Science and religion are complex cultural phenomena\, which bear on \;our understanding of the world\, life\, consciousness\, agency\, morality\, as \;well as \;all other fundamental issues human beings puzzle over. There exists a \;longstanding question about whether science and religion\, and the responses they offer to \;these issues\, are complementary or \;in \;conflict.
\nThe conflict narrative\, championed for example by \;the New Atheists\, emphasizes discrepancies between scientific and religious explanations and typically advances methodological\, ethical\, and ontological naturalism as \;providing us with the only adequate means of addressing the big questions humanity faces. The complementarity narrative\, without denying the advances of the natural sciences\, tends to \;take the view that it is possible to \;retain elements of a \;religious worldview alongside the discoveries of natural science.
\nA \;traditional focus in \;the European context has been on \;the viability of certain ethical ideas whose original justification was arguably based in \;Christianity\, such as \;human dignity\, moral equality\, and the centrality of humility\, compassion and sacrifice. Another focus has been on \;whether putatively Christian conceptions of love as \;ideally unconditional and selfless are justifiable within a \;non-religious framework. A \;third focus has been on \;whether art has a \;role to \;play as \;a \;substitute or \;successor to \;religion\, either through imparting some special form of knowledge\, or \;as \;a \;means of inculcating moral and cultural values more generally.
\nBy \;contrast the Anglo-American tradition has tended to \;consider the metaphysical implications of naturalism for the religious world view. Some of the important questions addressed in \;this strand of the debate include whether the universe is causally closed\, and if so whether this is compatible with the existence of supernatural phenomena such as \;immaterial souls or \;divine intervention.
\nOne of the striking features of this debate is that it divides thinkers in \;unexpected and unfamiliar ways. Some religious thinkers argued that valuable aspects of religious life are inseparable from belief\, and have thus been led to \;conclude that belief remains indispensable. \; Others have held that religion can bequeath precious ideals and practices to \;secular culture. \; Non-religious thinkers may think that the persistence of religiously influenced ways of life in \;the absence of belief is invidious\, or \;that this would be \;desirable but is impossible to \;maintain\, or \;that it is both possible\, and an important objective. These distinctions disrupt standard categorisations of thinkers into pro- and anti-religion camps.
\nEidos. A \;Journal for Philosophy of Culture \;invites contributions which engage with these and connected themes including challenges to \;methodological\, ethical\, and ontological naturalism\; possible advantages of supernaturalist and non-supernaturalist positions in \;these areas\; the epistemological value of religious belief\; the sources of morality\; the metaphysics of the self\; the possibility of empirical/scientific theology\; and the possibility of a \;purely scientific/naturalistic culture.
\nContributions can be \;submitted by \;July 31st\, 2023 \;to: \;eidos.ed@uw.edu.pl
\nThey have to \;be \;previously unpublished and they cannot be \;under consideration for publication elsewhere. They should be \;prepared for a \;double-blind review process. Please\, make sure that your paper complies with \;our submission standards which are posted here: \;http://eidos.uw.edu.pl/submissions/
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR