Paul Tillich, Rita Felski, and the Impossible Necessity of Believing in Science
The following article addresses a recent tendency in popular discourse to unite “science” and “belief.” Following a discussion of the theologian Paul Tillich’s distinction between belief and faith, I claim that what “belief in science” actually means is something rather more like “faith in science”—...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Routledge
2024
|
| In: |
Theology and science
Year: 2024, Volume: 22, Issue: 2, Pages: 330–342 |
| IxTheo Classification: | CB Christian life; spirituality CF Christianity and Science KAJ Church history 1914-; recent history |
| Further subjects: | B
Belief
B Rita Felski B Ultimacy B Science B Faith B Paul Tillich |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | The following article addresses a recent tendency in popular discourse to unite “science” and “belief.” Following a discussion of the theologian Paul Tillich’s distinction between belief and faith, I claim that what “belief in science” actually means is something rather more like “faith in science”—an attitude which must finally, by making science into an ultimate concern, be detrimental to both terms. Rather than abandoning the injunction to believe, though, I propose the adoption of an attitude that is simultaneously critical and absorbed, an attitude akin to the “postcritque” of the literary critic Rita Felski. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1474-6719 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Theology and science
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2024.2351643 |