference
title: Conversion therapy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:51.595146+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: conversion-therapy-20260505-0
summary:
Aversion therapy used on homosexuals and bisexuals included electric shock and nausea-inducing drugs during presentation of same-sex erotic images. Cessation of the aversive stimuli was typically accompanied by the presentation of opposite-sex erotic images, with the objective of strengthening heterosexual feelings. Another method used is the covert sensitization method, which involves instructing recipients to imagine vomiting or receiving electric shocks. Proponents often write that only single-case studies have been conducted to support their methods and that their results cannot be generalized. For example, Haldeman writes that behavioral conditioning studies tend to decrease homosexual feelings but do not increase heterosexual feelings, citing Rangaswami's "Difficulties in arousing and increasing heterosexual responsiveness in a homosexual: A case report", published in 1982, as typical in this respect. Other methods of aversion therapy, in addition to electric shock, included ice baths, freezing, burning via metal coils, and hard labor. The intent was for the subject to associate homosexual feelings with pain and thus result in them being reduced. These methods have been concluded to be ineffective. Aversion therapy was developed in Czechoslovakia between 1950 and 1962 and in the British Commonwealth from 1961 into the mid-1970s. In the context of the Cold War, Western psychologists


id: conversion-therapy-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy-3.md
category: reference
title: Conversion therapy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:51.595146+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: conversion-therapy-20260505-0
summary:
Haldeman writes that psychoanalytic treatment of homosexuality is exemplified by the work of Irving Bieber and colleagues in Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. They advocated long-term therapy aimed at resolving the unconscious childhood conflicts that they considered responsible for homosexuality. Haldeman notes that Bieber's methodology has been criticized because it relied upon a clinical sample, the description of the outcomes was based upon subjective therapist impression, and follow-up data were poorly presented. Bieber reported a 27% success frequency from long-term therapy, but only 18% of those deemed successful were exclusively homosexual initially, while 50% had been bisexual. In Haldeman's view, this makes even Bieber's unimpressive claims of success misleading. Haldeman discusses other psychoanalytic studies of attempts to change homosexuality. Curran and Parr's "Homosexuality: An analysis of 100 male cases", published in 1957, reported no significant increase in heterosexual behavior. Mayerson and Lief's "Psychotherapy of homosexuals: A follow-up study of nineteen cases", published in 1965, reported that half of the 19 subjects included were exclusively heterosexual in behavior four and a half years after treatment; its outcomes were based on patient self-report and had no external validation. In Haldeman's view, those participants in the study who reported change were


id: conversion-therapy-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy-4.md
category: reference
title: Conversion therapy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:51.595146+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: conversion-therapy-20260505-0
summary:
== Effects and evaluation == There is a scientific consensus that conversion therapy is ineffective at changing a person's sexual orientation. Conversion therapy can cause significant, long-term psychological harm. This includes significantly higher rates of depression, substance abuse, and other mental health issues in individuals who have undergone conversion therapy than their peers who did not, including a suicide attempt rate nearly twice that of those who did not. After conversion therapy has failed to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity, participants often feel increased shame that they already felt over their sexual orientation or gender identity. Modern-day practitioners of conversion therapy—primarily from a conservative religious viewpoint—disagree with evidence-based medicine and clinical guidance that does not view homosexuality and gender variance as unnatural or unhealthy. Advocates of conversion therapy rely heavily on testimonials and retrospective self-reports as evidence of effectiveness. Studies purporting to validate the effectiveness of efforts to change sexual orientation or gender identity have been criticized for methodological flaws. According to Bailey et al., claims of successful conversion therapy rely upon self reports of success, however these are unreliable and lack objective evidence, and participants in conversion therapy "may be especially susceptible to believing and reporting that


id: conversion-therapy-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy-5.md
category: reference
title: Conversion therapy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:51.595146+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: conversion-therapy-20260505-0
summary:
National health organizations around the world have uniformly denounced and criticized sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts. They state that there has been no scientific demonstration of "conversion therapy's" efficacy. They find that conversion therapy is ineffective, risky and can be harmful. Anecdotal claims of cures are counterbalanced by assertions of harm, and the American Psychiatric Association, for example, cautions ethical practitioners under the Hippocratic oath to do no harm and to refrain from attempts at conversion therapy. Furthermore, they state that conversion therapy is harmful and that it often exploits individuals' guilt and anxiety, thereby damaging self-esteem and leading to depression and even suicide. A 2025 study completed by the American Medical Association found that 42% of those subjected to conversion therapy attempted suicide, compared to 5% of those not subjected to these practices. For transgender individuals in particular, exposure to conversion therapy before age 10 is associated with a fourfold increase in the risk of lifetime suicide attempts compared to peers who received other forms of therapy. There is also concern in the mental health community that the advancement of conversion therapy can cause social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about gender identity, sexual orientation, and the


id: dei-filius-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Filius-0.md
category: reference
title: Dei Filius
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Filius
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:52.757407+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: dei-filius-20260505-0
summary:
Dei Filius is the incipit of the dogmatic constitution of the First Vatican Council on the Catholic faith, which was adopted unanimously, and issued by Pope Pius IX on 24 April 1870. The constitution set forth the teaching of "the holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" on God, revelation and faith. == Content == The dogmatic constitution "deals with faith, reason, and their interrelations". The document begins by observing that "God, the principle and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason from created things". However, it then explains that, through divine revelation, this knowledge can more easily be attained "with firm assurance, and with no admixture of error". Faith and reason are seen as complementary. Following Thomas Aquinas, whose guiding thought Philip Egan paraphrases as that "it is the same God who grounds all truth, whether secular or divine, and the truth is ultimately one", Dei Filius saidthere can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind; and God can not deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. The false


id: efficacy-of-prayer-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer-0.md
category: reference
title: Efficacy of prayer
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:55.150689+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: efficacy-of-prayer-20260505-0
summary:
The efficacy of prayer has been studied since at least 1872, generally through experiments to determine whether prayer or intercessory prayer has a measurable effect on the health of the person for whom prayer is offered. First-person studies suggest that praying can affect the person praying—sometimes improving physiological measures (like cardiovascular responses) and mental health, though results are mixed and often limited by self-report bias. Third-party studies on intercessory prayer (praying for others) have produced inconsistent results, with the largest and most rigorous trials generally finding no significant effect. While some religious groups argue that the power of prayer is obvious, others question whether it is possible to measure its effect. Dr. Fred Rosner, an authority on Jewish medical ethics, has expressed doubt that prayer could ever be subject to empirical analysis. Basic philosophical questions bear upon the question of the efficacy of prayer – for example, whether statistical inference and falsifiability are sufficient to "prove" or to "disprove" anything, and whether the topic is even within the realm of science. According to The Washington Post, "...prayer is the most common complement to mainstream medicine, far outpacing acupuncture, herbs, vitamins and other alternative remedies." In comparison to other fields that


id: efficacy-of-prayer-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer-1.md
category: reference
title: Efficacy of prayer
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:55.150689+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: efficacy-of-prayer-20260505-0
summary:
=== Medical views === Most scientists dismiss "faith healing" practitioners. Believers assert that faith healing makes no scientific claims and thus should be treated as a matter of faith that is not testable by science. Critics reply that claims of medical cures should be tested scientifically because, although faith in the supernatural is not in itself usually considered to be the purview of science, claims of reproducible effects are nevertheless subject to scientific investigation. Scientists and doctors generally find that faith healing lacks biological plausibility or epistemic warrant, which is one of the criteria used to judge whether clinical research is ethical and financially justified. A Cochrane review of intercessory prayer found "although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer, the majority do not". The authors concluded: "We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available for such a trial used to investigate other questions in health care". An article in the Medical Journal of Australia says that "One common criticism of prayer research is that prayer has become a popular therapeutic method for which there is no known plausible mechanism."


id: european-society-for-the-study-of-science-and-theology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Society_for_the_Study_of_Science_and_Theology-0.md
category: reference
title: European Society for the Study of Science and Theology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Society_for_the_Study_of_Science_and_Theology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:56.290536+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: european-society-for-the-study-of-science-and-theology-20260505-0
summary:
ESSSAT is a scholarly, non-confessional organization, based in Europe, which aims to promote the study of relationships between the natural sciences and theological views. ESSSAT has members from almost every European country as well as members from other continents. They have different confessional backgrounds, and may include believers as well as non-believers and atheists. Every two years, ESSSAT organizes an international conference, each time on a different venue in Europe. Two prizes for outstanding research are awarded on these conferences: the ESSSAT Student Prize and the ESSSAT Research Prize. ESSSAT publishes three series: Issues in Science and Theology (IST), Studies in Science and Theology (SSTh), and ESSSAT-News (a quarterly newsletter). The organization was founded in the mid-1980s. Its current president is Dirk Evers, who succeeded Antje Jackelén, leading ESSSAT from 2008 to 2014. ESSSAT's president from 2002 to 2008 was Dutch theologian Willem B. Drees. == See also == Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (A similar American organization) Zygon Center for Religion and Science (Chicago) (A similar American organization) Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (Berkeley) (A similar American organization) Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science (a related journal) Theology and Science (a related journal) Issues


id: fact-value-distinction-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact–value_distinction-0.md
category: reference
title: Fact–value distinction
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact–value_distinction
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:57.518776+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: fact-value-distinction-20260505-0
summary:
The fact–value distinction is a fundamental epistemological distinction between: Statements of fact (positive or descriptive statements), which are based upon reason and observation, and examined via the empirical method. Statements of value (normative or prescriptive statements), such as good and bad, beauty and ugliness, encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology. This barrier between fact and value, as construed in epistemology, implies it is impossible to derive ethical claims from factual arguments, or to defend the former using the latter. The fact–value distinction is closely related to, and derived from, the is–ought problem in moral philosophy, characterized by David Hume. The terms are often used interchangeably, though philosophical discourse concerning the is–ought problem does not usually encompass aesthetics. == History == === David Hume's skepticism === In A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), David Hume discusses the problems in grounding normative statements in positive statements; that is, in deriving ought from is. It is generally regarded that Hume considered such derivations untenable, and his 'is–ought' problem is considered a principal question of moral philosophy. Hume shared a political viewpoint with early Enlightenment philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704). Specifically, Hume, at least to some


id: fact-value-distinction-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact–value_distinction-1.md
category: reference
title: Fact–value distinction
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact–value_distinction
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:57.518776+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: fact-value-distinction-20260505-0
summary:
=== Moralistic fallacy === The fact–value distinction is also closely related to the moralistic fallacy, an invalid inference of factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises. For example, the invalid inference "Unfaithfulness is immoral, and so it is unnatural to feel desire for others when in a monogamous relationship" is an instance of the moralistic fallacy. Where the naturalistic fallacy attempts to move from an "is" to an "ought" statement, the moralistic fallacy attempts to move from an "ought" to an "is" statement. == Criticisms == Virtually all modern philosophers affirm some sort of fact–value distinction, insofar as they distinguish between science and "valued" disciplines such as ethics, aesthetics, or the fine arts. However, philosophers such as Hilary Putnam argue that the distinction between fact and value is not as absolute as Hume envisioned. Philosophical pragmatists, for instance, believe that true propositions are those that are useful or effective in predicting future (empirical) states of affairs. Far from being value-free, the pragmatists' conception of truth or facts directly relates to an end (namely, empirical predictability) that human beings regard as normatively desirable. Other thinkers, such as N. R. Hanson among others, talk of theory-ladenness, and reject an absolutist fact–value distinction by


id: faith-and-rationality-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality-0.md
category: reference
title: Faith and rationality
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:58.781500+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: faith-and-rationality-20260505-0
summary:
Faith and rationality exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is based on reason or facts. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. The word faith sometimes refers to a belief that is held independently or in spite of reason or empirical evidence, or it can refer to belief based upon a degree of evidential warrant. == Relationship between faith and reason == Rationalists point out that many people hold irrational beliefs, for many reasons. There may be evolutionary causes for irrational beliefs—irrational beliefs may increase our ability to survive and reproduce. One more reason for irrational beliefs can perhaps be explained by operant conditioning. For example, in one study by B. F. Skinner in 1948, pigeons were awarded grain at regular time intervals regardless of their behaviour. The result was that each of the pigeons developed their own idiosyncratic response which had become associated with the consequence of receiving grain. Believers in the value of faith—for example those who believe salvation is possible through faith alone—frequently suggest that everyone holds beliefs arrived at by faith, not reason. One form of belief held "by faith" may be seen existing in a faith as based on warrant. In


id: faraday-institute-for-science-and-religion-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_Institute_for_Science_and_Religion-0.md
category: reference
title: Faraday Institute for Science and Religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_Institute_for_Science_and_Religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:04:59.991622+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: faraday-institute-for-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion is an interdisciplinary academic research institute based in Cambridge, England. It is named after the 19th-century English scientist Michael Faraday, the pioneer of electromagnetic induction. It was established in 2006 by a $2,000,000 grant from the John Templeton Foundation to carry out academic research, to foster understanding of the interaction between science and religion, and to engage public understanding in both these subject areas. The institute also leads debate on wider issues such as sustainability and education. == Senior staff == The institute's Executive Director is Graham Budd, and its Associate Director is Sarah Perrett. The emeritus directors are Denis Alexander and Robert (Bob) White. == Activities == The institute organises a wide range of activities, including: Free, regular lectures and seminars on a range of science and religion topics. Providing access to resources such as downloadable audio and video recordings of over 350 Faraday Institute courses, lectures and seminars. The website also includes a wide range of written material, and an online shop featuring heavily discounted books. Short, intensive weekend, and midweek courses. These are open to graduates or undergraduates from any university in the world, of any faith or none. Discounts


id: steve-fuller-sociologist-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fuller_(sociologist)-0.md
category: reference
title: Steve Fuller (sociologist)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fuller_(sociologist)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:01.437839+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: steve-fuller-sociologist-20260505-0
summary:
Steve William Fuller (born July 12, 1959) is an American social philosopher and philosopher of science in the field of science and technology studies. He is the Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick. He served as the president of the British Science Association's sociology division from 2008 to 2009. He has published in the areas of social epistemology, academic freedom, and in support of intelligent design and transhumanism. == Early life and education == Fuller was born on July 12, 1959, in New York City. He attended Regis High School in Manhattan. After high school, Fuller graduated summa cum laude from Columbia University with a B.A. in history and sociology in 1979. As an undergraduate at Columbia College, he was a John Jay Scholar. After graduation, Fuller was awarded a Kellett Fellowship to complete graduate studies in England at the University of Cambridge, where he earned an M.Phil. in the history of science and philosophy of science in 1981. He then earned his Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from the University of Pittsburgh in 1985, where he was an Andrew Mellon Pre-Doctoral Fellow. Fuller's doctoral dissertation, "Bounded Rationality in Law and Science",


id: steve-fuller-sociologist-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fuller_(sociologist)-1.md
category: reference
title: Steve Fuller (sociologist)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fuller_(sociologist)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:01.437839+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: steve-fuller-sociologist-20260505-0
summary:
=== Intelligent design === Fuller has made many statements about his support for the teaching of intelligent design (ID) and authored two books on the subject. In 2005, in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, he testified on behalf of a local school system in the United States that required the teaching of intelligent design. The decision of the U.S. District Court held that intelligent design was a form of creationism and that its inclusion in the curriculum violated the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on the establishment of religion. The decision repeatedly cited Fuller's testimony to undermine the school system's position. Some of Fuller's critics within the Science and Technology Studies community described his participation in the trial as "naïve" and suggested that the field needs further development before it can constructively engage the legal community on the nature of science. Fuller has said that he does not support intelligent design "but feels that it should have a 'fair run for its money'". In his book Dissent over Descent, he says he sees religion in general as a motivating influence in scientific pursuits and believes that the difference between science and religion is more institutional than intellectual. Critics


id: steve-fuller-sociologist-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fuller_(sociologist)-2.md
category: reference
title: Steve Fuller (sociologist)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fuller_(sociologist)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:01.437839+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: steve-fuller-sociologist-20260505-0
summary:
=== Dissent Over Descent === In 2008, Fuller's book on the intelligent design controversy, Dissent Over Descent: Intelligent Design's Challenge to Darwinism was published. Steven Poole of The Guardian wrote: "book is an epoch-hopping parade of straw men, incompetent reasoning and outright gibberish, as when evolution is argued to share with astrology a commitment to "action at a distance", except that the distance is in time rather than space. It's intellectual quackery like this that gives philosophy of science a bad name." Michael Ruse, Philosopher of Science at Florida State University wrote in the journal Science that Fuller's book "is completely wrong and is backed by no sound scholarship whatsoever. In at least one case, Fuller makes his case by an egregious misreading—of something I wrote about the role of genetic drift in Sewall Wright's shifting balance theory. For the record, Charles Darwin set out to provide a cause, what he called—following his mentors like William Whewell (who in turn referred back to Newton)—a true cause or vera causa. Darwin felt, and historians and philosophers of science as well as practicing evolutionary biologists still feel, that he succeeded…" In a "book of the week" review by retired Divinity Professor Keith


id: steve-fuller-sociologist-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fuller_(sociologist)-3.md
category: reference
title: Steve Fuller (sociologist)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fuller_(sociologist)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:01.437839+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: steve-fuller-sociologist-20260505-0
summary:
=== Journal articles === Fuller, Steve (November 1990). "They shoot dead horses, don't they?: Philosophical fear and sociological loathing in St Louis". Social Studies of Science. 20 (4): 664–681. doi:10.1177/030631290020004005. S2CID 146531717. Fuller, Steve (2005). "Kuhnenstein: or, the importance of being read". Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 35 (4): 480–498. doi:10.1177/0048393105280868. S2CID 54546035. Fuller, Steve; Haworth, Alan (2007). "Academic freedom". The Philosophers' Magazine. 38 (2): 72–77. doi:10.5840/tpm20073864. Debating the "statement of academic freedom" made by Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF). == References == == Further reading == Two essays written as part of a debate on the Sokal hoax and published in The Independent on 28 June 1998: Who's Afraid of Science Studies by Steve Fuller, defending science studies. an annotated bibliography of nonsense Archived 23 June 2016 at the Wayback Machine by Kenan Malik, takes a contrary view to Fuller's (but does not refer to him), criticizing what he considers to be the unrealistically excessive relativism of science studies. Special Issue of Social Epistemology (2003) on Fuller's Kuhn thesis. Remedios, F. (2003). Legitimizing Scientific Knowledge: An Introduction to Steve Fuller's Social Epistemology, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD, USA. Fuller, Steve (2004). "The case of Fuller vs Kuhn". Social Epistemology: A


id: god-gene-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene-0.md
category: reference
title: God gene
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:02.617290+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: god-gene-20260505-0
summary:
The God gene hypothesis proposes that human spirituality is influenced by heredity and that a specific gene, called vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2), predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. The idea has been proposed by geneticist Dean Hamer in the 2004 book called The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes. The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the hypothesis are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2; (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spirituality provides an evolutionary advantage by providing individuals with an innate sense of optimism. == Proposal == According to the God Gene hypothesis, spirituality has a genetic component, of which (VMAT2) comprises one component by contributing to sensations associated with mystic experiences, including the presence of God and feelings of connection to a larger universe. The research uses the self-transcendence scale developed by psychologist Robert Cloninger to quantify spirituality using three sub-scales: "self-forgetfulness" (as in the tendency to become totally absorbed in some activity,


id: god-of-the-gaps-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps-0.md
category: reference
title: God of the gaps
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:03.890881+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: god-of-the-gaps-20260505-0
summary:
"God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century, and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God. This perspective has its origins in the observation that some individuals, often with religious inclinations, point to areas where science falls short in explaining natural phenomena as opportunities to insert the presence of a divine creator. The term itself was coined in response to this tendency. This theological view suggests that God fills in the gaps left by scientific knowledge, and that these gaps represent moments of divine intervention or influence. This concept has been met with criticism and debate from various quarters. Detractors argue that this perspective is problematic as it seems to rely on gaps in human understanding and ignorance to make its case for the existence of God. As scientific knowledge continues to advance, these gaps tend to shrink, potentially weakening the argument for God's existence. Critics contend that such an approach can undermine religious beliefs by suggesting that God only operates in the unexplained areas of our understanding, leaving little room for divine involvement in a comprehensive and coherent worldview. The "God of


id: god-of-the-gaps-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps-1.md
category: reference
title: God of the gaps
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:03.890881+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: god-of-the-gaps-20260505-0
summary:
== General usage == The term "God of the gaps" is sometimes used in describing the incremental retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena in the face of increasingly comprehensive scientific explanations for those phenomena. Dorothy Dinnerstein includes psychological explanations for developmental distortions leading to a person believing in a deity, particularly a male deity. R. Laird Harris writes of the physical science aspect of this: The expression, "God of the Gaps," contains a real truth. It is erroneous if it is taken to mean that God is not immanent in natural law but is only to be observed in mysteries unexplained by law. No significant Christian group has believed this view. It is true, however, if it be taken to emphasize that God is not only immanent in natural law but also is active in the numerous phenomena associated with the supernatural and the spiritual. There are gaps in a physical-chemical explanation of this world, and there always will be. Because science has learned many marvelous secrets of nature, it cannot be concluded that it can explain all phenomena. Meaning, soul, spirits, and life are subjects incapable of physical-chemical explanation or formation. == Usage in referring to a type


id: heart-of-the-matter-tv-series-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_the_Matter_(TV_series)-0.md
category: reference
title: Heart of the Matter (TV series)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_the_Matter_(TV_series)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:15.358462+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: heart-of-the-matter-tv-series-20260505-0
summary:
Heart of the Matter is a British television debate series that aired on BBC One from 1979 to 2000. Presented variously by Joan Bakewell, Helena Kennedy QC and David Jessel, its subject matter was often concerned with religious or ethical issues. Topics covered include subjects as diverse as substance abuse, the effects of anti-personnel landmines, and homosexuality. Bakewell would usually chair an in-studio debate in which invited guests would discuss the edition's chosen topic. An edition from 1996 hosted by Joan Bakewell, The Heart of the Matter: God Under the Microscope, featured a debate on science and religion and included as guests David Starkey, Mary Warnock, Wentzel van Huyssteen, Richard Dawkins, Polish Roman Catholic priest and 2008 Templeton Prize winner cosmologist Prof. Michael Heller, and James Watson. Heart of the Matter was broadcast late on Sunday evenings, usually alternating with the similarly themed Everyman, though the latter tended to have more of a religious focus. Both programmes were cancelled in the 2000s following a revamp of BBC output. == References == == External links == Heart of the Matter at IMDb Heart of the Matter at the British Film Institute


id: history-of-the-extraterrestrial-life-debate-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate-0.md
category: reference
title: History of the extraterrestrial life debate
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:16.653203+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: history-of-the-extraterrestrial-life-debate-20260505-0
summary:
The existence of extraterrestrial life is a scientific idea that has been debated for centuries. Initially, the question was purely speculative; in modern times a limited amount of scientific evidence provides some answers. The idea was first proposed in Ancient Greece, where it was supported by atomists and rejected by Aristotelians. The debate continued during the Middle Ages, when the discussion centered upon whether the notion of extraterrestrial life was compatible with the doctrines of Christianity. The Copernican Revolution radically altered mankind's image of the architecture of the cosmos by removing Earth from the center of the universe, which made the concept of extraterrestrial life more plausible. Today we have no conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial life, but experts in many different disciplines gather to study the idea under the scientific umbrella of astrobiology. == Ancient Greece == During the early days of the history of astronomy the things seen in the night sky were explained as the actions of mythological deities. However, it soon became evident that celestial objects move and behave in regular and predictable patterns, which helped in keeping track of time, tides, and seasons, crucial for ancient agriculture. Most ancient civilizations had great knowledge of astronomy but


id: history-of-the-extraterrestrial-life-debate-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate-1.md
category: reference
title: History of the extraterrestrial life debate
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:16.653203+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: history-of-the-extraterrestrial-life-debate-20260505-0
summary:
The Greeks discussed as well the possible existence of other worlds, but did not consider the planets as such. In their view, the celestial sphere was a part of Earth and other potential worlds would have their own ones. There was consensus that the world was made of the four classical elements, earth, water, fire and air. From there, they had two opposite ideas: Atomists thought that all existence was composed by atoms, small and indivisible pieces of the four elements, and Aristotelians thought that the four elements were exclusive to Earth and that the universe was made of a fifth one, the Aether. The atomist view would allow the existence of other worlds, as the processes that created Earth may happen elsewhere as well. Although very few of their writings were preserved, it is known that early atomists Leucippus and Democritus thought that atoms should create other worlds the same way Earth was created. Epicurus said in his "Letter to Herodotus" that "There are infinite worlds both like and unlike this world of ours... we must believe that in all worlds there are living creatures and plants and other things we see in this world". Aristotle and Plato opposed


id: history-of-the-extraterrestrial-life-debate-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate-2.md
category: reference
title: History of the extraterrestrial life debate
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:16.653203+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: history-of-the-extraterrestrial-life-debate-20260505-0
summary:
Nicolaus Copernicus published De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543, kickstarting the Copernican Revolution. This book restored and updated the old idea of Aristarchus that Earth spins around the sun. The new version was written with so much mathematical detail that it could contest the Ptolemaic model. By this time, scientists noticed several inaccuracies in the Ptolemaic model. They were more open to revising it, but largely kept using it because of the huge work involved in changing the tables. Copernicus thought that Earth spinning around the sun could provide a simpler explanation for the retrograde motion of the planets, and calculated the distance of the planets to the Sun. However, he kept the idea of circular orbits, and added several composite orbits to explain the errors caused by it. Although he correctly displaced the center of the Solar System, this first model turned out to be as inaccurate and as complex as the Ptolematic one, and did not get much supporters in the first decades. A recurring problem for both models was the lack of quality data, as the telescope had not been invented yet and naked eye observations are highly inaccurate. The Danish Tycho Brahe sought to gather such


id: history-of-the-extraterrestrial-life-debate-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate-3.md
category: reference
title: History of the extraterrestrial life debate
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:16.653203+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: history-of-the-extraterrestrial-life-debate-20260505-0
summary:
However, some scientists had concerns over the new model. Aristotle had once stated that Earth could not move because, if it did so, birds, clouds, and falling objects would be left behind. Orbits had to be circular because the heavens had to be perfect and unchanging. And if Earth moved, the stars should leave a stellar parallax. Those concerns were addressed by Galileo Galilei. First, he explained that an object in motion stays in motion unless a force stops it; a principle nowadays included in the first of Newton's laws of motion. The idea of heavenly perfection was already being challenged by Tycho's observations. Tycho had observed a supernova, which proved that sometimes the heavens do change. The newly invented telescope also revealed "imperfections" in celestial bodies: the sun was shown with sunspots, and the Moon has many features such as craters and mountain ranges. If the heavens were not as perfect as originally considered, then the idea that orbits are not perfect circles was not so questionable. Galileo also discovered the Galilean moons of Jupiter, celestial bodies orbiting another planet, and the phases of Venus. The existence of the Galilean moons refuted the common argument that the Moon would


id: institute-on-religion-in-an-age-of-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_on_Religion_in_an_Age_of_Science-0.md
category: reference
title: Institute on Religion in an Age of Science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_on_Religion_in_an_Age_of_Science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:17.923186+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: institute-on-religion-in-an-age-of-science-20260505-0
summary:
The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS) is a non-denominational society that promotes and facilitates the ongoing dialectic between religion and science. The Institute has held annual week-long conferences at Star Island in New Hampshire since 1954. The conference attracts about 250 members and non-members each year. The 1964 conference, for example, was attended by 215 conferees, with speeches by figures including Theodosius Dobzhansky. == Mission == In its Constitution, the IRAS purpose is stated as follows: "The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science is established to promote creative efforts leading to the formulation, in the light of contemporary knowledge, of effective doctrines and practice for human welfare; to formulate dynamic and positive relationships between the concepts developed by science and the goals and hopes of humanity expressed through religion; and to state human values in such universal and valid terms that they be understood by all peoples, whatever their cultural background or experience, in such a way as to provide a basis for world-wide cooperation. The IRAS Council adopted the following statement in 2003: "We at IRAS take the natural world seriously as a primary source of meaning. Our quest is informed and guided


id: intelligent-design-and-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science-0.md
category: reference
title: Intelligent design and science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:19.143513+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: intelligent-design-and-science-20260505-0
summary:
The relationship between intelligent design and science has been a contentious one. Intelligent design (ID) is presented by its proponents as science and claims to offer an alternative to evolution. The Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank and the leading proponent of intelligent design, launched a campaign entitled "Teach the Controversy", which claims that a controversy exists within the scientific community over evolution. The scientific community rejects intelligent design as a form of creationism, and the basic facts of evolution are not a matter of controversy in science. == "Teach the Controversy" == The intelligent design movement states that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved. The movement stresses the importance of recognizing the existence of this supposed debate, seeking to convince the public, politicians, and cultural leaders that schools should "Teach the Controversy". In fact, there is no such controversy in the scientific community; the scientific consensus is that life evolved. Intelligent design is widely viewed as a stalking horse for its proponents' campaign against what they say is the materialist foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God. == Neo-creationism == Advocates of intelligent design from a Christian


id: intelligent-design-and-science-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science-1.md
category: reference
title: Intelligent design and science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:19.143513+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: intelligent-design-and-science-20260505-0
summary:
== Inter-faith outreach == Supporters of intelligent design have also reached out to other faith groups with similar accounts of creation with the hope that the broader coalition will have greater influence in supporting science education that does not contradict their religious views. Many religious bodies have responded by expressing support for evolution. The Roman Catholic Church has stated that religious faith is fully compatible with science, which is limited to dealing only with the natural world—a position described by the term theistic evolution. While some in the Roman Catholic Church reject Intelligent design for various philosophical and theological reasons, others, such as Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, have shown support for it. The arguments of intelligent design have been directly challenged by the over 10,000 clergy who signed the Clergy Letter Project. Prominent scientists who strongly express religious faith, such as the astronomer George Coyne and the biologist Ken Miller, have been at the forefront of opposition to intelligent design. While creationist organizations have welcomed intelligent design's support against naturalism, they have also been critical of its refusal to identify the designer, and have pointed to previous failures of the same argument. Rabbi Natan Slifkin directly criticized the advocates


id: intelligent-design-and-science-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science-2.md
category: reference
title: Intelligent design and science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:19.143513+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: intelligent-design-and-science-20260505-0
summary:
== Peer review == The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being accepted as valid science. The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article supporting ID in a scientific journal, and has failed to publish peer-reviewed research or data supporting ID. Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data and which require explanations to be based on empirical evidence. Dembski, Behe and other intelligent design proponents say bias by the scientific community is to blame for the failure of their research to be published. Intelligent design proponents believe that their writings are rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic, non-supernatural mechanisms rather than because their research is not up to "journal standards", and that the merit of their articles is overlooked. Some scientists describe this claim as a conspiracy theory. Michael Shermer has rebutted the claim, noting "Anyone who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference." He noted that scientists such as


id: intelligent-design-and-science-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science-3.md
category: reference
title: Intelligent design and science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:19.143513+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: intelligent-design-and-science-20260505-0
summary:
== Intelligence as an observable quality == The phrase intelligent design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no scientific consensus definition. William Dembski, for example, has written that "Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature". The characteristics of intelligence are assumed by intelligent design proponents to be observable without specifying what the criteria for the measurement of intelligence should be. Dembski, instead, asserts that "in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable". How this appeal is made and what this implies as to the definition of intelligence are topics left largely unaddressed. Seth Shostak, a researcher with the SETI Institute, disputed Dembski's comparison of SETI and intelligent design, saying that intelligent design advocates base their inference of design on complexity—the argument being that some biological systems are too complex to have been made by natural processes—while SETI researchers are looking primarily for artificiality. Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they


id: international-society-for-science-and-religion-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Science_and_Religion-0.md
category: reference
title: International Society for Science and Religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Science_and_Religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:20.353366+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: international-society-for-science-and-religion-20260505-0
summary:
The International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) is a learned society established in 2001 for the purpose of the promotion of education through the support of inter-disciplinary learning and research in the fields of science and religion conducted where possible in an international and multi-faith context. The Society took shape after a four-day conference in Granada, Spain. The society’s central office is based at St. Edmund's College at the University of Cambridge. ISSR's daily operations are run by the Executive Secretary, Professor Fraser Watts in the UK, and Anthony K Nairn in Canada. == Membership == Membership is by nomination only. The title of Fellow of ISSR (FISSR) is granted to all successful nominees. ISSR has over 350 current Members across the globe. There were 97 founding Members, including five Fellows of the Royal Society. === Varieties of faith tradition === Although many of the founders of the ISSR are Christians, the society actively welcomes members from other faith traditions. The book Why the Science and Religion Dialogue Matters produced by the Society has major contributions from: John Polkinghorne, George Ellis, Holmes Rolston III and Fraser Watts (who are Christians), on why the science and religion dialogue matters Carl


id: jehovah-s-witnesses-and-blood-transfusions-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions-0.md
category: reference
title: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:21.584419+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jehovah-s-witnesses-and-blood-transfusions-20260505-0
summary:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits Christians from accepting blood transfusions. Their literature states that, "abstaining from ... blood" means not accepting blood transfusions and not donating or storing their own blood for transfusion." This interpretation of scripture is unusual and is one of the doctrines for which Jehovah's Witnesses are best known. Jehovah's Witnesses' literature teaches that their refusal of transfusions of whole blood or its four primary components—red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma—is a non-negotiable religious stand and that those who respect life as a gift from God do not try to sustain life by taking in blood, even in an emergency. Witnesses are taught that the use of fractions such as albumin, immunoglobulins, and hemophiliac preparations are not absolutely prohibited and are instead a matter of personal choice. The doctrine was introduced in 1945 and has undergone some changes since then. Members of the group who voluntarily accept a transfusion and are not deemed repentant are regarded as having disassociated themselves from the group by abandoning its doctrines and are subsequently shunned by members of the organization. Although the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses accept the doctrine, a minority do not. The Watch Tower Society has


id: jehovah-s-witnesses-and-blood-transfusions-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions-1.md
category: reference
title: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:21.584419+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jehovah-s-witnesses-and-blood-transfusions-20260505-0
summary:
108,000 physicians have expressed their willingness to respect the wishes of Jehovah’s Witnesses and provide bloodless treatment and about 200 hospitals offer bloodless medicine and surgery programs for patients who wish to avoid or limit blood transfusions. Bloodless surgery has been successfully performed in significant procedures including open-heart surgery and total hip replacements. A 2012 study in JAMA Internal Medicine concluded that "Witnesses do not appear to be at increased risk for surgical complications or long-term mortality when comparisons are properly made by transfusion status. Thus, current extreme blood management strategies do not appear to place patients at heightened risk for reduced long-term survival." The study also stated that "Survival estimates of Witnesses were 86%, 69%, 51%, and 34% at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after surgery, respectively, vs 74%, 53%, 35%, and 23% among non-Witnesses who received transfusions." Bloodless medical and surgical techniques have limitations, and surgeons say the use of various allogeneic blood products and pre-operative autologous blood transfusion are appropriate standards of care for certain patient presentations. The Watch Tower Society states that in medical emergencies where blood transfusions seem to be the only available way to save a life, Jehovah's Witnesses request that doctors provide


