I've always understood them to be separate fields. I remember 50 years ago in a freshman class taught by the philosophy department being introduced to the philosophy of science, the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of language, the philosophy of social science, the philosophy of ethics, the philosophy of aesthetics, and a number of others which made it quite clear that the foundational philosophical questions must be asked by each discipline. So in terms of set theory, these two are independent except where the intersect in asking some of the same questions that are the basic questions of philosophy---however you divide it.

I suggest you do some exploring in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to see what authors there say about these domains. See https://plato.stanford.edu/

The answer is no, but there are of course going to be overlaps. Questions in philosophy of science that address methodological issues in evolutionary biology will also be of interest to some philosophers of religion. So I disagree with @Hendrika Vande Kemp that only the basic questions of philosophy can appear in the intersection; creationism is one such nonbasic question in the intersection.

As Hedrika pointed out, the basic questions of philosophy arise in both. And what are the basic questions? The basic questions come from the core areas of philosophy--logic, ethics, epistemology, metaphysics and politics. Let's just take one--epistemology. How one uses one's senses and logic to establish what one knows is just as much an issue in religion as in science. If God has intervened in and appeared in history and directs history, how would we know that? We'd have to study history--a social science. "We, therefore, look for Him where it is claimed that He has revealed Himself by miracle, by inspired teachers, by enjoined ritual." (C.S. Lewis. God in the Dock). See also J.W. Montgomery's: History and Christianity and his essay: The Theologians Craft, in which he shows parallels between science and theology. The creeds, he said, for example, are analogous to the laws of thermodynamics. Those are the non-negotiable elements that have stood the test of time.

Thank you very much, Hendrika, Karl, and Bill for your help in my search after such issues. If I am not mistaken, this search has bearings on more questions, for instance: concerning creationism vs. evolutionism, or the (supposed) 'war' between science and the (Christian) metaphysics or worldview, just to mention only two. Anyhow, thanks!

Philosophy of science, study methods use by scientist in his works. His another name is epistemology or methodology is metalevel of methodics. Philospohy of religion study rather religiouses behaviors of people, and We could not mix it with theology.

Thank you, Piotr, for your thinking with me. Marc

The fundamental nature of religion is belief surely not proof-its advocates see a connection between the two, that belief engenders proof, while normally science eschews such a relationship.

Thank you, Stanley, for your clear answer (...while normally science eschews such a relationship.). Marc.

Evolutionary theorist, Charles Darwin, stated that he could not have established his theory on evolution without having an initial intuition, which he ascribed to his religious faith. When as scientists we suddenly observe a phenomenon, or ask a question, and begin an investigation into something no one has achieved a scientific explanation before, for Darwin, this was explained as faith in one's intuition, which he seemed to ascribe to God. Being both an empirical communication researcher, and trained at a Pontifical university, the Gregorian, I take the position Pope John Paul did in his encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason). Religion helps address unexplained phenomena we intuitively accept or perceive, while science is possible once we have the tools to test, predict, and explain the same phenomena. In my lectures I first would give this simple distinction between religion and science, so that students who are religious can feel assured their faith would be respected, while former Soviet students in Ukraine would feel that their curiosity about persons having a religious faith in science would be respected.

The only way the philosophy of religion would be in conversation with the philosophy of science is as an example of woo, the cloudy thinking that is anything but empirical.

The answer surely depends on what the purpose of the enquiry is? If it is following the views of the religious, ie people looking to understand their faith in order to guide how they live their lives, then no, perhaps a philosophy of literature class. If, however, it is used in archaeology/anthropology to guide our interpretation of past societies by helping us to understand their ritual behaviour then it is part of the philosophy of science.

Dear all,

Let me add my answer sequentially to all of you:

[1] Silvia Stein, Dear Silvia, I have some questions to you:

(a) the case of Charles Darwin is an interesting one: how can he couple structurally two views contradicting each other, the story of the beginning in Genesis 1 and his own story of the 19th or 18th century; is there still a 'war' between those two positions? or between 'faith' and 'science'? or between 'intuition' and 'observation'?

(b) my 2nd question is for everyone: if observation is a reduction of perception, why should a scientist perform the observation instead of performing the more complete perception? I understand that observation implies perception, and some physicists, e.g. D. Bohm, call it 2nd order perception. Well, are there then more orders of perception, maybe a hierarchy of perceptions, and one of these orders is precisely the religious intuition...Please think it over.

(c) my 3rd question is personal to you but is open to everyone: what is your personal opinion about the encyclical 'Fides et ration' of JPII?

