THE TERRITORIES OF THINKING AND FEELING: RETHINKING RELIGION, SCIENCE, AND REASON WITH ALISTER McGRATH
As Alister McGrath has argued across a lifetime of work, we need to approach the binaries that have been handed down to us—personal/academic, emotional/intellectual, secular/religious—with a healthy skepticism toward the integrity of their boundaries, attending instead to the contact zones between t...
| Κύριος συγγραφέας: | |
|---|---|
| Τύπος μέσου: | Ηλεκτρονική πηγή Άρθρο |
| Γλώσσα: | Αγγλικά |
| Έλεγχος διαθεσιμότητας: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Φόρτωση...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Έκδοση: |
2022
|
| Στο/Στη: |
Zygon
Έτος: 2022, Τόμος: 57, Τεύχος: 1, Σελίδες: 200-222 |
| Άλλες λέξεις-κλειδιά: | B
Atheism
B philosophy of science B Richard Dawkins B cogency theory B Climate Change B Religious Studies B Alister McGrath B Emotion B Affect B New Atheism |
| Διαθέσιμο Online: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Σύνοψη: | As Alister McGrath has argued across a lifetime of work, we need to approach the binaries that have been handed down to us—personal/academic, emotional/intellectual, secular/religious—with a healthy skepticism toward the integrity of their boundaries, attending instead to the contact zones between them. This article connects McGrath's body of work to what I call “cogency theory,” an approach that rejects the thinking/feeling binary itself. It begins with a survey of how McGrath understands rationality—not only as multiple, but as defined, in meaningful ways, by feeling. This is illustrated by reexamining McGrath's controversy with Richard Dawkins, analyzing their debate in terms of how the argument itself comes to feel. This new paradigm allows us to supersede petty antagonisms built into contemporary culture—like the presumed science–religion conflict—and refocus on overarching concerns like the climate crisis. The article concludes with a question about the extent to which beliefs and “worldviews” define how we—either as groups or individuals—can make or unmake ecological disaster. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-9744 |
| Αναφορά: | Kommentar in "Response: Science and Religion—the State of the Art (2022)"
|
| Περιλαμβάνει: | Enthalten in: Zygon
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/zygo.12766 |