id: jehovah-s-witnesses-and-blood-transfusions-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions-2.md
category: reference
title: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:21.584419+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jehovah-s-witnesses-and-blood-transfusions-20260505-0
summary:
== Acceptance among Jehovah's Witnesses == Since the elaboration of the blood doctrine to the point of prohibiting transfusion, the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses have adopted the organization's position. Those Jehovah's Witnesses who accept the blood doctrine typically hold strongly to their convictions. In the August 1998 issue of Academic Emergency Medicine, Donald Ridley, a Jehovah's Witness and organization staff attorney, argued that carrying an up-to-date Medical Directive card issued by the organization indicates that an individual personally agrees with the established religious position of Jehovah's Witness. In 1958, The Watchtower reported on a particular member of Jehovah's Witnesses who voluntarily accepted blood transfusion, contrary to Watch Tower Society doctrine. The organization confirms that members have accepted blood transfusions, despite the imposition in 1961 of a communal shunning policy for willful acceptance. In 1982, a peer-reviewed case study of a congregation of 59 Jehovah's Witnesses was undertaken by Drs. Larry J. Findley and Paul M. Redstone to evaluate individual belief in respect to blood among Jehovah's Witnesses. The researchers stated, "The members of this congregation are adamant in their refusal to accept all blood products... Not one of the members stated they would receive a blood transfusion even if their


id: jehovah-s-witnesses-and-blood-transfusions-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions-3.md
category: reference
title: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:21.584419+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jehovah-s-witnesses-and-blood-transfusions-20260505-0
summary:
In September 1945, representatives of the Watch Tower Society in the Netherlands commented on blood transfusion in the Dutch edition of Consolation. A translation of their comments into English reads: When we lose our life because we refuse inoculations, that does not bear witness as a justification of Jehovah's name. God never issued regulations which prohibit the use of drugs, inoculations or blood transfusions. It is an invention of people, who, like the Pharisees, leave Jehovah's mercy and love aside. According to sociologist Richard Singelenbreg, the statement appearing in the Dutch edition of Consolation may have been published without knowledge of the doctrinal position published in the English July 1945 issue of Consolation by the Watch Tower Society's headquarters in the United States. In 1945, the application of the doctrine on blood was expanded to prohibit blood transfusions of whole blood, whether allogeneic or autologous. The prohibition did not specify any punitive measures for accepting a transfusion, but by January 1961—in what was later described as an application of "increased strictness"—it was ruled that it was a disfellowshipping offense to conscientiously accept a blood transfusion. The Watch Tower Society warned that accepting a blood transfusion "may result in the immediate


id: jehovah-s-witnesses-and-blood-transfusions-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions-4.md
category: reference
title: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:21.584419+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jehovah-s-witnesses-and-blood-transfusions-20260505-0
summary:
=== Scriptural interpretation === Dissident Witnesses say the Society's use of Leviticus 17:12 to support its opposition to blood transfusions conflicts with its own teachings that Christians are not under the Mosaic law. Theologian Anthony Hoekema claims the blood prohibited in Levitical laws was not human, but animal. He cites other authors who support his view that the direction in Acts 15 to abstain from blood was intended not as an everlasting covenant but a means of maintaining a peaceful relationship between Jewish and Gentile Christians. He has described as "absurd literalism" the Witnesses' use of a scriptural prohibition on eating blood to prohibit the medical transfusion of human blood. === Coercion === Osamu Muramoto has argued that the refusal by Jehovah's Witnesses of "life-saving" blood treatment creates serious bio-medical ethical issues. He has criticized the "controlling intervention" of the Watch Tower Society by means of what he claims is information control and its policy of penalising members who accept blood transfusions or advocate freedom to choose blood-based treatment. He says the threat of being classified as a disassociated Witness and subsequently shunned by friends and relatives who are members coerces Jehovah's Witnesses to accept and obey the prohibition on


id: jehovah-s-witnesses-and-blood-transfusions-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions-5.md
category: reference
title: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:21.584419+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jehovah-s-witnesses-and-blood-transfusions-20260505-0
summary:
=== Selective use of information === Muramoto has claimed many Watch Tower Society publications employ exaggeration and emotionalism to emphasize the dangers of transfusions and the advantages of alternative treatments but present a distorted picture by failing to report any benefits of blood-based treatment. Nor do its publications acknowledge that in some situations, including rapid and massive haemorrhage, there are no alternatives to blood transfusions. He states that Watch Tower Society publications often discuss the risk of death as a result of refusing blood transfusions, but give little consideration to the prolonged suffering and disability, producing an added burden on family and society, that can result from refusal. Attorney and former Witness Kerry Louderback-Wood also claims that Witness publications exaggerate the medical risks of taking blood and the efficiency of non-blood medical therapies in critical situations. Douglas E. Cowan, an academic in the sociology of religion, has claimed that members of the Christian countercult movement who criticize the Watch Tower Society make selective use of information themselves. For example, Christian apologist Richard Abanes wrote that their ban on blood transfusions "has led to countless Witness deaths over the years, including many children." Cowan wrote: "When the careful reader checks [Abanes'


id: jehovah-s-witnesses-and-blood-transfusions-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions-6.md
category: reference
title: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:21.584419+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jehovah-s-witnesses-and-blood-transfusions-20260505-0
summary:
== Further reading == Sloan JM, Ballen K (May 2008). "SCT in Jehovah's Witnesses: the bloodless transplant". Bone Marrow Transplant. 41 (10): 837–44. doi:10.1038/bmt.2008.5. PMID 18246110. S2CID 12256769. Bayam L, Tait WF, Macartney ID (2007). "Successful repair of a giant abdominal aortoiliac aneurysm in a Jehovah's Witness". Vasc Endovascular Surg. 41 (5): 460–2. doi:10.1177/1538574407303172. PMID 17942864. S2CID 20999081. Massiah N, Athimulam S, Loo C, Okolo S, Yoong W (October 2007). "Obstetric care of Jehovah's Witnesses: a 14-year observational study". Arch Gynecol Obstet. 276 (4): 339–43. doi:10.1007/s00404-007-0346-0. PMID 17522882. S2CID 8416402. Putney, Leeann J. (July–September 2007). "Bloodless cardiac surgery: not just possible, but preferable". Crit Care Nurs Q. 30 (3): 263–70. doi:10.1097/01.CNQ.0000278927.44691.8c. PMID 17579310. S2CID 44846538. "Free copy" (PDF). CEConnection for Allied Health. Retrieved May 15, 2022. Eilers, June; Rounds, Luisa (2007). "Blood Transfusion or Not: A Literature Review of Bloodless Interventions to Treat Cancer Related Anemia". Oncology Nursing Forum. 34 (2): 553–554. Archived from the original on April 15, 2009. == External links == Official website of Jehovah's Witnesses How Can Blood Save Your Life? published by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society Why Don't Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Blood Transfusions? from the official website Bloodless Surgeries and Jehovah's Witnesses PBS


id: john-templeton-foundation-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation-0.md
category: reference
title: John Templeton Foundation
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:22.819271+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: john-templeton-foundation-20260505-0
summary:
The John Templeton Foundation (Templeton Foundation) is a philanthropic organization founded by John Templeton in 1987. Templeton became wealthy as a contrarian investor, and wanted to support progress in religious and spiritual knowledge, especially at the intersection of religion and science. He also sought to fund research on methods to promote and develop moral character, intelligence, and creativity in people, and to promote free markets. In 2008, the foundation was awarded the National Humanities Medal. In 2016, Inside Philanthropy called it "the oddest—or most interesting—big foundation around." Templeton was chairman until he died in 2008. Templeton's son, John Templeton Jr., was its president from its founding until his death in 2015, at which point Templeton Jr.'s daughter, Heather Templeton Dill, became president. The foundation administers the annual Templeton Prize for achievements in the field of spirituality, including those at the intersection of science and religion. It has an extensive grant-funding program (around $150 million per year as of 2016) aimed at supporting research in physics, biology, psychology, and the social sciences as well as philosophy and theology. It also supports programs related to genetics, "exceptional cognitive talent and genius" and "individual freedom and free markets". The foundation receives both praise


id: john-templeton-foundation-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation-1.md
category: reference
title: John Templeton Foundation
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:22.819271+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: john-templeton-foundation-20260505-0
summary:
==== Black Hole Initiative ==== In 2016, the foundation granted over seven million dollars to the Black Hole Initiative (BHI), an interdisciplinary program at Harvard University that includes the fields of Astronomy, Physics and Philosophy, and is said to be the first center in the world to focus on the study of black holes. Notable principal participants include Sheperd Doeleman, Peter Galison, Avi Loeb, Ramesh Narayan, Andrew Strominger, and Shing-Tung Yau. The BHI Inauguration was held on 18 April 2016 and was attended by Stephen Hawking; related workshop events were held on 19 April 2016. ==== Complexity at the Santa Fe Institute ==== In 2015, the Santa Fe Institute was awarded a three-year, $2.5 million grant to support the development of a general theory of complexity, constituting "a concise, parsimonious, and potentially mathematizable framework for understanding complex adaptive systems". === Biology and human development === In 2016, the foundation awarded $5.4 million to the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution (FfAME) to study the origin of life on Earth, particularly investigating questions of how early RNA interacted with water, which is necessary for life but also degrades RNA, and how the introduction of energy to organic materials yielded life rather than


id: john-templeton-foundation-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation-2.md
category: reference
title: John Templeton Foundation
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:22.819271+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: john-templeton-foundation-20260505-0
summary:
==== Scientific development of virtue interventions ==== In 2019, the foundation awarded $2.6 million grant to Sarah Schnitker of Baylor University and Benjamin Houltberg of the University of Southern California to "galvanize widespread scientific development of virtue interventions for adolescents across a diversity of contexts". A grant from the foundation supports a study of religion and health conducted by Tyler VanderWeele of Harvard University. VanderWeele is the John L. Loeb and Frances Lehman Loeb Professor of Epidemiology in the Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and co-director the University's Initiative on Health, Religion and Spirituality. His research has focused on the application of causal inference to epidemiology, as well as on the relationship between religion and health. === Science education === The foundation has provided grants in support of dialogue with scientists in synagogues, and a grant for advancing scientific literacy in madrasas. It has also sponsored a major, multi-year, multi-million-dollar effort to integrate science education in North American seminaries, including Mainline Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, and Catholic and Orthodox institutions. === History === The foundation provided funding for the book Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, which


id: john-templeton-foundation-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation-3.md
category: reference
title: John Templeton Foundation
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:22.819271+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: john-templeton-foundation-20260505-0
summary:
=== Intelligent design === A 2007 article in the Los Angeles Times described the foundation as having "drawn criticism for its early support of intelligent design". Charles L. Harper Jr., a former senior vice president of the foundation, told BusinessWeek in 2005 that the foundation had become one of the "principal critics" of the intelligent design movement and funded projects that challenged that movement. Harper Jr. told The New York Times the same year: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review". Some organizations funded by the foundation in the 1990s gave book-writing grants to Guillermo Gonzalez and to William Dembski, proponents of intelligent design who later joined the Discovery Institute. The foundation also gave money directly to the Discovery Institute which in turn passed it through to Baylor University, which used the funds to support Dembski's salary at its short-lived Michael Polanyi Center. The foundation funded projects by Bruce L. Gordon, associate director of the center, after the center was dissolved. Some media outlets described the foundation as a supporter of intelligent design during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District litigation


id: journal-of-psychology-theology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Psychology_&_Theology-0.md
category: reference
title: Journal of Psychology & Theology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Psychology_&_Theology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:24.127951+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: journal-of-psychology-theology-20260505-0
summary:
The Journal of Psychology & Theology (JPT) is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Biola University's Rosemead School of Psychology and has been operating continuously since 1973. JPT is a quarterly journal publishing original research on the integration of psychology and Christian theology. Empirical studies and theoretical pieces investigating the interrelationships between psychological (e.g., clinical, experimental, industrial/organizational, social, theoretical) and theological topics of study are considered. Scholarship that explores the application of these interrelationships in a variety of contexts (e.g., mental health counseling, education and training, organizational leadership, churches and other Christian ministry contexts) and/or from an intercultural perspective are encouraged. == References == == External links == Official website


id: law-of-three-stages-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_three_stages-0.md
category: reference
title: Law of three stages
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_three_stages
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:25.452233+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: law-of-three-stages-20260505-0
summary:
The law of three stages is an idea developed by Auguste Comte in his work The Course in Positive Philosophy. It states that society as a whole, and each particular science, develops through three mentally conceived stages: (1) the theological stage, (2) the metaphysical stage, and (3) the positive stage. == Stages of sociology == === Theological === The Theological stage refers to the appeal to personified deities. During the earlier stages, people believed that all the phenomena of nature were the creation of the divine or supernatural. Adults and children failed to discover the natural causes of various phenomena and hence attributed them to a supernatural or divine power. Comte broke this stage into 3 sub-stages: Fetishism The primary stage of the theological stage of thinking. Throughout this stage, primitive people believe that inanimate objects have living spirits in them, also known as animism. People worship inanimate objects like trees, stones, a pieces of wood, volcanic eruptions, etc. Through this practice, people believe that all things root from a supernatural source. Polytheism At one point, Fetishism began to bring about doubt in the minds of its believers. As a result, people turned towards polytheism: the explanation of things through


id: list-of-scholars-on-the-relationship-between-religion-and-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scholars_on_the_relationship_between_religion_and_science-0.md
category: reference
title: List of scholars on the relationship between religion and science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scholars_on_the_relationship_between_religion_and_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:26.662783+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-scholars-on-the-relationship-between-religion-and-science-20260505-0
summary:
This is a list of notable individuals who have focused on studying the intersection of religion and science. == A == S. Alexander Gordon W. Allport: noted Behavioural Psychologist & author of The Individual and his Religion (1951). Nathan Aviezer == B == Ian Barbour: author of Issues in Science and Religion (1966). E.W. Barnes Stephen M. Barr: author of The Believing Scientist: Essays on Science and Religion (2016). Description & arrow/scrollable preview. Arnold O. Benz: astrophysicist at ETH Zurich, author of The Future of the Universe (2002) and Astrophysics and Creation (2017) Mani Lal Bhaumik: author of Code Name God (2005). Nader El-Bizri: author of The Phenomenological Quest between Avicenna and Heidegger, general editor of the series Epistles of the Brethren of Purity (tenth century encyclopaedia of science, philosophy and religion), co-Editor of Islamic Philosophy and Occidental Phenomenology in Dialogue, and editor of the "Islam Division" of Encyclopaedia of Sciences and Religions. John Hedley Brooke: Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford (1999–2006) Ralph Wendell Burhoe: an important twentieth century pioneer interpreter of the importance of religion for a scientific and technological world. E. A. Burtt: author of The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical


id: list-of-scholars-on-the-relationship-between-religion-and-science-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scholars_on_the_relationship_between_religion_and_science-1.md
category: reference
title: List of scholars on the relationship between religion and science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scholars_on_the_relationship_between_religion_and_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:26.662783+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: list-of-scholars-on-the-relationship-between-religion-and-science-20260505-0
summary:
== N == Seyyed Hossein Nasr: author of the chapter on Islam and science (pp. 71–86) in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (2006) Ronald L. Numbers: co-editors of two anthologies on the relationship between religion and science. == O == Thomas Jay Oord: author of Defining Love (2010). == P == Kuruvilla Pandikattu: Author of six books on the relationship between Science and Religion, including Religion@scientist.com and Ever Approachable, Never Attainable: Science-Religion Dialogue in India. Arthur Peacocke: author of Creation and the World of Science (1979). Robert T. Pennock: author of Tower of Babel a strong defense of Darwinian evolution and the chapter on "The Pre-modern Sins of Intelligent Design" (pp. 732–748) in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (2006) John Polkinghorne: author of Science and Theology (1998) and Faith, Science and Understanding (2000). William G. Pollard: author of a significant amount of material in the areas of science and religion such as Physicist and Christian: A dialogue between the communities (1961) William B. Provine: author of the chapter on "Evolution, Religion, and Science" (pp. 652–666) in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (2006) Mihajlo Pupin == R == Ian Ramsey: author of Religious Language (1957).