[2] Kit Vane Tempest, Dear Kit,

(a) philosophy of religion is not (a) cloudy thinking. Its propositions are based upon the analytical philosophy! Do you call analytical philosophy 'cloudy'? If yes, what are your scientific arguments?

(b) what do you exactly mean by 'empirical'?

[3] Timothy Edward Jones, Dear Timothy,

(a) for the first 3 rules beginning with 'If'..., see [2] sub (a).

(b) for the second 3 rules beginning with 'If': seemingly you are confusing between philosophy of religion and religious studies: they are not the same!

Dear all, thank you very much for searching after the 'truth'. Marc.

You have enough material Marc Carvallo to write an article now on the subject, if so include me in :)

Regarding your question to me, regarding the contradiction within Darwin's own views of religious intuition informing his then scientific approach to the question of evolution. Darwin was a devout Anglican, thus he seems to have felt comfortable with the usual approach that the Bible chapters like Genesis metaphorically describe or account for a phenomenon that scientific tools had not yet been able to account for, like creation and evolution.

The real question is not about religion and science; it is about Morality in Scientific Endeavors; a question that even Soviet scientists posed under the atheism of the former USSR. What is Morally correct, and how do we use our scientific Findings and Research? This is when some say religion has a role in Philosophy of Science, though perhaps instead of the word religion they should use the word Morality.

A philosopher that inspired my thinking is Henri Bergson. He was one of the first, since Renee' Descartes argument for Dualism, to propose two levels of Morality and Religion. The first level is institutional and is inflexible thus eventually it implodes under the weight of its own internal contradictions. The second level is when the individual learns to rely on their own experiences and intuition to discern what is right from wrong. Bergson wrote at a time when western Europeans were taking seriously the Buddhist critiques of western Christianity. Darwin was before Bergson, yet even Darwin's work on the anomaly in evolutionary advancements of a species as being its 'Handicap Principle' to outmaneuvering other less adaptive examples is a precedent setting up Bergson's critique of western European Morality. An example is the first fish to walk on land, other more able fish would have perceived the walking fish able to walk on land and breath as 'Handicapped' because the walking fish was clearly a minority in the beginning, and the ignorant majority always stigmatizes a minority, yet now these reptiles, like a python eating men that outnumber them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ9pbmp5GUs), are a clear majority, like crocodiles eating fish, their evolutionary 'ancestors', thus the phenomenon of the 'Handicapped Principle' in the evolution of a species. http://undpress.nd.edu/books/P00478

From a quantum psychology approach you can balance religious explanations as an earlier stage to the evolution of the scientific mind, thus they need not be contradictory.

Do not equate intuition with observation though, intuition is a unique hunch, inner vision/subconscious, or an inner voice, and not quite the same as an 'observation'. A person can be driven by their intuition like a religious enthusiast, believing that God is speaking to them, which is typical of some scientists and explorers, like Christopher Columbus. My own personal voice, or intuition, I explain two ways as former Soviet colleagues in Russian Federation universities do - one as my past or future informing me, assuming there is reincarnation; the second a kind of telepathy tuning into others around me. This was the basic conclusion atheist scientists came to in explaining the power of the collective to influence the Leader of the Peoples, and vice-versa; a premise even Putin, a Judo and its Shinto Samurai philosophy practitioner, also practices. If there is reincarnation there must be a memory vehicle with the data we call 'intuition' and if there is such a vehicle, there is no reason others cannot access it telepathically. Though among Christians mine is not a popular idea, so I just use the word God instead of reincarnation.

The question seems to assume that there are final sets or categories in which these types of philosophy can be placed - but since these categorisations are human constructions made for human purposes, the only basis on which you could judge their relationship is the usefulness of doing so.

If the question is, instead, whether it is useful to consider philosophy of religion in the terms of philosophy of science, then my answer would be overwhelmingly 'yes'. The philosophy of science investigates the degree of justification that can be accorded to experientially-supported theory. The philosophy of religion is, by contrast, often obsessed with utterly fruitless a priori speculation about metaphysical truth or falsehood, particularly the 'existence' of God, and its arguments tend to merely reinforce the premises that the arguers began with rather than provide new information from experience. If, however, one approaches the philosophy of religion in a way that is more like the philosophy of science, focusing instead on how well experientially-supported theory is justified, it can be a very helpful tool to help people resolve the relativism they would otherwise face between apparently equally-weighted different absolute 'truth' claims in religion. A really helpful philosophy of religion stops being concerned with metaphysical questions, and instead asks about the nature and significance of such phenomena as religious experience, absorbed meditative states, mysticism, insights, symbolism, archetypes, religious difference and universality, dualistic assumptions, sin and moral realisation. Instead of assuming that any of these either are or are not the key to everything, it looks evaluatively at their degree of significance and the possible theories for their interpretation, in the light of critical perspectives from a variety of sources - very much as the philosophy of science does with other phenomena.