id: metanexus-institute-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanexus_Institute-0.md
category: reference
title: Metanexus Institute
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanexus_Institute
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:29.214283+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: metanexus-institute-20260505-0
summary:
The Metanexus Institute is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1997 to explore scientific and philosophical questions. The institute has organized the exchange of ideas through conferences and published books. It has EIN 23-2977021 as a 501(c)(3) Public Charity; in 2016, it claimed $28,249 in total revenue and $8,827 in total assets. == History == With the help of Peter Dodson, Soloman Katz, Andrew Newberg, and Stephen Dunning, William Grassie created the Philadelphia Center for Religion and Science (PCRS) to promote literacy in science and religion by hosting seminars, courses, and conferences. PCRS was renamed to Metanexus Institute in 2000, and the Meta-List was relaunched as a website with the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, and Metanexus launched a $5.1 million Local Societies Initiative. In 2003, Metanexus launched the $3.3 million Spiritual Transformation Scientific Research Project. The organization hosted numerous conferences at universities and elsewhere, including a conference entitled Science and Religion in Context at the University of Pennsylvania. Metanexus has promoted the concept of Big History, sometimes termed the Epic of Evolution, which examines history using long time frames through a multidisciplinary approach. == References == == External links == Metanexus Institute


id: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution-0.md
category: reference
title: Mormon views on evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:30.553181+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) takes no official position on whether or not biological evolution has occurred, nor on the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis as a scientific theory. In the twentieth century, the First Presidency of the LDS Church published doctrinal statements on the origin of man and creation. In addition, individual leaders of the church have expressed a variety of personal opinions on evolution, many of which have affected the beliefs and perceptions of Latter-day Saints. There have been three public statements from the First Presidency (1909, 1910, 1925) and one private statement from the First Presidency (1931) about the LDS Church's view on evolution. The 1909 statement was a delayed response to the publication of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. In the statement, the First Presidency affirmed their doctrine that Adam is the direct, divine offspring of God. In response to the 1911 Brigham Young University modernism controversy, the First Presidency issued an official statement in its 1910 Christmas message that the church members should be kind to everyone regardless of differences in opinion about evolution and that proven science is accepted by the church with joy. In


id: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution-1.md
category: reference
title: Mormon views on evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:30.553181+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
==== 1909 statement "The Origin of Man" ==== Historically, Latter-day Saints were isolated in the western plains when The Origin of Species was published by Charles Darwin in 1859. Consequently, there was little discussion about evolution among Mormon communities. The Latter-day Saints were trying to survive and build settlements in Utah and evolution was not a prominent concern for them. George Q. Cannon of the Quorum of the Twelve discussed his beliefs on Darwin in 1861, stating that revelation is superior to science, but considered the possibility of evolution among animals and plants. The building of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 allowed for the Saints to gain greater access to outside ideas and influences. Because of this new knowledge, Mormon schools sought to combat scientific theories such as evolution with faith. Publications helped reaffirm church doctrine; however, views on evolution were mixed. Some believed a belief in evolution was equivalent to atheism, whereas some sought to find common ground between evolution and faith. Due to the many differing opinions that emerged, in the early 1900s the LDS Church began to officially respond to the theories that had already been discussed for nearly fifty years. The first official statement from the


id: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution-2.md
category: reference
title: Mormon views on evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:30.553181+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
=== General conference speeches === The LDS Church has published several general conference talks mentioning evolution. In the October 1984 conference, apostle Boyd K. Packer stated that "no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles" as well as affirming that "those who accept the theory of evolution don't show much enthusiasm for genealogical research." In the April 2012 conference, apostle Russell M. Nelson discussed the human body stating "some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere". He then compared this to an "explosion in a printing shop produc[ing] a dictionary". === Instruction manuals === ==== Old Testament Student Seminary Manual ==== The Old Testament Student Manual, published by the Church Educational System, contains several quotes by general authorities as well as academics from a variety of backgrounds (both members of the church and non-members) related to organic evolution and the origins of the earth. The 2003 edition states that there is no official stance on the age of the earth but that evidence for a longer process is substantial and very few people believe the earth was actually created in


id: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution-3.md
category: reference
title: Mormon views on evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:30.553181+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
==== Improvement Era ==== The Improvement Era was an official periodical of the church between 1897 and 1970. In the April 1910 edition in the "Priesthood Quorum's Table" section of that periodical, Genesis is cited as well as other scriptures from Genesis and the Pearl of Great Price. The article states that it is unclear whether the mortal bodies of man evolved through natural processes, whether Adam and Eve where transplanted to Earth from another place, or whether they were born on Earth in mortality. The article states that those questions are not fully answered in the church's current revelation and scripture. The article cites the answer is attributed to the church's First Presidency. === Canonized scriptures === Some verses in the standard works raise questions about the compatibility of scriptural teachings and scientists' current understanding of organic evolution. One such verse, in Doctrine and Covenants describes the "temporal existence" of the earth as 7,000 years old. Other scriptural verses suggest that no organisms died before the fall of Adam. In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Lehi teaches: "If Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And


id: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution-4.md
category: reference
title: Mormon views on evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:30.553181+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
=== David O. McKay === In a 1952 speech to students at BYU, McKay used the theory of evolution as an example while suggesting that science can "leave [a student] with his soul unanchored." He stated that a professor that denies "divine agency in creation" imposes on the student that life was created by chance. McKay insisted that students should be led to a "counterbalancing thought" that "God is the Creator of the earth", "the Father of our souls and spirits", and "the purpose of creation is theirs (God and Jesus Christ)." In the April 1968 general conference, McKay's son, David, read a message on his father's behalf that was an edited version of the 1952 speech, including the omission of the word "beautiful" when describing the theory of evolution. In 1954, McKay quoted the Old Testament while affirming to members of the BYU faculty that living things only reproduce "after their kind". He quoted Genesis which states, "Let the earth bring forth the living creatures after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and the beast of the earth after his kind." === Spencer W. Kimball === At a 1975 church women's conference, church president Spencer W. Kimball quoted, "And,


id: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution-5.md
category: reference
title: Mormon views on evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:30.553181+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
=== Statements from the 1930s Roberts–Smith–Talmage dispute === In 1930, B. H. Roberts, the presiding member of the First Council of the Seventy, was assigned by the First Presidency to create a study manual for the Melchizedek priesthood holders of the church. Entitled The Truth, The Way, The Life, the draft of the manual that was submitted to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for approval stated that death had been occurring on Earth for millions of years prior to the fall of Adam and that human-like pre-Adamites had lived on the Earth. On 5 April 1930, Joseph Fielding Smith, a junior member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the son of a late church president, "vigorously promulgated [the] opposite point of view" in a speech that was published in a church magazine. In his widely read speech, Smith taught as doctrine that there had been no death on earth until after the fall of Adam and that there were no "pre-Adamites". In 1931, both Roberts and Smith were permitted to present their views to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. After hearing both sides, the First Presidency issued a memo


id: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution-6.md
category: reference
title: Mormon views on evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:30.553181+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
=== Joseph Fielding Smith === In 1954, when he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Smith wrote at length about his personal views on evolution in his book Man, His Origin and Destiny stating that it was a destructive and contaminating influence and that "If the Bible does not kill Evolution, Evolution will kill the Bible." He further stated that "There is not and cannot be, any compromise between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the theories of evolution" and that "It is not possible for a logical mind to hold both Bible teaching and evolutionary teaching at the same time" since "If you accept [the scriptures] you cannot accept organic evolution." In response to an inquiry about the book from the head of the University of Utah Geology Department, church president David O. McKay affirmed that "the Church has officially taken no position" on evolution, Smith's book "is not approved by the Church", and that the book is entirely Smith's "views for which he alone is responsible". Smith also produced personal statements on evolution in his Doctrines of Salvation including that "If evolution is true, the church is false" since "If life began on Earth as


id: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution-7.md
category: reference
title: Mormon views on evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:30.553181+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mormon-views-on-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
== Academic == The earliest instance in which science and evolution were used to support LDS doctrine occurred in a series of six published articles in 1895, "Theosophy and Mormonism" by Nels L. Nelson. These articles were published in 1904 in Scientific Aspects of Mormonism. Nelson used the ideas of evolution to consider the spiritual and physical development of God and humans. Nelson's view of evolution is spiritual with deliberate use of scientific processes by God rather than as a random, accidental process. Mormon philosopher William Henry Chamberlin's Essay on Nature (1915) and Frederick J. Pack's Science and Belief in God (1924) defended the theory of evolution; both attempted to reconcile religion and evolution. In a work, Pack states, "no warfare exists between 'Mormonism' and true science." In 1978, dean of the College of Biology and Agriculture at BYU, A. Lester Allen, tried to present an approach to evolution from the perspective of an LDS biologist. Allen established seven doctrinal landmarks that are fundamental beliefs of the LDS Church, but considered that human's limited perspective and limited perception of reality means that humans may not very well understand the circumstances surrounding the creation of Adam and Eve and the existence


id: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience-0.md
category: reference
title: Mystical or religious experience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:31.850316+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-0
summary:
A mystical or religious experience, also known as a spiritual experience or sacred experience, is a subjective experience which is interpreted within a religious framework. In a strict sense, "mystical experience" refers specifically to an ecstatic unitive experience, or nonduality, of 'self' and other objects, but more broadly may also refer to non-sensual or unconceptualized sensory awareness or insight, while religious experience may refer to any experience relevant in a religious context. Mysticism entails religious traditions of human transformation aided by various practices and religious experiences. The concept of mystical or religious experience developed in the 19th century, as a defense against the growing rationalism of western society. William James popularized the notion of distinct religious or mystical experiences in his Varieties of Religious Experience, and influenced the understanding of mysticism as a distinctive experience which supplies knowledge of the transcendental. The interpretation of mystical experiences is a matter of debate. According to James, mystical experiences have four defining qualities, namely ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, and passivity. According to Rudolf Otto, the broader category of numinous experiences have two qualities, namely mysterium tremendum, which is the tendency to invoke fear and trembling; and mysterium fascinans, the tendency to attract, fascinate


id: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience-1.md
category: reference
title: Mystical or religious experience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:31.850316+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-0
summary:
=== Related terms === Ecstasy, trance – In ecstasy the believer is understood to have a soul or spirit which can leave the body. In ecstasy the focus is on the soul leaving the body and to experience transcendental realities. This type of religious experience is characteristic for the shaman. Enthusiasm – In enthusiasm – or possession – God is understood to be outside, other than or beyond the believer. A sacred power, being or will enters the body or mind of an individual and possesses it. A person capable of being possessed is sometimes called a medium. The deity, spirit or power uses such a person to communicate to the immanent world. Lewis argues that ecstasy and possession are basically one and the same experience, ecstasy being merely one form which possession may take. The outward manifestation of the phenomenon is the same in that shamans appear to be possessed by spirits, act as their mediums, and even though they claim to have mastery over them, can lose that mastery. Spiritual awakening – A spiritual awakening usually involves a realization or opening to a sacred dimension of reality and may be a religious experience. Often a spiritual awakening has


id: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience-2.md
category: reference
title: Mystical or religious experience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:31.850316+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-0
summary:
Transcendentalism was an early 19th-century liberal Protestant movement, which was rooted in English and German Romanticism, the Biblical criticism of Herder and Schleiermacher, and the skepticism of Hume. The Transcendentalists emphasised an intuitive, experiential approach of religion. Following Schleiermacher, an individual's intuition of truth was taken as the criterion for truth. In the late 18th and early 19th century, the first translations of Hindu texts appeared, which were also read by the Transcendentalists, and influenced their thinking. They also endorsed universalist and Unitarianist ideas, leading to Unitarian Universalism, the idea that there must be truth in other religions as well, since a loving God would redeem all living beings, not just Christians. ==== Theosophical Society ==== The Theosophical Society was formed in 1875 by Helena Blavatsky, Henry Steel Olcott, William Quan Judge and others to advance the spiritual principles and search for Truth known as Theosophy. The Theosophical Society has been highly influential in promoting interest, both in west and east, in a great variety of religious teachings: No single organization or movement has contributed so many components to the New Age Movement as the Theosophical Society ... It has been the major force in the dissemination of occult literature


id: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience-3.md
category: reference
title: Mystical or religious experience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:31.850316+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-0
summary:
Ineffability. According to James the mystical experience "defies expression, that no adequate report of its content can be given in words". Noetic quality. Mystics stress that their experiences give them "insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect." James referred to this as the "noetic" (or intellectual) "quality" of the mystical. Transiency. James notes that most mystical experiences have a short occurrence, but their effect persists. Passivity. According to James, mystics come to their peak experience not as active seekers, but as passive recipients. James recognised the broad variety of mystical schools and conflicting doctrines both within and between religions. Nevertheless, ...he shared with thinkers of his era the conviction that beneath the variety could be carved out a certain mystical unanimity, that mystics shared certain common perceptions of the divine, however different their religion or historical epoch, According to Jesuit scholar William Harmless, "for James there was nothing inherently theological in or about mystical experience", and felt it legitimate to separate the mystic's experience from theological claims. Harmless notes that James "denies the most central fact of religion", namely that religion is practiced by people in groups, and often in public. He also ignores ritual, the historicity


id: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience-4.md
category: reference
title: Mystical or religious experience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:31.850316+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-0
summary:
Stace finally argues that there is a set of seven common characteristics for each type of mystical experience, with many of them overlapping between the two types. Stace furthermore argues that extrovertive mystical experiences are on a lower level than introvertive mystical experiences. Stace's categories of "introvertive mysticism" and "extrovertive mysticism" are derived from Rudolf Otto's "mysticism of introspection" and "unifying vision". William Wainwright distinguishes four different kinds of extrovert mystical experience, and two kinds of introvert mystical experience: Extrovert: experiencing the unity of nature; experiencing nature as a living presence; experiencing all nature-phenomena as part of an eternal now; the "unconstructed experience" of Buddhism. Introvert: pure empty consciousness; the "mutual love" of theistic experiences. Richard Jones, following William Wainwright, elaborated on the distinction, showing different types of experiences in each category: Extrovertive experiences: the sense of connectedness ("unity") of oneself with nature, with a loss of a sense of boundaries within nature; the luminous glow to nature of "nature mysticism"; the presence of God immanent in nature outside of time shining through nature of "cosmic consciousness"; the lack of separate, self-existing entities of mindfulness states. Introvertive experiences: theistic experiences of connectedness or identity with God in mutual love; nonpersonal


id: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience-5.md
category: reference
title: Mystical or religious experience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:31.850316+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-0
summary:
Scholarly research on mystical experiences in the 19th and 20th century was dominated by a discourse on "mystical experience," laying sole emphasis on the experiential aspect, be it spontaneous or induced by human behavior. Perennialists regard those various experiences traditions as pointing to one universal transcendental reality, for which those experiences offer the prove. In this approach, mystical experiences are privatised, separated from the context in which they emerge. William James, in his The Varieties of Religious Experience, was highly influential in further popularising this perennial approach and the notion of personal experience as a validation of religious truths. The essentialist model argues that mystical experience is independent of the sociocultural, historical and religious context in which it occurs, and regards all mystical experience in its essence to be the same. According to this "common core-thesis", different descriptions can mask quite similar if not identical experiences: [P]eople can differentiate experience from interpretation, such that different interpretations may be applied to otherwise identical experiences". Principal exponents of the perennialist position were William James, Walter Terence Stace, who distinguishes extroverted and introverted mysticism, in response to R. C. Zaehner's distinction between theistic and monistic mysticism; Huston Smith; and Ralph W. Hood, who


id: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience-6.md
category: reference
title: Mystical or religious experience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:31.850316+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-0
summary:
The theoretical study of mystical experience has shifted from an experiential, privatised and perennialist approach to a contextual and empirical approach. The contextual approach, which also includes constructionism and attribution theory, takes into account the historical and cultural context. Neurological research takes an empirical approach, relating mystical experiences to neurological processes. Wayne Proudfoot proposes an approach that also negates any alleged cognitive content of mystical experiences: mystics unconsciously merely attribute a doctrinal content to ordinary experiences. That is, mystics project cognitive content onto otherwise ordinary experiences having a strong emotional impact. Objections have been raised concerning Proudfoot's use of the psychological data. This approach, however, has been further elaborated by Ann Taves. She incorporates both neurological and cultural approaches in the study of mystical experience. Many religious and mystical traditions see religious experiences (particularly that knowledge that comes with them) as revelations caused by divine agency rather than ordinary natural processes. They are considered real encounters with God or gods, or real contact with higher-order realities of which humans are not ordinarily aware. == Inducement and development == Mystical traditions offer the means to induce mystical experiences, which may have several origins: Spontaneous; either apparently without any cause, or by


id: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience-7.md
category: reference
title: Mystical or religious experience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:31.850316+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-0
summary:
Early studies in the 1950s and 1960s attempted to use EEGs to study brain wave patterns correlated with spiritual states. During the 1980s Dr. Michael Persinger stimulated the temporal lobes of human subjects with a weak magnetic field. His subjects claimed to have a sensation of "an ethereal presence in the room." Some current studies use neuroimaging to localize brain regions active, or differentially active, during religious experiences. These neuroimaging studies have implicated a number of brain regions, including the limbic system, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, superior parietal lobe, and caudate nucleus. Based on the complex nature of religious experience, it is likely that they are mediated by an interaction of neural mechanisms that all add a small piece to the overall experience. Neuroscience of religion, also known as neurotheology, biotheology or spiritual neuroscience, is the study of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality and hypotheses to explain these phenomena. Proponents of neurotheology claim that there is a neurological and evolutionary basis for subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual or religious. The neuroscience of religion takes neural correlates as the basis of cognitive functions and religious experiences. These religious experiences are thereby emergent properties of neural correlates. This


id: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-8
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience-8.md
category: reference
title: Mystical or religious experience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:31.850316+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-0
summary:
Temporal lobe epilepsy has become a popular field of study due to its correlation to religious experience. Religious experiences and hyperreligiosity are often used to characterize those with temporal lobe epilepsy. Visionary religious experiences, and momentary lapses of consciousness, may point toward a diagnosis of Geschwind syndrome. More generally, the symptoms are consistent with features of temporal lobe epilepsy, not an uncommon feature in religious icons and mystics. It seems that this phenomenon is not exclusive to TLE, but can manifest in the presence of other epileptic variates as well as mania, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia, conditions characterized by ventromedial dopaminergic dysfunction. The temporal lobe generates the feeling of "I", and gives a feeling of familiarity or strangeness to the perceptions of the senses. It seems to be involved in mystical experiences, and in the change in personality that may result from such experiences. There is a long-standing notion that epilepsy and religion are linked, and some religious figures may have had temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). Raymond Bucke's book Cosmic Consciousness (1901) contains several case-studies of persons who have realized "cosmic consciousness"; several of these cases are also being mentioned in J.E. Bryant's 1953 book, Genius and Epilepsy, which has


id: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-9
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience-9.md
category: reference
title: Mystical or religious experience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:31.850316+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-0
summary:
==== Parietal lobe ==== Andrew B. Newberg and Eugene G. d'Aquili, in their book Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief, take a perennial stance, describing their insights into the relationship between religious experience and brain function. d'Aquili describes his own meditative experiences as "allowing a deeper, simpler part of him to emerge", which he believes to be "the truest part of who he is, the part that never changes." Not content with personal and subjective descriptions like these, Newberg and d'Aquili have studied the brain-correlates to such experiences. They scanned the brain blood flow patterns during such moments of mystical transcendence, using SPECT-scans, to detect which brain areas show heightened activity. Their scans showed unusual activity in the top rear section of the brain, the "posterior superior parietal lobe", or the "orientation association area (OAA)" in their own words. This area creates a consistent cognition of the physical limits of the self. This OAA shows a sharply reduced activity during meditative states, reflecting a block in the incoming flow of sensory information, resulting in a perceived lack of physical boundaries. According to Newberg and d'Aquili, This is exactly how Robert and generations of Eastern


id: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-10
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience-10.md
category: reference
title: Mystical or religious experience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_or_religious_experience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:31.850316+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: mystical-or-religious-experience-20260505-0
summary:
=== Psychology === Several psychologists have proposed models in which religious experiences are part of a process of transformation of the self. Carl Jung's work on himself and his patients convinced him that life has a spiritual purpose beyond material goals. One's main task, he believed, is to discover and fulfil deep innate potential, much as the acorn contains the potential to become the oak, or the caterpillar to become the butterfly. Based on his study of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Taoism, and other traditions, Jung perceived that this journey of transformation is at the mystical heart of all religions. It is a journey to meet the self and at the same time to meet the Divine. Unlike Sigmund Freud, Jung thought spiritual experience was essential to well-being. The notion of the numinous was an important concept in the writings of Carl Jung. Jung regarded numinous experiences as fundamental to an understanding of the individuation process because of their association with experiences of synchronicity in which the presence of archetypes is felt. McNamara proposes that religious experiences may help in "decentering" the self, and transform it into an integral self which is closer to an ideal self. Transpersonal psychology is


id: natural-theology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology-0.md
category: reference
title: Natural theology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:33.082283+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: natural-theology-20260505-0
summary:
Natural theology is a type of theology that seeks to provide arguments for theological topics, such as the existence of a deity, based on human reason. It is distinguished from revealed theology, which is based on supernatural sources such as scripture or religious experiences. It is thus a form of theology open to critical examination, aimed at understanding the divine. Natural theology does not preclude the concept of divine intervention nor presuppose a clockwork universe; however, it demands that any position be supported through reasoned arguments based on natural reason. In contemporary philosophy, natural theology is not limited to approaches based on empirical facts, such as natural phenomena, nor are its conclusions limited to pantheism. It was once also termed "physico-theology". Natural theology includes theology based on scientific discoveries, arguments for God's existence grounded in observed natural facts, and interpretations of natural phenomena or complexities as evidence of a divine plan (see predestination) or God's Will. It also includes efforts to explain the nature of celestial motors, gods, or a supreme god responsible for heavenly motion. Natural theologians have offered their own explanations for some unsolved problems in science. == Overview == === Natural theology and physico-theology === In the


id: natural-theology-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology-1.md
category: reference
title: Natural theology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:33.082283+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: natural-theology-20260505-0
summary:
== Early modern == Raymond of Sabunde's (c. 1385–1436) Theologia Naturalis sive Liber Creaturarum, written 1434–1436, but published posthumously (1484), marks an important stage in the history of natural theology. John Ray (1627–1705) also known as John Wray, was an English naturalist, sometimes referred to as the father of English natural history. He published important works on plants, animals, and natural theology, with the objective "to illustrate the glory of God in the knowledge of the works of nature or creation". Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) established another term for natural theology as theodicy, defined exactly as "the justification of God". He viewed the science in a positive light as it supported his personal ethical belief system. William Derham (1657–1735) continued Ray's tradition of natural theology in two of his own works, Physico-Theology, published during 1713, and Astro-Theology, 1714. These later influenced the work of William Paley. == Nineteenth century == In An Essay on the Principle of Population, published during 1798, Thomas Malthus ended with two chapters on natural theology and population. Malthus—a devout Christian—argued that revelation would "damp the soaring wings of intellect", and thus never let "the difficulties and doubts of parts of the scripture" interfere with his


id: natural-theology-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology-2.md
category: reference
title: Natural theology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:33.082283+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: natural-theology-20260505-0
summary:
Immanuel Kant and Søren Kierkegaard had similar ideas about natural theology. Kant's ideas focused more on the natural dialect of reason, while Kierkegaard focused more on the dialect of understanding. Both men suggest that "the natural dialect leads to the question of God". Kant argues for the idea that reason leads to the ideas of God as a regulative principle. Kierkegaard argues that the idea of understanding will ultimately lead itself to becoming faith. Both of these men argue that the idea of God cannot be based solely on the idea of reason, that the dialect and ideals will transcend into faith. Karl Barth opposed the entirety of natural theology. Barth argued that "by starting from such experience, rather that from the gracious revelation through Jesus Christ, we produce a concept of God that is the projection of the highest we know, a construct of human thinking, divorced from salvation history". Barth argues that God is restricted by the construct of human thinking if he is divorced from salvation. Barth also acknowledges that God is knowable because of his grace. Barth's argument stems from the idea of faith rather than reason. Barth held that God can be known only through


id: neuroscience-of-religion-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion-0.md
category: reference
title: Neuroscience of religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:34.338768+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: neuroscience-of-religion-20260505-0
summary:
The neuroscience of religion, also known as "neurotheology" or "spiritual neuroscience," seeks to explain the biological and neurological processes behind religious experience. Researchers in this field study correlations of the biological neural phenomena, in addition to subjective experiences of spirituality, in order to explain how brain activity functions in response to religious and spiritual practices and beliefs. This contrasts with the psychology of religion, which studies the behavioral responses to religious practices. Some people do warn of the limitations of neurotheology, as they worry that it may simplify the socio-cultural complexity of religion down to neurological factors. Researchers that study the field of the neuroscience of religion use a formulation of scientific techniques to understand the correlations between brain pathways in response to spiritually based stimuli. The approach is interdisciplinary with neurological and evolutionary studies in order to understand the broader subjective experiences under which traditionally categorized spiritual or religious practices are organized. This is done through a multilateral approach of scientific and cultural studies. Such studies include but are not limited to fMRI and EEG scans, theological studies, and anthropological studies. By using these approaches, researchers can better understand how spirituality and religion affect the chemistry of human brains


id: neuroscience-of-religion-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion-1.md
category: reference
title: Neuroscience of religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:34.338768+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: neuroscience-of-religion-20260505-0
summary:
== History, Developments, and Theoretical Work == In an attempt to focus and clarify what was a growing interest in this field, 1994 educator and businessman Laurence O. McKinney published the first book on the subject, titled Neurotheology: Virtual Religion in the 21st Century. In addition to being written for a popular audience, it was also promoted in the theological journal Zygon. According to McKinney, "neurotheology" sources the basis of religious inquiry in relatively recent developmental neurophysiology. McKinney's theory emphasizes how pre-frontal development in humans creates an illusion of chronological time as a fundamental part of normal adult cognition past the age of three. The inability of the adult brain to retrieve earlier images experienced by an infantile brain creates questions such as "Where did I come from?" and "Where does it all go?" He suggests that this neurological process led to the creation of various religious explanations. Moreover, studies behind the experience of death as a peaceful regression into timelessness as the brain dies won praise from readers as varied as writer Arthur C. Clarke, eminent theologian Harvey Cox, and the Dalai Lama and sparked a new interest in the field. Similarly, radical Catholic theologian Eugen Drewermann developed a


id: neuroscience-of-religion-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion-2.md
category: reference
title: Neuroscience of religion
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:34.338768+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: neuroscience-of-religion-20260505-0
summary:
=== Neuropsychology and Neuroimaging === The first researcher to note and catalog the abnormal experiences associated with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) was neurologist Norman Geschwind, who noted a set of religious behavioral traits associated with TLE seizures. These include hypergraphia, hyperreligiosity, reduced sexual interest, fainting spells, and pedantism, often collectively ascribed to a condition known as Geschwind syndrome. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran explored the neural basis of the hyperreligiosity seen in TLE using the galvanic skin response (GSR), which correlates with emotional arousal, to determine whether the hyperreligiosity seen in TLE was due to an overall heightened emotional state or was specific to religious stimuli. Ramachandran presented two subjects with neutral, sexually arousing and religious words while measuring GSR. Ramachandran was able to show that patients with TLE showed enhanced emotional responses to the religious words, diminished responses to the sexually charged words, and normal responses to the neutral words. This study was presented as an abstract at a neuroscience conference and referenced in Ramachandran's book, Phantoms in the Brain, which was not published as a peer-reviewed scientific article. Research by Mario Beauregard at the University of Montreal, using fMRI on Carmelite nuns, has purported to show that religious and spiritual


id: non-overlapping-magisteria-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria-0.md
category: reference
title: Non-overlapping magisteria
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:35.574293+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: non-overlapping-magisteria-20260505-0
summary:
Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view, advocated by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values, so there is a difference between the "nets" over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority", and the two domains do not overlap. He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria." Some have criticized the idea or suggested limitations to it, and there continues to be disagreement over where the boundaries between the two magisteria should be. == Gould's separate magisteria == In a 1997 essay "Non-overlapping Magisteria" for Natural History magazine, and later in his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion", from his puzzlement over the need and reception of the 1996 address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth". He draws the term magisterium from


id: non-overlapping-magisteria-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria-1.md
category: reference
title: Non-overlapping magisteria
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:35.574293+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: non-overlapping-magisteria-20260505-0
summary:
== Humani generis == Gould wrote that he was inspired to consider non-overlapping magisteria after being driven to examine the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, in which Pope Pius XII permits Catholics to entertain the hypothesis of evolution for the human body so long as they accept the divine infusion of the soul. Gould cited the following paragraph: The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. == Reception == Richard Dawkins has criticized Gould's position on the grounds that religion is not divorced from scientific matters or the material world. He writes, "it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind


id: omega-point-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point-0.md
category: reference
title: Omega Point
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:36.988401+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: omega-point-20260505-0
summary:
The Omega Point is a theorized future event in which the entirety of the universe spirals toward a final point of unification. The term was invented by the French Jesuit Catholic priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955). Teilhard argued that the Omega Point resembles the Christian Logos, namely Christ, who draws all things into himself, who in the words of the Nicene Creed, is "God from God", "Light from Light", "True God from True God", and "through him all things were made". In the Book of Revelation, Christ describes himself three times as "the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end". Several decades after Teilhard's death, the idea of the Omega Point was expanded upon in the writings of John David Garcia (1971), Paolo Soleri (1981), Frank Tipler (1994), and David Deutsch (1997). == Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's theory == === Etymology === Teilhard de Chardin was a paleontologist and Roman Catholic priest in the Jesuit order. In France in the 1920s, he began incorporating his theories of the universe into lectures that placed Catholicism and evolution in the same conversation. Because of these lectures, he was suspected by the Holy Office of denying the doctrine of original


id: omega-point-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point-1.md
category: reference
title: Omega Point
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:36.988401+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: omega-point-20260505-0
summary:
Mathematical physicist Frank Tipler generalized Teilhard's term Omega Point to describe what he alleges is the ultimate fate of the universe as required by the laws of physics: roughly, Tipler argues that quantum mechanics is inconsistent unless the future of every point in spacetime contains an intelligent observer to collapse the wavefunction and that the only way for this to happen is if the Universe is closed (that is, it will collapse to a single point) and yet contains observers with a "God-like" ability to perform an unbounded series of observations in finite time. Tipler's conception of the Omega Point is regarded as pseudoscience by some scientists. The originator of quantum computing, Oxford's David Deutsch, wrote about how a universal quantum computer could bring about Tipler's salvation in his 1997 book, The Fabric of Reality. == Related concepts == === Big Crunch === The scientific hypothesis of the Big Crunch closely resembles the Omega Point theory. However, the current scientific consensus rejects this theory. Nevertheless, in 2025, a paper in the journal Monthly Notices appeared suggesting that the universe's expansion is not accelerating, as commonly believed, but slowing, and that it could result in a Big Crunch. This followed another


id: opposition-to-the-mauna-kea-observatories-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Mauna_Kea_Observatories-0.md
category: reference
title: Opposition to the Mauna Kea Observatories
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Mauna_Kea_Observatories
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:38.204694+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: opposition-to-the-mauna-kea-observatories-20260505-0
summary:
The Mauna Kea Observatories have been controversial since the first telescope was built in the late 1960s. Originally part of research begun by Gerard Kuiper of the University of Arizona, the site has expanded into the world's largest observatory for infrared and submillimeter telescopes. Opposition to the telescope from residents in the city of Hilo, Hawaii were concerned about the visual appearance of the mountain and Native Hawaiians voiced concerns over the site being sacred to the Hawaiian religion as the home of several deities. Environmental groups and activists have been expressing concern over endangered species habitat. The Outrigger Telescopes Project, intended to build from four to six comparatively small telescopes for interferometry, was to surround the Keck telescopes. It was cancelled in 2006, after a court found NASA's Environmental Impact Statement was improperly limited to just the telescope area. An ongoing proposal for one of the world's largest optical telescopes, the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) was the focus of protests concerning the continued development of the mountain Hawaiians consider the most sacred peak in the island chain. The telescope has still not been built as of 2025, and its future is in jeopardy. == Background == After studying photos


id: opposition-to-the-mauna-kea-observatories-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Mauna_Kea_Observatories-1.md
category: reference
title: Opposition to the Mauna Kea Observatories
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Mauna_Kea_Observatories
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:38.204694+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: opposition-to-the-mauna-kea-observatories-20260505-0
summary:
== Expansion renews opposition == Some of the people on the Big Island were concerned that the whole thing had got out of hand and the University of Hawaii was going to take over the top of the mountain, push all the skiers off and push all the hunters off, and essentially develop, in the worst sense, the side of the mountain. The Big Island is a rural community and there are a lot of people there who are not very sophisticated, as you know. They are nervous about changes in lifestyles, and they see those following on the development of the program of astronomy as just about as far removed from their daily pursuits as they possibly can be. And they do not trust the University, State, or Federal government worth a damn. They feel—and in some cases I’ve had this said to me—that they are going to lose all access to the mountain because of these programs. The Federal government is going to come in and it's going to slowly move down the mountain, taking more and more of the mountain over as more and more programs go up there, and no-one will be able to get there.


id: opposition-to-the-mauna-kea-observatories-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Mauna_Kea_Observatories-2.md
category: reference
title: Opposition to the Mauna Kea Observatories
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Mauna_Kea_Observatories
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:38.204694+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: opposition-to-the-mauna-kea-observatories-20260505-0
summary:
The Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) is a proposal for a large, segmented, mirror telescope, planned for the summit of Mauna Kea. The TMT has become a focal point for protests against further development of the observatory site, and a legal battle was fought through the Hawaii court system. The Supreme Court of Hawaii approved the resumption of construction of the telescope on 31 October 2018. The TMT project is a response to a recommendation in 2000 from the US National Academy of Sciences that a thirty-meter telescope be the top priority and be built within the decade. Urgency in construction is due to the competitive nature of science with the European-Extremely Large Telescope also under construction. Mauna Kea's summit is the most sacred of all the mountains in Hawaii to many, but not all, Native Hawaiian people. Hawaiian cultural practitioners cite impacts to indigenous cultural practice, while recreational users have argued that construction harms the scenic view plane. Some environmentalists are concerned that irreparable ecological damage may be done by construction, although this has been disputed by other environmental advocates. All three groups are represented among the petitioners opposing the TMT. According to the State of Hawaii law HAR 13-5-30,


id: jack-parsons-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-0.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
John Whiteside Parsons (born Marvel Whiteside Parsons; October 2, 1914 – June 17, 1952) was an American rocket engineer, chemist, and Thelemite occultist. Parsons was one of the principal founders of both the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and Aerojet. He invented the first rocket engine to use a castable, composite rocket propellant, and pioneered the advancement of both liquid-fuel and solid-fuel rockets. Parsons was raised in Pasadena, California. He began amateur rocket experiments with school friend Edward Forman in 1928. Parsons was admitted to Stanford University but left before graduating due to financial hardship during the Great Depression. In 1934, Parsons, Forman, and Frank Malina formed the Caltech-affiliated Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory (GALCIT) Rocket Research Group, with support by GALCIT chairman Theodore von Kármán. The group worked on Jet-Assisted Take Off (JATO) for the U.S. military, and founded Aerojet in 1942 to develop and sell JATO technology during World War II. The GALCIT Rocket Research Group became JPL in 1943. In 1939, Parsons converted to Thelema, a religious movement founded by English occultist Aleister Crowley. Parsons and his first wife, Helen Northrup, joined Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.); he became the California O.T.O. branch leader in 1942. Historians of Western esotericism


id: jack-parsons-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-1.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
=== Early life: 1914–1934 === Marvel Whiteside Parsons was born on October 2, 1914, at the Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles. His parents, Ruth Virginia Whiteside (c. 1893–1952) and Marvel H. Parsons (c. 1894–1947), had moved to California from Massachusetts the previous year, purchasing a house on Scarff Street in downtown Los Angeles. Their son was his father's namesake, but was known in the household as Jack. The marriage broke down soon after Jack's birth, when Ruth discovered that her husband was sexually involved with a prostitute. Ruth filed for divorce in March 1915. Jack's father returned to Massachusetts after being exposed as an adulterer, with Ruth forbidding him from having any contact with his infant son. Marvel Parsons later joined the U.S. Armed Forces, reaching the rank of major, and married a woman with whom he had a son, Charles, a half-brother Jack only met once. Although she retained her ex-husband's surname, Ruth started calling her son John, but many friends throughout his life knew him as Jack. Ruth's parents—Walter and Carrie Whiteside—moved to California to be with Jack and their daughter, purchasing an upscale house on Orange Grove Boulevard in Pasadena—known locally as "Millionaire's Mile"—where they could


id: jack-parsons-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-2.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
In hopes of gaining access to the state-of-the-art resources of Caltech for their rocketry research, Parsons and Forman attended a lecture on the work of Austrian rocket engineer Eugen Sänger and hypothetical above-stratospheric aircraft by the institute's William Bollay—a PhD student specializing in rocket-powered aircraft—and approached him to express their interest in designing a liquid-fuel rocket motor. Bollay redirected them to another PhD student, Frank Malina, a mathematician and mechanical engineer writing a thesis on rocket propulsion who shared their interests and soon befriended them. Parsons, Forman, and Malina applied for funding from Caltech together; they did not mention that their ultimate objective was to develop rockets for space exploration, realizing that most of the scientific establishment then considered such ideas science fiction. Caltech's Clark Blanchard Millikan immediately rebuffed them, but Malina's doctoral advisor Theodore von Kármán saw more promise in their proposal and agreed to allow them to operate under the auspices of the university's Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory (GALCIT). Naming themselves the GALCIT Rocket Research Group, they gained access to Caltech's specialist equipment, though the economics of the Great Depression left von Kármán unable to finance them. The trio focused their distinct skills on collaborative rocket development; Parsons was