If one considers Karl Popper to be one of the most important philosophers of science, then his notion of refutation as a key principle in epistomology applies to all areas of human knowledge. For someone who dismisses religions as 'non-knowledge', or fantastical thinking one possible answer is; 'can you refute this religious knowledge or experience by appealing to empirical evidence?'

Are you a “lumper” or a “splitter”? If you are a lumper, then you will see connections and similarities: they both, after all, deal with the nature of reality. But if you are a splitter, then there are innumerable differences that you can produce to justify your position; for example, religions that have sacred texts, especially if interpreted literally, are often antithetical to any advances in science that may question the said texts; and this dogmatic attitude, whether it be true in the end or not, is itself antithetical to scientists, who are always looking for improvements in knowledge - whether they are actual improvements, or just opportunities to get another publication.

Personally, I am a science fan, and I think that religion should follow current science. St Thomas Aquinas based his religious arguments on, then current, Aristotelian science (very modern for his time) we just need to do more of this, with current science.

Dear Marc Carvallo

Not an easy matter, but possibly a worthwhile Question, if you can "get" it.

There have to be restrictions on the nature of the "religion" (it must be rational and realistic) AND the sort of questions dealt with must be clearly progressive (and in a holistic way, with WAY more than one related assertion and/or any small number of hypothesis involved) -- showing changes to the overall science system (thus applying many aspects of the "religion", enough to show it as an instance of such ALSO).

I present one instance of philosophy as science (better said: science-and-philosophy) which may be seen, in a real sense, as having a philosophy of science and of "religion" involved. AND, yet, the relationship between THAT (the rational, realistic "religion") and the new science perspective must still be inferred [ in large part because Ways of continuous and continuing personal development ("spiritual" development) must be fully open (in their system) to ANY rational and real, grand, developing perspective in the world; but here, below, they are being applied only to one Instance . (Yet, the rational/realistic parts of both must "line-up", and in a very intimate sense) . ] Thus the Isomorphism of an Instance TO a "religion" must be seen AS IT WAS APPLIED TO(actually: IN) the science for the new perspective, with many new more-particulars. (If you want to see what I, for years, have seen as such an Instance of the application of rational and realistic Buddhism, read on.)

In such a case of science-and-philosophy (and of religion) one must realize that good philosophy (in general, but HERE philosophy of science and that of the "religion") MUST NOT SHOW but rather MUST _BE_ (of) the integral parts of the new science perspective. Another way of saying that: Any philosophies must be "incarnate" in the new science exposition. If either sort of philosophy show (or ANY philosophy shows) IN THE ACTUAL EXPOSITION OF THE SCIENCE, and is not "seamless" with it, then that is both bad science AND bad philosophy.

Below is an instance of a rational/realistic, real science and the rational/realistic philosophy of science (and "religion") by which it was impelled -- and which was infused-in, by clear recognition and clear differentiations of observable, or potentially observable, realities. It is an instance of a significant, new science perspective; see the links, below to finally see it (and the philosophy behind it). You will have to have good inductive inference ability to 'see' the application of (the realization of) one into the "other", as (1) the philosophy (being really of both sorts indicated, i.e. being philosophies of religion AND of science at the same time) _AND_ (2) the beyond-just-related and beyond-just--isomorphic exposition of the new big view on science (new and big, but with testable hypotheses). If you want to take a try at finding such a line-up of philosophy(ies) "incarnate" and science, compare:

the content of https://mynichecomp.com/index.php?subject=12 and the

content of Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...

And, see: Book NOW the nearly complete collection of essays (RIGHT HERE) _B...

Dear Brad,

I THINK I like your answer, but it is hard to tell. Too much convoluted grammar (though I completely understand how it can happen): your logic and, therefore, your meaning, is obscure. Please, for example, re-read your first sentence, sorry, paragraph.

Dear Robert Farrell

I looked at the 1st paragraph and it seems fine. Maybe if you read through the whole thing and then try to see the application via the links, you might understand better. [ There may well be sentences or paragraphs much worse that the first paragraph which I should look to edit. I have been known to edit for a full hour after a post, seeking my best expression. ]

Dear Brad,

The reader should not be given the burden: essay marking, and simple communication, 101.