id: jack-parsons-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-3.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
In April 1937, Caltech mathematician Qian Xuesen joined the Group. Several months later, Weld Arnold, a Caltech laboratory assistant who worked as the Group's official photographer, also joined. The main reason for Arnold's appointment to this position was his provision of a donation to the Group on behalf of an anonymous benefactor. They became well known on campus as the "Suicide Squad" for the dangerous nature of some of their experiments and attracted attention from the local press. Parsons himself gained further media publicity when he appeared as an expert explosives witness in the trial of Captain Earl Kynette, the head of police intelligence in Los Angeles who was accused of conspiring to set a car bomb in the attempted murder of private investigator Harry Raymond, a former LAPD detective who was fired after whistleblowing against police corruption. When Kynette was convicted largely on Parsons' testimony, which included his forensic reconstruction of the car bomb and its explosion, his identity as an expert scientist in the public eye was established despite his lack of a university education. While working at Caltech, Parsons was admitted to evening courses in chemistry at the University of Southern California (USC), but distracted by his


id: jack-parsons-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-4.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
In January 1939, John and Frances Baxter, a brother and sister who had befriended Jack and Helen Parsons, took Jack to the Church of Thelema on Winona Boulevard, Hollywood, where he witnessed the performance of The Gnostic Mass. Celebrants of the church had included Hollywood actor John Carradine and gay rights activist Harry Hay. Parsons was intrigued, having already heard of Thelema's founder and Outer Head of Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.), Aleister Crowley, after reading a copy of Crowley's text Konx om Pax (1907). Parsons was introduced to leading members Regina Kahl, Jane Wolfe, and Wilfred Talbot Smith at the mass. Feeling both "repulsion and attraction" for Smith, Parsons continued to sporadically attend the Church's events for a year. He continued to read Crowley's works, which increasingly interested him, and encouraged Helen to read them. Parsons came to believe in the reality of Thelemic magick as a force that could be explained through quantum physics. He tried to interest his friends and acquaintances in Thelema, taking science fiction writers Jack Williamson and Cleve Cartmill to a performance of The Gnostic Mass. Although they were unimpressed, Parsons was more successful with Grady Louis McMurtry, a young Caltech student he had befriended,


id: jack-parsons-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-5.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
For the JATO project, they were joined by Caltech mathematician Martin Summerfield and 18 workers supplied by the Works Progress Administration. Former colleagues like Qian were prevented from returning to the project by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who ensured the secrecy of the operation and restricted the involvement of foreign nationals and political extremists. The FBI was satisfied that Parsons was not a Marxist but were concerned when Thelemite friend Paul Seckler used Parsons' gun in a drunken car hijacking, for which Seckler was imprisoned in San Quentin State Prison for two years. Englishman George Emerson replaced Arnold as the Group's official photographer. The Group's aim was to find a replacement for black-powder rocket motors—units consisting of charcoal, sulfur and potassium nitrate with a binding agent. The mixture was unstable and there were frequent explosions damaging military aircraft. The solid JATO fuel invented by Parsons consisted of amide, corn starch, and ammonium nitrate bound together in the JATO unit with glue and blotting paper. It was codenamed GALCIT-27, implying the previous invention of 26 new fuels. The first JATO tests using an ERCO Ercoupe plane took place in late July 1941; though they aided propulsion, the units frequently


id: jack-parsons-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-6.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
The Group then agreed to produce and sell 60 JATO engines to the United States Army Air Corps. To do so they formed the Aerojet Engineering Corporation in March 1942, in which Parsons, Forman, Malina, von Kármán, and Summerfield each invested $250, opening their offices on Colorado Boulevard and bringing in Amo Smith as their engineer. Andrew G. Haley was recruited by von Kármán as their lawyer and treasurer. Although Aerojet was a for-profit operation that provided technology for military means, the founders' mentality was rooted in the ideal of using rockets for peaceful space exploration. As Haley recounted von Kármán requesting: "we will make the rockets—you must make the corporation and obtain the money. Later on you will have to see that we all behave well in outer space." Despite these successes, Parsons, the project engineer of Aerojet's Solid Fuel Department, remained motivated to address the malfunctions observed during the Ercoupe tests. In June 1942, assisted by Mills and Miller, he focused his attention on developing an effective method of restricted burning when using solid rocket fuel, as the military demanded JATOs that could provide over 100 pounds of thrust without any risk of exploding. Although solid fuels such


id: jack-parsons-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-7.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
Although there were arguments among the commune members, Parsons remained dedicated to Thelema. He gave almost all of his salary to O.T.O. while actively seeking out new members—recruiting JPL mathematician Barbara Canright—and financially supported Crowley in London through Germer. Parsons' enthusiasm for the Lodge quickly began to impact on his professional life. He frequently appeared at Aerojet hungover and sleep-deprived from late nights of Lodge activities, and invited many of his colleagues to them, drawing the ire of staff who previously tolerated Parsons' occultism as harmless eccentricity; known to von Kármán as a "delightful screwball", he was frequently observed reciting Crowley's poem "Hymn to Pan" in an ecstatic manner compared to the preaching of Billy Graham during rocket tests—and on request at parties to their great amusement. They disapproved of his hesitancy to separate his vocations; Parsons became more rigorously engaged in Aerojet's day-to-day business in an effort to resolve this wariness, but the Agape Lodge soon came under investigation by both the Pasadena Police Department and the FBI. Both had received allegations of a "black magic cult" involved in sexual orgies; one complainant was a 16-year-old boy who said that he was raped by lodge members, while neighbors reported


id: jack-parsons-20260505-8
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-8.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
Now disassociated from JPL and Aerojet, Parsons and Forman founded the Ad Astra Engineering Company, under which Parsons founded the chemical manufacturing Vulcan Powder Company. Ad Astra was subject to an FBI investigation under suspicion of espionage when security agents from the Manhattan Project discovered that Parsons and Forman had procured a chemical used in a top secret project for a material known only as x-metal, but they were later acquitted of any wrongdoing. Parsons continued to financially support Smith and Helen, although he asked for a divorce from her and ignored Crowley's commands by welcoming Smith back to the Parsonage when his retreat was finished. Parsons continued to hold O.T.O. activities at the Parsonage but began renting rooms at the house to non-Thelemites, including journalist Nieson Himmel, Manhattan Project physicist Robert Cornog, and science fiction artist Louis Goldstone. Parsons attracted controversy in Pasadena for his preferred clientele. As Parsonage resident Alva Rogers recalled: "In the ads placed in the local paper Jack specified that only bohemians, artists, musicians, atheists, anarchists, or any other exotic types need to apply for rooms—any mundane soul would be unceremoniously rejected". Science fiction writer and U.S. Navy officer L. Ron Hubbard soon moved into


id: jack-parsons-20260505-9
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-9.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
Parsons was discouraged from taking further action by Sara, who threatened to report him for statutory rape since their sexual relationship took place when she was under California's age of consent of 18. Parsons was ultimately compensated with only $2,900. Hubbard, already married to Margaret Grubb, bigamously married Sara and went on to found Dianetics and Scientology. The Sunday Times published an article about Hubbard's involvement with O.T.O. and Parsons' occult activities in December 1969. In response, the Church of Scientology released an unsubstantiated press statement which said that Hubbard had been sent as an undercover agent by the U.S. Navy to intercept and destroy Parsons' "black magic cult", and save Sara from its influence. The Church also stated that Robert A. Heinlein was the clandestine Navy operative who "sent in" Hubbard to undertake this operation. Returning to California, Parsons completed the sale of the Parsonage, which was then demolished, and resigned from O.T.O. He wrote in his letter to Crowley that he did not believe that "as an autocratic organization, [the O.T.O.] constitutes a true and proper medium for the expression and attainment" of Thelema.


id: jack-parsons-20260505-10
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-10.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
=== Loss of FBI clearance, Red Scare Marxist and espionage accusations and acquittal: 1946–1952 === Parsons was employed by North American Aviation at Inglewood, where he worked on the Navaho Missile Program. He and Cameron moved into a house in Manhattan Beach, where he instructed her in occultism and esotericism. When Cameron developed catalepsy, Parsons referred her to Sylvan Muldoon's books on astral projection, suggesting that she could manipulate her seizures to accomplish it. They were married on October 19, 1946, four days after his divorce from Helen was finalized, with Forman as their witness. Parsons continued to be seen as a specialist in rocketry; he acted as an expert consultant in numerous industrial tribunals and police and Army Ordnance investigations regarding explosions. In May 1947, Parsons gave a talk at the Pacific Rocket Society in which he predicted that rockets would take humans to the Moon. Although he had become distant from the now largely defunct O.T.O. and had sold much of his Crowleyan library, he continued to correspond with Crowley until the latter's death in December 1947. At the emergence of the Cold War, a Red Scare developed in the U.S. as the Congressional House Un-American Activities Committee


id: jack-parsons-20260505-11
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-11.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
Parsons testified to a closed federal court that the moral philosophy of Thelema was both anti-fascist and anti-communist, emphasizing his belief in individualism. This along with references from his scientific colleagues resulted in his security clearance being reinstated by the Industrial Employment Review Board, which ruled that there was insufficient evidence that he had ever had communist sympathies. This allowed Parsons to obtain a contract in designing and constructing a chemical plant for the Hughes Aircraft Company in Culver City. Von Kármán put Parsons in touch with Herbert T. Rosenfeld, President of the Southern Californian chapter of the American Technion Society—a Zionist group dedicated to supporting the newly created State of Israel. Rosenfeld offered Parsons a job with the Israeli rocket program and hired him to produce technical reports for them. In November 1950, as the Red Scare intensified, Parsons decided to migrate to Israel to pursue Rosenfeld's offer, but a Hughes secretary whom Parsons had asked to type up a portfolio of technical documents reported him to the FBI. She accused Parsons of espionage and attempted theft of classified company documents on the basis of some of the reports that he had sought to submit to the Technion Society.


id: jack-parsons-20260505-12
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-12.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
=== Death: 1952 === Parsons and Cameron decided to travel to Mexico for a few months, both for a vacation and for Parsons to take up a job opportunity establishing an explosives factory for the Mexican government. They hoped that this would facilitate a move to Israel, where they could start a family, and where Parsons could bypass the U.S. government to recommence his rocketry career. He was particularly disturbed by the presence of the FBI, convinced that they were spying on him. On June 17, 1952, a day before their planned departure, Parsons received a rush order of explosives for a film set and began to work on it in his home laboratory. An explosion destroyed the lower part of the building, during which Parsons sustained mortal wounds. His right forearm was severed, his legs and left arm were broken, and a hole was torn in the right side of his face. Despite these critical injuries, Parsons was found conscious by the upstairs lodgers. He tried to communicate with the arriving ambulance workers, who rushed him to the Huntington Memorial Hospital, where he was declared dead approximately thirty-seven minutes after the explosion. When his mother, Ruth, learned of his


id: jack-parsons-20260505-13
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-13.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
Parsons adhered to the occult philosophy of Thelema, which had been founded in 1904 by the English occultist Aleister Crowley following a spiritual revelation that he had in Cairo, Egypt, when—according to Crowley's accounts—a spirit being known as Aiwass dictated to him a prophetic text known as The Book of the Law. Prior to becoming aware of Thelema and Crowley, Parsons' interest in esotericism was developed through his reading of The Golden Bough (1890), a work in comparative mythology by Scottish social anthropologist James George Frazer. Parsons had also attended lectures on Theosophy by philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti with his first wife Helen, but disliked the belief system's sentiment of "the good and the true". During rocket tests, Parsons often recited Crowley's poem "Hymn to Pan" as a good luck charm. He took to addressing Crowley as his "Most Beloved Father" and signed off to him as "thy son, John". In July 1945, Parsons gave a speech to the Agape Lodge, in which he attempted to explain how he felt that The Book of the Law could be made relevant to "modern life". In this speech, which was subsequently published under the title of "Doing Your Will", he examined the Thelemite


id: jack-parsons-20260505-14
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-14.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
the liberty of the individual is the foundation of civilization. No true civilization is possible without this liberty and no state, national or international, is stable in its absence. The proper relation between individual liberty on the one hand and social responsibility on the other is the balance which will assure a stable society. The only other road to social equilibrium demands the total annihilation of individuality. There is not further evasion of nature's immemorial ultimatum: change or perish but the choice of change is ours. Jack Cashill, American studies professor at Purdue University, argues that "Although his literary career never got much beyond pamphleteering and an untitled anti-war, anti-capitalist manuscript", Parsons played a significant role—greater than that of Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey—in shaping the Californian counterculture of the 1960s and beyond through his influence on contemporaries such as Hubbard and Heinlein. Hugh Urban, religious studies professor at Ohio State University, cites Parsons' Witchcraft group as precipitating the neopagan revival of the 1950s. Robert Anton Wilson, a cult writer and occultist known for his works of nonfiction and science fiction, described Parsons' political writings as exemplifying an "ultra-individualist" who exhibited a "genuine sympathy for working people", strongly empathized


id: jack-parsons-20260505-15
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons-15.md
category: reference
title: Jack Parsons
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:39.482275+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jack-parsons-20260505-0
summary:
The same month, JPL held an open access event to mark the 32nd anniversary of its foundation—which featured a "nativity scene" of mannequins reconstructing the November 1936 photograph of the GALCIT Group—and erected a monument commemorating their first rocket test on Halloween 1936. Among the aerospace industry, JPL was nicknamed as standing for "Jack Parsons' Laboratory" or "Jack Parsons Lives". The International Astronomical Union decided to name a crater on the far side of the Moon Parsons after him in 1972. JPL later credited him for making "distinctive technical innovations that advanced early efforts" in rocket engineering, with aerospace journalist Craig Covault stating that the work of Parsons, Qian Xuesen and the GALCIT Group "planted the seeds for JPL to become preeminent in space and rocketry." Many of Parsons' writings were posthumously published as Freedom is a Two-Edged Sword in 1989, a compilation co-edited by Cameron and O.T.O. leader Hymenaeus Beta, which incited a resurgence of interest in Parsons within occult and countercultural circles. For example, comic book artist and occultist Alan Moore noted Parsons as a creative influence in a 1998 interview with Clifford Meth. The Cameron-Parsons Foundation was founded as an incorporated company in 2006, with the intention


id: politicization-of-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science-0.md
category: reference
title: Politicization of science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:40.703965+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: politicization-of-science-20260505-0
summary:
The politicization of science occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. As a means to political gains, the politicization of science is generally regarded as detrimental to scientific integrity and may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom, which is why mixing politics with science is considered taboo. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests, many times in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy. == Overview == Many factors can act as facets of the politicization of science. These can range, for example, from populist anti-intellectualism and perceived threats to religious belief to postmodernist subjectivism, fear for business interests, institutional academic ideological biases or potentially implicit bias amongst scientific researchers. Politicization occurs as scientific information is presented with emphasis on the uncertainty associated with the interpretation of scientific evidence. The emphasis capitalizes on the lack of consensus, which influences the way the studies are perceived. Chris Mooney describes how this point is sometimes intentionally ignored as a part an "Orwellian tactic." Organizations and politicians seek to disclaim all discussion on


id: politicization-of-science-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science-1.md
category: reference
title: Politicization of science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:40.703965+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: politicization-of-science-20260505-0
summary:
The intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute, attempts to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". The Discovery Institute portrays evolution as a "theory in crisis" with scientists criticizing evolution and that "fairness" and "equal time" requires educating students about "the controversy". A cornerstone of modern scientific biological theory is that all forms of life on Earth are related by common descent with modification. While criticisms to the theory of evolution have existed throughout time, often certain ideological proponents seek to expand the scope of these disagreements in order to draw doubt onto the entire theory. For example, in the United States there is a legal precedent of those who sought to discredit the teaching of evolution in classrooms by emphasizing so-called flaws in the theory of evolution or disagreements within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy" when there is no significant controversy within the mainstream scientific community


id: politicization-of-science-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science-2.md
category: reference
title: Politicization of science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:40.703965+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: politicization-of-science-20260505-0
summary:
In the Soviet Union, scientific research was under strict political control. A number of research areas were declared "bourgeois pseudoscience" and forbidden. This led to significant setbacks for the Soviet science, notably in biology due to ban on genetics, with support for Lysenkoism, and in computer science, which drastically influenced the Soviet economy and technology. === United States === The General Social Survey (GSS) of 1974 recorded that conservatives had the highest rates of trust in science between the three major political demographics: conservatives, liberals, and moderates. This study was repeated annually between 1972 and 1994, and biannually from 1994 until 2010. In 2010, when the same study was repeated, conservatives' trust rates had decreased from 49% to 38%, moderates' trust rates from 45% to 40%, and liberals' trust rates staying relatively stable, rising slightly from 48% to 50%. The study by Gordon Gauchat, which investigates time trends in the public trust of science in the United States, suggests that the increase of distrust of conservatives can be attributed to two cultural shifts. The first was during the post-Ronald Reagan era when the New Right emerged, and the second during the George W. Bush era when the New Right intensified


id: politicization-of-science-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science-3.md
category: reference
title: Politicization of science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:40.703965+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: politicization-of-science-20260505-0
summary:
On May 1, 2007, deputy assistant secretary at the United States Department of the Interior Julie MacDonald resigned after the Interior Department Inspector General, Honorable Earl E. Devaney, reported that MacDonald broke federal rules by giving non-public, internal government documents to oil industry and property rights groups, and manipulated scientific findings to favor Bush policy goals and assist land developers. On November 29, 2007, another report by Devaney found that MacDonald could have also benefitted financially from a decision she was involved with to remove the Sacramento splittail fish from the federal endangered species list. MacDonald's conduct violated the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703, Use of nonpublic information, and 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101, Basic obligation of public service. MacDonald resigned a week before a House congressional oversight committee was to hold a hearing on accusations that she had "violated the Endangered Species Act, censored science and mistreated staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." ===== Climate change ===== In December 2007, the Christian Science Monitor reported that at least since 2003, and especially after Hurricane Katrina, the George W. Bush administration broadly attempted to control which climate scientists could speak with reporters, as well


id: politicization-of-science-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science-4.md
category: reference
title: Politicization of science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:40.703965+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: politicization-of-science-20260505-0
summary:
The issue of politicized science surfaced during the 2016 United States presidential campaign by then Republican candidate Donald Trump. Trump stated his intention to strip NASA's Earth Science division of its funding, a move that "would mean the elimination of NASA's world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena". Subsequently, the Trump administration successfully nominated Jim Bridenstine, who had no background in science and rejected the scientific consensus on climate change, to lead NASA. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Energy prohibited the use of the term "climate change". In March 2020 The New York Times reported that an official at the Interior Department has repeatedly inserted climate change-denying language into the agency's scientific reports, such as those that affect water and mineral rights. ===== Health ===== During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration replaced career public affairs staff at the Department of Health and Human Services with political appointees, including Michael Caputo, who interfered with weekly Centers for Disease Control scientific reports and attempted to silence the government's most senior infectious disease expert, Anthony Fauci, "sowing distrust of the FDA at a time when health leaders desperately need people to accept a vaccine in order


id: pontifical-and-promethean-man-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_and_Promethean_man-0.md
category: reference
title: Pontifical and Promethean man
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_and_Promethean_man
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:41.915877+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: pontifical-and-promethean-man-20260505-0
summary:
In traditionalist philosophy, pontifical man is a divine representative (vicegerent of God) who serves as a bridge between heaven and earth. Promethean man, on the other hand, sees himself as an earthly being who has rebelled against God and has no knowledge of his origins or purposes. This concept was notably developed in contemporary language by the Iranian philosopher Seyyed Hossein Nasr. == Symbolism == Nasr used the term pontifical in its etymological sense to convey that the human being is the gateway between Heaven and Earth, living on a circle of which he is always conscious and to which he strives to reach in his life. For Nasr, the pontifex (see also the ancient Pontifex Maximus) is the sacred human that connects the physical and spiritual realms, whereas Prometheus is the "profane man," the robber of fire from the dwelling of the gods. Nasr used the Prometheus image differently from Aeschylus in Prometheus Bound and Shelley in Prometheus Unbound. In legends, Prometheus is portrayed as a hero, a demigod, or Titan prepared to endure endless torment to impart light to an ignorant and suffering humanity, even if it means defying the divine authority. In Nasr's perspective, however, the symbolism


id: pontifical-and-promethean-man-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_and_Promethean_man-1.md
category: reference
title: Pontifical and Promethean man
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_and_Promethean_man
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:41.915877+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: pontifical-and-promethean-man-20260505-0
summary:
To characterize modernity’s secularization of the universe, Nasr borrows from Greek mythology. Like Prometheus, man has revolted against the heavens. ...The Promethean model, in contradistinction to what he terms “Pontifical Man” – the understanding that mankind is the lynchpin between the cosmos and the Sacred – is both unethical and sacrilegious. Moreover it is recklessly leading to the current erosion of our environment. According to Liu Shu-hsien, Nasr sees Promethean man as a creature of this world who has revolted against Heaven. He "feels at home on earth" and perceives life as a large "marketplace" where he is free to explore and choose whatever he wants. He is submerged in transience and impermanence, having lost his sense of the sacred, and has become a slave of his nafs or lower self, which he considers as liberty. According to this understanding, Promethean man stands against the sacred tradition. Pontifical man, on the contrary, connects the terrestrial and celestial realms. For Nasr, such a man never forgets that he is God's viceroy (khalifat Allah), who exists in a world that he recognizes as having an origin and a center, whose "primordial purity and wholeness he seeks to emulate, recapture and transmit". Pontifical


id: pontifical-and-promethean-man-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_and_Promethean_man-2.md
category: reference
title: Pontifical and Promethean man
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_and_Promethean_man
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:41.915877+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: pontifical-and-promethean-man-20260505-0
summary:
== Epistemological perspective == According to Mehdi Aminrazavi, the Promethean and Pontifical man symbolize two distinct "modes of being", each with its own method of cognition. Promethean man, according to Nasr, is the outcome of pure informative or discursive knowledge, whereas pontifical man is the reflection of transformative or realized knowledge. The Promethean man rejects tradition in favor of pure "rational thought." The Pontifical man, on the other hand, relies on esoteric method which is bound by religious law, and which the Promethean man seeks to deconstruct and annihilate. For Pontifical man, only realized knowledge of Reality can alleviate man's unrest and inner disquiet and restore the tranquility and calm that can only be attained by devotion to one's own Divine nature. Modern science, according to Nasr, has embraced the "Promethean perspective of man," which sees man as "the measure of all things" in comparison to the Pontifical man, who lives in a theocentric universe. Modernism rejects such theocentric views of reality, removing God from the center of existence and substituting God with man. Instead, it focuses on the individual and individualism, as well as human reason and the senses. Its epistemology, Nasr argues, is mostly based on rationalism or


id: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact-0.md
category: reference
title: Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:43.212078+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-0
summary:
The cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact is the corpus of changes to terrestrial science, technology, religion, politics, and ecosystems resulting from contact with an extraterrestrial civilization. This concept is closely related to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), which attempts to locate intelligent life as opposed to analyzing the implications of contact with that life. The potential changes from extraterrestrial contact could vary greatly in magnitude and type, based on the extraterrestrial civilization's level of technological advancement, degree of benevolence or malevolence, and level of mutual comprehension between itself and humanity. The medium through which humanity is contacted, be it electromagnetic radiation, direct physical interaction, extraterrestrial artifact, or otherwise, may also influence the results of contact. Incorporating these factors, various systems have been created to assess the implications of extraterrestrial contact. The implications of extraterrestrial contact, particularly with a technologically superior civilization, have often been likened to the meeting of two vastly different human cultures on Earth, a historical precedent being the Columbian Exchange. Such meetings have generally led to the destruction of the civilization receiving contact (as opposed to the "contactor", which initiates contact), and therefore destruction of human civilization is a possible outcome. Extraterrestrial contact is also analogous


id: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact-1.md
category: reference
title: Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:43.212078+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-0
summary:
The implications of extraterrestrial contact depend on the method of discovery, the nature of the extraterrestrial beings, and their location relative to the Earth. Considering these factors, the Rio scale has been devised in order to provide a more quantitative picture of the results of extraterrestrial contact. More specifically, the scale gauges whether communication was conducted through radio, the information content of any messages, and whether discovery arose from a deliberately beamed message (and if so, whether the detection was the result of a specialized SETI effort or through general astronomical observations) or by the detection of occurrences such as radiation leakage from astroengineering installations. The question of whether or not a purported extraterrestrial signal has been confirmed as authentic, and with what degree of confidence, will also influence the impact of the contact. The Rio scale was modified in 2011 to include a consideration of whether contact was achieved through an interstellar message or through a physical extraterrestrial artifact, with a suggestion that the definition of artifact be expanded to include "technosignatures", including all indications of intelligent extraterrestrial life other than the interstellar radio messages sought by traditional SETI programs. A study by astronomer Steven J. Dick at the


id: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact-2.md
category: reference
title: Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:43.212078+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-0
summary:
Any person or organization detecting a signal should try to verify that it is likely to be of intelligent origin before announcing it. The discoverer of a signal should, for the purposes of independent verification, communicate with other signatories of the Declaration before making a public announcement, and should also inform their national authorities. Once a given astronomical observation has been determined to be a credible extraterrestrial signal, the astronomical community should be informed through the Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams of the IAU. The Secretary-General of the United Nations and various other global scientific unions should also be informed. Following confirmation of an observation's extraterrestrial origin, news of the discovery should be made public. The discoverer has the right to make the first public announcement. All data confirming the discovery should be published to the international scientific community and stored in an accessible form as permanently as possible. Should evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence take the form of electromagnetic signals, the Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) should be contacted, and may request in the next ITU Weekly Circular to minimize terrestrial use of the electromagnetic frequency bands in which the signal was detected. Neither the discoverer nor anyone


id: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact-3.md
category: reference
title: Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:43.212078+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-0
summary:
Futurist Allen Tough suggests that an extremely advanced extraterrestrial civilization, recalling its own past of war and plunder and knowing that it possesses superweapons that could destroy it, would be likely to try to help humans rather than to destroy them. He identifies three approaches that a friendly civilization might take to help humanity: Intervention only to avert catastrophe: this would involve occasional limited intervention to stop events that could destroy human civilization completely, such as nuclear war or asteroid impact. Advice and action with consent: under this approach, the extraterrestrials would be more closely involved in terrestrial affairs, advising world leaders and acting with their consent to protect against danger. Forcible corrective action: the extraterrestrials could require humanity to reduce major risks against its will, intending to help humans advance to the next stage of civilization. Tough considers advising and acting only with consent to be a more likely choice than the forceful option. While coercive aid may be possible, and advanced extraterrestrials would recognize their own practices as superior to those of humanity, it may be unlikely that this method would be used in cultural cooperation. Lemarchand suggests that instruction of a civilization in its "technological adolescence", such


id: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact-4.md
category: reference
title: Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:43.212078+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-0
summary:
=== Hostile civilizations === Science fiction often depicts humans successfully repelling alien invasions, but scientists more often take the view that an extraterrestrial civilization with sufficient power to reach the Earth would be able to destroy human civilization or humanity with minimal effort. Operations that are enormous on a human scale, such as destroying all major population centers on a planet, bombarding a planet with deadly neutron radiation, or even traveling to another planetary system in order to lay waste to it, may be important tools for a hostile civilization. Deardorff speculates that a small proportion of the intelligent life forms in the galaxy may be aggressive, but the actual aggressiveness or benevolence of the civilizations would cover a wide spectrum, with some civilizations "policing" others. As among humans, civilizations may not be homogeneous and contain different factions or subgroups. According to Harrison and Dick, hostile extraterrestrial life may indeed be rare in the Universe, just as belligerent and autocratic nations on Earth have been the ones that lasted for the shortest periods of time, and humanity is seeing a shift away from these characteristics in its own sociopolitical systems. In addition, the causes of war may be diminished greatly


id: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact-5.md
category: reference
title: Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:43.212078+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-0
summary:
=== Equally advanced and more advanced civilizations === Robert Freitas speculated in 1978 that the technological advancement and energy usage of a civilization, measured either relative to another civilization or in absolute terms by its rating on the Kardashev scale, may play an important role in the result of extraterrestrial contact. Given the infeasibility of interstellar space flight for civilizations at a technological level similar to that of humanity, interactions between such civilizations would have to take place by radio. Because of the long transit times of radio waves between stars, such interactions would not lead to the establishment of diplomatic relations, nor any significant future interaction at all, between the two civilizations. According to Freitas, direct contact with civilizations significantly more advanced than humanity would have to take place within the Solar System, as only the more advanced society would have the resources and technology to cross interstellar space. Consequently, such contact could only be with civilizations rated as Type II or higher on the Kardashev scale, as Type I civilizations would be incapable of regular interstellar travel. Freitas expected that such interactions would be carefully planned by the more advanced civilization to avoid mass societal shock for humanity.


id: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact-6.md
category: reference
title: Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:43.212078+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-0
summary:
Given the age of the galaxy, Harrison surmises that "galactic clubs" might exist, groupings of civilizations from across the galaxy. Such clubs could begin as loose confederations or alliances, eventually developing into powerful unions of many civilizations. If humanity could enter into a dialogue with one extraterrestrial civilization, it might be able to join such a galactic club. As more extraterrestrial civilizations, or unions thereof, are found, these could also become assimilated into such a club. Sebastian von Hoerner has suggested that entry into a galactic club may be a way for humanity to handle the culture shock arising from contact with an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. Whether a broad spectrum of civilizations from many places in the galaxy would even be able to cooperate is disputed by Michaud, who states that civilizations with huge differences in the technologies and resources at their command "may not consider themselves even remotely equal". It is unlikely that humanity would meet the basic requirements for membership at its current low level of technological advancement. A galactic club may, William Hamilton speculates, set extremely high entrance requirements that are unlikely to be met by less advanced civilizations. When two Canadian astronomers argued that they potentially


id: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact-7.md
category: reference
title: Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:43.212078+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-0
summary:
An extraterrestrial civilization may choose to communicate with humanity by means of artifacts or probes rather than by radio, for various reasons. While probes may take a long time to reach the Solar System, once there they would be able to hold a sustained dialogue that would be impossible using radio from hundreds or thousands of light-years away. Radio would be completely unsuitable for surveillance and continued monitoring of a civilization, and should an extraterrestrial civilization wish to perform these activities on humanity, artifacts may be the only option other than to send large, crewed spacecraft to the Solar System. Although faster-than-light travel has been seriously considered by physicists such as Miguel Alcubierre, Tough speculates that the enormous amount of energy required to achieve such speeds under currently proposed mechanisms means that robotic probes traveling at conventional speeds will still have an advantage for various applications. 2013 research at NASA's Johnson Space Center, however, shows that faster-than-light travel with the Alcubierre drive requires dramatically less energy than previously thought, needing only about 1 tonne of exotic mass-energy to move a spacecraft at 10 times the speed of light, in contrast to previous estimates that stated that only a Jupiter-mass object


id: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-8
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact-8.md
category: reference
title: Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:43.212078+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-0
summary:
The confirmation of extraterrestrial intelligence could have a profound impact on religious doctrines, potentially causing theologians to reinterpret scriptures to accommodate the new discoveries. However, a survey of people with many different religious beliefs indicated that their faith would not be affected by the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence, and another study, conducted by Ted Peters of the Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary, shows that most people would not consider their religious beliefs superseded by it. Surveys of religious leaders indicate that only a small percentage are concerned that the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence might fundamentally contradict the views of the adherents of their religion. Gabriel Funes, the chief astronomer of the Vatican Observatory and a papal adviser on science, has stated that the Catholic Church would be likely to welcome extraterrestrial visitors warmly. There are many UFO religions such as Raëlism. Astronomer David Weintraub suggests unambiguous contact would result in more of these kinds of beliefs and communities, saying "There undoubtedly would be people who would find this as an opportunity or an excuse to call attention to themselves for whatever reason and there would be new religions". Contact with extraterrestrial intelligence would not be completely inconsequential for religion. The Peters


id: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-9
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact-9.md
category: reference
title: Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:43.212078+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-0
summary:
According to experts such as Niklas Hedman, executive director of UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, there are "no international agreements or mechanisms in place for how humanity would handle an encounter with extraterrestrial intelligence". Tim Folger speculates that news of radio contact with an extraterrestrial civilization would prove impossible to suppress and would travel rapidly, though Cold War scientific literature on the subject contradicts this. Media coverage of the discovery would probably die down quickly, though, as scientists began to decipher the message and learn its true impact. Different branches of government (for example legislative, executive, and judiciary) may pursue their own policies, potentially giving rise to power struggles. Even in the event of a single contact with no follow-up, radio contact may prompt fierce disagreements as to which bodies have the authority to represent humanity as a whole. Michaud hypothesizes that the fear arising from direct contact may cause nation-states to put aside their conflicts and work together for the common defense of humanity. Apart from the question of who would represent the Earth as a whole, contact could create other international problems, such as the degree of involvement of governments foreign to the one whose radio astronomers


id: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-10
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact-10.md
category: reference
title: Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:43.212078+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-0
summary:
=== Scientific and technological === The scientific and technological impact of extraterrestrial contact through electromagnetic waves would probably be quite small, especially at first. However, if the message contains a large amount of information, deciphering it could give humans access to a galactic heritage perhaps predating the formation of the Solar System, which may greatly advance our technology and science. A possible negative effect could be to demoralize research scientists as they come to know that what they are researching may already be known to another civilization. On the other hand, extraterrestrial civilizations with malicious intent could send (unfiltered) information that could enable or facilitate human civilization to destroy itself, such as powerful computer viruses, knowledge to build an advanced artificial intelligence or information on how to make extremely potent weapons that humans would not yet be able to use responsibly. While the motives for such an action are unknown, it may require minimal energy use on the part of the extraterrestrials. It may also be possible that such is sent without malicious intent. According to Musso, however, computer viruses in particular will be nearly impossible unless extraterrestrials possess detailed knowledge of human computer architectures, which would only happen if


id: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-11
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact-11.md
category: reference
title: Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:43.212078+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: potential-cultural-impact-of-extraterrestrial-contact-20260505-0
summary:
=== Ethics === Astroethics refers to the contemplation and development of ethical standards for a variety of outer space issues, including questions of how to interact remotely or in close encounters and concerns not only humans' ethics but also ethics of non-human intelligences, including whether they all afford us rights (and which each or overall). Lewis White Beck notes that an analysis of the evolution of philosophical thought from ancient times into the modern era suggests that humanity is often comforted during periods of intense cultural transition by subtle archetypal ideas which are derived from firmly held religious, philosophical, ethical and existential belief systems. He includes mankind's search for extraterrestrial life as a manifestation of such beliefs and argues that even if humanity's search for extraterrestrial life proves to be unsuccessful in the short term, it may have longer term beneficial consequences by inspiring humanity to embrace a superior ethical paradigm. === Ecological and biological-warfare impacts === An extraterrestrial civilization might bring to Earth pathogens or invasive life forms that do not harm its own biosphere. Alien pathogens could decimate the human population, which would have no immunity to them, or they might use terrestrial livestock or plants as hosts,


id: process-philosophy-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy-0.md
category: reference
title: Process philosophy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:44.545263+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: process-philosophy-20260505-0
summary:
Process philosophy (also ontology of becoming or processism) is an approach in philosophy that identifies processes, changes, or shifting relationships as the only real experience of everyday living. In opposition to the classical view of change as illusory (as argued by Parmenides) or accidental (as argued by Aristotle), process philosophy posits transient occasions of change or becoming as the most fundamental things of the ordinary everyday real world. Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, classical ontology has posited ordinary world reality as constituted of enduring substances, to which transient processes are ontologically subordinate, if they are not denied. If Socrates changes, becomes sick, Socrates is still the same (the substance of Socrates being the same), and change (his sickness) only glides over his substance: change is accidental, and devoid of primary reality, whereas the substance is essential. In physics, Ilya Prigogine distinguishes between the "physics of being" and the "physics of becoming". Process philosophy covers not just scientific intuitions and experiences, but can be used as a conceptual bridge to facilitate discussions among religion, philosophy, and science. Process philosophy is sometimes classified as closer to continental philosophy than analytic philosophy, because it is usually only taught in continental philosophy


id: process-philosophy-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy-1.md
category: reference
title: Process philosophy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:44.545263+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: process-philosophy-20260505-0
summary:
== Whitehead's Process and Reality == Alfred North Whitehead began teaching and writing on process and metaphysics when he joined Harvard University in 1924. In his book Science and the Modern World (1925), Whitehead noted that the human intuitions and experiences of science, aesthetics, ethics, and religion influence the worldview of a community, but that in the last several centuries science dominates Western culture. Whitehead sought a holistic, comprehensive cosmology that provides a systematic descriptive theory of the world which can be used for the diverse human intuitions gained through ethical, aesthetic, religious, and scientific experiences, and not just the scientific. In 1929, Whitehead produced the most famous work of process philosophy, Process and Reality, continuing the work begun by Hegel but describing a more complex and fluid dynamic ontology. Process thought describes truth as "movement" in and through substance (Hegelian truth), rather than substances as fixed concepts or "things" (Aristotelian truth). Since Whitehead, process thought is distinguished from Hegel in that it describes entities that arise or coalesce in becoming, rather than being simply dialectically determined from prior posited determinates. These entities are referred to as complexes of occasions of experience. It is also distinguished in being not necessarily


id: process-philosophy-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy-2.md
category: reference
title: Process philosophy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:44.545263+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: process-philosophy-20260505-0
summary:
==== Whitehead's 'actual entities' ==== For Whitehead's ontology of processes as defining the world, the actual entities exist as the only fundamental elements of reality. The actual entities are of two kinds, temporal and atemporal. With one exception, all actual entities for Whitehead are temporal and are occasions of experience (which are not to be confused with consciousness). An entity that people commonly think of as a simple concrete object, or that Aristotle would think of as a substance, is, in this ontology, considered to be a temporally serial composite of indefinitely many overlapping occasions of experience. A human being is thus composed of indefinitely many occasions of experience. The one exceptional actual entity is at once both temporal and atemporal: God. He is objectively immortal, as well as being immanent in the world. He is objectified in each temporal actual entity; but He is not an eternal object. The occasions of experience are of four grades. The first grade comprises processes in a physical vacuum such as the propagation of an electromagnetic wave or gravitational influence across empty space. The occasions of experience of the second grade involve just inanimate matter; "matter" being the composite overlapping of occasions of


id: process-philosophy-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy-3.md
category: reference
title: Process philosophy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:44.545263+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: process-philosophy-20260505-0
summary:
==== Topology ==== Whitehead's theory of extension was concerned with the spatio-temporal features of his occasions of experience. Fundamental to both Newtonian and to quantum theoretical mechanics is the concept of momentum. The measurement of a momentum requires a finite spatiotemporal extent. Because it has no finite spatiotemporal extent, a single point of Minkowski space cannot be an occasion of experience, but is an abstraction from an infinite set of overlapping or contained occasions of experience, as explained in Process and Reality. Though the occasions of experience are atomic, they are not necessarily separate in extension, spatiotemporally, from one another. Indefinitely many occasions of experience can overlap in Minkowski space. Nexus is a term coined by Whitehead to show the network actual entity from the universe. In the universe of actual entities spread actual entity. Actual entities are clashing with each other and form other actual entities. The birth of an actual entity based on an actual entity, actual entities around him referred to as nexus. An example of a nexus of temporally overlapping occasions of experience is what Whitehead calls an enduring physical object, which corresponds closely with an Aristotelian substance. An enduring physical object has a temporally earliest


id: process-philosophy-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy-4.md
category: reference
title: Process philosophy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:44.545263+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: process-philosophy-20260505-0
summary:
'Actual entities' – also termed 'actual occasions' – are the final real things of which the world is made up. There is no going behind actual entities to find anything more real. They differ among themselves: God is an actual entity, and so is the most trivial puff of existence in far-off empty space. But, though there are gradations of importance, and diversities of function, yet in the principles which actuality exemplifies all are on the same level. The final facts are, all alike, actual entities; and these actual entities are drops of experience, complex and interdependent. It also can be assumed, within some forms of theology, that a God encompasses all the other occasions of experience, yet also transcends them; it might, therefore, be argued that Whitehead endorses some form of panentheism. Since (as it is argued in many theologies) "free will" is inherent to the nature of the universe, Whitehead's God is not omnipotent in Whitehead's metaphysics. God's role is to offer enhanced occasions of experience. God participates in the evolution of the universe by offering possibilities, which may be accepted or rejected. Whitehead's thinking here has given rise to process theology, whose prominent advocates include Charles Hartshorne,


id: process-philosophy-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy-5.md
category: reference
title: Process philosophy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:44.545263+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: process-philosophy-20260505-0
summary:
In psychology, the subject of imagination was again explored more extensively since Whitehead, and the question of feasibility or "eternal objects" of thought became central to the impaired theory of mind explorations that framed postmodern cognitive science. A biological understanding of the most eternal object, that being the emerging of similar but independent cognitive apparatus, led to an obsession with the process "embodiment", that being, the emergence of these cognitions. Like Whitehead's God, especially as elaborated in J. J. Gibson's perceptual psychology emphasizing affordances, by ordering the relevance of eternal objects (especially the cognitions of other such actors), the world becomes. Or, it becomes simple enough for human beings to begin to make choices, and to prehend what happens as a result. These experiences may be summed in some sense but can only approximately be shared, even among very similar cognitions with identical DNA. An early explorer of this view was Alan Turing who sought to prove the limits of expressive complexity of human genes in the late 1940s, to put bounds on the complexity of human intelligence and so assess the feasibility of artificial intelligence emerging. Since 2000, Process Psychology has progressed as an independent academic and therapeutic discipline:


id: process-theology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology-0.md
category: reference
title: Process theology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:45.775751+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: process-theology-20260505-0
summary:
Process theology is a type of theology developed from Alfred North Whitehead's (1861–1947) process philosophy, but most notably by Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), John B. Cobb (1925–2024), and Eugene H. Peters (1929–1983). Process theology and process philosophy are collectively referred to as "process thought". For both Whitehead and Hartshorne, it is an essential attribute of God to affect and be affected by temporal processes, contrary to the forms of theism that hold God to be in all respects non-temporal (eternal), unchanging (immutable), and unaffected by the world (impassible). Process theology does not deny that God is in some respects eternal (will never die), immutable (in the sense that God is unchangingly good), and impassible (in the sense that God's eternal aspect is unaffected by actuality), but it contradicts the classical view by insisting that God is in some respects temporal, mutable, and passible. According to Cobb, "process theology may refer to all forms of theology that emphasize event, occurrence, or becoming over substance. In this sense theology influenced by G. W. F. Hegel is process theology just as much as that influenced by Whitehead. This use of the term calls attention to affinities between these otherwise quite different traditions." Also Pierre


id: process-theology-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology-1.md
category: reference
title: Process theology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:45.775751+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: process-theology-20260505-0
summary:
== Relationship to liberation theology == Henry Young combines black theology and process theology in his book Hope in Process. Young seeks a model for American society that goes beyond the alternatives of integration of blacks into white society and black separateness. He finds useful the process model of the many becoming one. Here the one is a new reality that emerges from the discrete contributions of the many, not the assimilation of the many to an already established one. Monica Coleman has combined womanist theology and process theology in her book Making a Way Out of No Way. In it, she argues that 'making a way out of no way' and 'creative transformation' are complementary insights from the respective theological traditions. She is one of many theologians who identify both as a process theologian and feminist/womanist/ecofeminist theologian, which includes persons such as Sallie McFague, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Catherine Keller, and Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki. C. Robert Mesle, in his book Process Theology, outlines three aspects of a process theology of liberation: There is a relational character to the divine which allows God to experience both the joy and suffering of humanity. God suffers just as those who experience oppression and


id: process-theology-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology-2.md
category: reference
title: Process theology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:45.775751+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: process-theology-20260505-0
summary:
== Debate about process theology's conception of God's power == A criticism of process theology is that it offers a too severely diminished conception of God's power. Process theologians argue that God does not have unilateral, coercive control over everything in the universe. In process theology, God cannot override a person's freedom, nor perform miracles that violate the laws of nature, nor perform physical actions such as causing or halting a flood or an avalanche. Critics argue that this conception diminishes divine power to such a degree that God is no longer worshipful. The process theology response to this criticism is that the traditional Christian conception of God is actually not worshipful as it stands, and that the traditional notion of God's omnipotence fails to make sense. First, power is a relational concept. It is not exerted in a vacuum, but always by some entity A over some other entity B. As such, power requires analysis of both the being exerting power, and the being that power is being exerted upon. To suppose that an entity A (in this case, God), can always successfully control any other entity B is to say, in effect, that B does not exist as


id: process-theology-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology-3.md
category: reference
title: Process theology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:45.775751+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: process-theology-20260505-0
summary:
Relational power takes great strength. In stark contrast to unilateral power, the radical manifestations of relational power are found in people like Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Jesus. It requires the willingness to endure tremendous suffering while refusing to hate. It demands that we keep our hearts open to those who wish to slam them shut. It means offering to open up a relationship with people who hate us, despise us, and wish to destroy us. In summation, then, process theologians argue that their conception of God's power does not diminish God, but just the opposite. Rather than see God as one who unilaterally coerces other beings, judges and punishes them, and is completely unaffected by the joys and sorrows of others, process theologians see God as the one who persuades the universe to love and peace, is supremely affected by even the tiniest of joys and the smallest of sorrows, and is able to love all beings despite the most heinous acts they may commit. God is, as Whitehead says, "the fellow sufferer who understands". == See also == == References == == Further reading == Bruce G. Epperly Process Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed (NY:


id: questions-of-truth-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questions_of_Truth-0.md
category: reference
title: Questions of Truth
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questions_of_Truth
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:47.008215+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: questions-of-truth-20260505-0
summary:
Questions of Truth is a book by John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale which offers their responses to 51 questions about science and religion. The foreword is contributed by Antony Hewish. The book was launched at a workshop at the 2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting in Chicago, and then in the UK at a discussion at the Royal Society chaired by Onora O'Neill, in a week when it was also featured on the Today Programme. == Key themes and ideas == The book grew out of questions generated at a website organized to communicate Polkinghorne's ideas. It groups selected questions under seven topics: Leading questions gives an overview of Polkinghorne's views on nine questions, including science and religion, the existence of god, and atheism. The concept and existence of god begins with "Can God's existence be proved?" and addresses The God Delusion, omniscience, predestination and the Trinity. The Universe considers the Big Bang, the anthropic principle and a theory of everything. Evolution starts with "Is evolution a fact or a theory?", discusses intelligent design, which is deemed an unfortunate use of language and a theological mistake, and explores whether the mind can be explained by evolution.


id: religiosity-and-intelligence-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence-0.md
category: reference
title: Religiosity and intelligence
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:48.199142+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: religiosity-and-intelligence-20260505-0
summary:
The study of religiosity and intelligence explores the link between religiosity and intelligence or educational level (by country and on the individual level). Religiosity and intelligence are both complex topics that include diverse variables, and the interactions among those variables are not always well understood. For instance, intelligence is often defined differently by different researchers; also, all scores from intelligence tests are only estimates of intelligence, because one cannot achieve concrete measurements of intelligence (as one would of mass or distance) due to the concept's abstract nature. Religiosity is also complex, in that it involves wide variations of interactions of religious beliefs, practices, behaviors, and affiliations, across a diverse array of cultures. The study on religion and intelligence has been ongoing since the 1920s and conclusions and interpretations have varied in the literature due to different measures for both religiosity and intelligence. Some studies find negative correlation between intelligence quotient (IQ) and religiosity. However, such studies and others have found the effect not to be generalizable and unable to predict religiosity from intelligence correlations alone. Some have suggested that nonconformity, cognitive style, and coping mechanism play a role while others suggest that any correlations are due to a complex range


id: religiosity-and-intelligence-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence-1.md
category: reference
title: Religiosity and intelligence
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:48.199142+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: religiosity-and-intelligence-20260505-0
summary:
The term religiosity refers to degrees of religious behaviour, belief, or spirituality. The measurement of religiosity is hampered by the difficulties involved in defining what is meant by the term. Numerous studies have explored the different components of religiosity, with most finding some distinction between religious beliefs/doctrine, religious practice, and spirituality. Studies can measure religious practice by counting attendance at religious services, religious beliefs/doctrine by asking a few doctrinal questions, and spirituality by asking respondents about their sense of oneness with the divine or through detailed standardized measurements. When religiosity is measured, it is important to specify which aspects of religiosity are referred to. According to Mark Chaves, decades of anthropological, sociological, and psychological research have established that "religious congruence" (the assumption that religious beliefs and values are tightly integrated in an individual's mind or that religious practices and behaviors follow directly from religious beliefs or that religious beliefs are chronologically linear and stable across different contexts) is actually rare. People's religious ideas are fragmented, loosely connected, and context-dependent, as in all other domains of culture and in life. The beliefs, affiliations, and behaviors of any individual are complex activities that have many sources including culture. As examples of religious


id: religiosity-and-intelligence-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence-2.md
category: reference
title: Religiosity and intelligence
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:48.199142+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: religiosity-and-intelligence-20260505-0
summary:
In a 2013 meta-analysis of 63 studies, led by professor Miron Zuckerman, a correlation of -.20 to -.25 between religiosity and IQ was particularly strong when assessing beliefs (which in their view reflects intrinsic religiosity), but the negative effects were less defined when behavioral aspects of religion (such as church-going) were examined. They note limitations on this since viewing intrinsic religiosity as being about religious beliefs represents American Protestantism more than Judaism or Catholicism, both of which see behavior as just as important as religious beliefs. They also noted that the available data did not allow adequate consideration of the role of religion type and of culture in assessing the relationship between religion and intelligence. Most of the studies reviewed were American and 87% of participants in those studies were from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. They noted, "Clearly, the present results are limited to Western societies." The meta-analysis discussed three possible explanations: First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma, although this theory was contradicted in mostly atheist societies such as the Scandinavian populations, where the religiosity-IQ relationship still existed. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an


id: religiosity-and-intelligence-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence-3.md
category: reference
title: Religiosity and intelligence
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:48.199142+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: religiosity-and-intelligence-20260505-0
summary:
=== Studies examining theistic and atheistic cognitive style === The idea that analytical thinking makes one less likely to be religious is an idea supported by Gervais and Noernzayan's 2012 study They observed that intuitive thinking tended to increase intrinsic religiosity, intuitive religious belief and belief in supernatural entities. They also added a causative element, finding that subtly triggering analytic thinking can increase religious disbelief. They concluded that "Combined, these studies indicate that analytic processing is one factor (presumably among several) that promotes religious disbelief." While these studies linked religious disbelief to analytical rather than intuitive thinking, they urged caution in the interpretation of these results, noting that they were not judging the relative merits of analytic and intuitive thinking in promoting optimal decision making, or the merits or validity of religiosity as a whole. In 2017, Calin-Jageman replicated the Gervais 2012 experiment and found no link between analytic thinking and decrease in religious belief. In another replication attempt, another team failed to get the same results as Gervais and Noernzayan . For which, Gervais and Noernzayan acknowledged that they no longer felt confident in their original 2012 findings. In 2018, Gervais et al did a follow up study to


id: religiosity-and-intelligence-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence-4.md
category: reference
title: Religiosity and intelligence
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:48.199142+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: religiosity-and-intelligence-20260505-0
summary:
=== Studies examining religiosity and emotional intelligence === A small 2004 study by Ellen Paek examined the extent to which religiosity (in which only Christians were surveyed), operationalized as religious orientation and religious behaviour, is related to the controversial idea of emotional intelligence (EI). The study examined the extent to which religious orientation and behavior were related to self-reported EI in 148 church-attending adult Christians. (Non-religious individuals were not part of the study.) The study found that the individuals' self-reported religious orientation was positively correlated with their perceiving themselves to have greater EI. While the number of religious group activities was positively associated with perceived EI, the number of years of church attendance was unrelated. Significant positive correlations were also found between level of religious commitment and perceived EI. Thus, the Christian volunteers were more likely to consider themselves emotionally intelligent if they spent more time in group activities and had more commitment to their beliefs. Tischler, Biberman and McKeage warn that there is still ambiguity in the above concepts. In their 2002 article, entitled "Linking emotional intelligence, spirituality and workplace performance: Definitions, models and ideas for research", they reviewed literature on both EI and various aspect of spirituality. They


id: religious-and-philosophical-views-of-albert-einstein-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein-0.md
category: reference
title: Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:49.486547+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: religious-and-philosophical-views-of-albert-einstein-20260505-0
summary:
Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Albert Einstein stated "I believe in Spinoza's God". He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve. He clarified, however, that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever." In other interviews, he noted his belief in a cosmic "lawgiver" who sets the laws of the universe. Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding "one life is enough for me." He was closely involved in his lifetime with several humanist groups. Einstein rejected a conflict between science and religion, and held that cosmic religion was necessary for science. == Religious beliefs == Einstein himself stated "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist ... I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings". Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes


id: religious-and-philosophical-views-of-albert-einstein-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein-1.md
category: reference
title: Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:49.486547+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: religious-and-philosophical-views-of-albert-einstein-20260505-0
summary:
Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism.


id: religious-and-philosophical-views-of-albert-einstein-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein-2.md
category: reference
title: Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:49.486547+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: religious-and-philosophical-views-of-albert-einstein-20260505-0
summary:
=== Afterlife === On 17 July 1953, a woman who was a licensed Baptist pastor sent Einstein a letter asking if he had felt assured about attaining everlasting life with the Creator. Einstein replied, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." This sentiment was also expressed in Einstein's book The World as I See It (1935), "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature." Einstein was averse to the Abrahamic conception of Heaven and Hell, particularly as it pertained to a system of everlasting reward and punishment. In a 1915 letter to


id: religious-and-philosophical-views-of-albert-einstein-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein-3.md
category: reference
title: Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
date_saved: 2026-05-05T07:05:49.486547+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: religious-and-philosophical-views-of-albert-einstein-20260505-0
summary:
A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be... An understanding of causality was fundamental to Einstein's ethical beliefs. In Einstein's view, "the doctrine of