Dear colleagues,

A somewhat dangerous conclusion, when reading Hans Vaihinger: science and religion are on a par... because both are based on fictions. Vaihinger's attitude to religion might be the major reason of his anti-popularity.

Dear Karlis,

Science might be a fiction, see “How the laws of physics lie”, Nancy Cartwright. But these are subtle distinctions when it comes to reality. Is the computer/iPad/phone that you posted your comment on a fiction? Did it do what you wanted it to do? These things are products of science, how could they work - reliably, across millions of instances - if there wasn’t some truth involved in the way that they are manufactured?

Dear Robert Farrell

Try this for the first paragraph:

For any linking to science: There have to be restrictions on the nature of the "religion" (it must be rational and realistic). AND the sort of questions dealt with that are science questions must be clearly progressive (and in a holistic way, with WAY more than one related assertion and/or any small number of hypothesis involved) -- showing changes to the overall science system (and thus [also] applying many aspects of the "religion", enough to show we have an instance of application-of-the-religion as well). [Added note: Included in what was intended in the last sentence: Philosophy of either/both of the 2 sorts under discussion, may well be seen as that which draws out or draws together basic science assumptions, properly framed. YET, this could be seen as just science itself (by the author, and by others), though it will be as much philosophy as there should be there. ]

Perhaps then the rest of my statement, as is, will do.

[ Note: the ease or difficulty of a statement at times depends as much on the reader (and his/her familiarity with a way of thinking, or not) as it does on the writer. ]

Dear colleagues,

By referring to Vaihinger's Philosophy of As If (A System of the Theoretical, Practical and Religious Fictions of Mankind) I only tried to draw your attention to the most extreme position in the discussion of science and religion. In modern terms, Vaihinger's position would sound as follows: science and religion both are building models. The purpose of scientific model-building is “to calculate events that occur without our intervention and to realize our impulses appropriately”. The purpose of religious model-building is enforcing of morality (“the higher aspects of life”). For details, see the survey of Forberg's philosophy of religion in Part III of Vaihinger's book.

Hello Karlis,

This is probably not the place for it but I recently discovered Vaihinger and his work resonates with me. I am making this comment because it is wonderful to see his work mentioned.

I guess the answer to that question lies in the intended purpose. If the intention is to enrich the other field of study (and the person as a whole), then it surely does. But if it is to establish that one is a subset of the other, then the whole process can be a mere play of see-saw. For me, the works of Aquinas complement that of Aristotle, just like the basic theories of W.V.O.Quine (web of beliefs) and T. Kuhn (paradigm shifts) can very well be applied to the central issues of philosophy of religion. In each of these application endeavours, one gets to push one's understanding deeper and clearer, be it from either field.

Dear Dr. Marc Carvallo,

In my opinion, philosophy of religion does not belong to the class of philosophy of science.The philosophy of religion is based on belief, while the philosophy of science is based on scientific and experimental evidence.

BELIEF OR INTUITION (RELIGION) PROVIDES THE QUESTIONS TO TEST EMPIRICALLY, THUS UNTIL WE HAVE THE TOOLS (SCIENCE) TO TEST BELIEFS WE ARE DEALING MOSTLY WITH RELIGIOUS COGNITIVE STYLES - ONE STEP PRECEDES THE OTHER THOUGH IS NOT REDUCIBLE TO THE OTHER

Every person is free to philosophize about every subject matter, also religion. If we enquire the historical background of separation / union of philosophy and relgilon (resp theology). Under Christian rule in Europe the Theological Faculty of European Universities in the late Middle Age at first were instituions which only could be founded with endorsement of the Pope. From the historical beginnings universities had the priviledge of own academic freedom and some autonomy, also own legal system, with the right to award academic degrees. Their task war to train for elite positions in church and state. Acedemic theologians were the elites, also many solicitors and medical doctors were theologians; see Darwin in the 19th century, he had also studied theology at first. Philosophy was a classic discipline but in the university of Middle age it played at first a role to render support for theology. Philosophical faculty was named originally "Faculty of Arts". There where taught as basic curriculum (studium generale) the "Septem Artes Liberales" (liberal arts). So theology, not philosophy, had the leading position in the early eara of universities. On the other hand at European uniiversities the writings and comments of Aristotle where taught until the 17th century as "school philosophy", so that philosophy was still a relevant field at every university. But in the time of great discovering and increasing success of narural sciences (that meant: against the will and politics of the Churches!) the meaning of philosophy began to grow significantly. Philosophy became the first discipline to give orientation in the interpretation of the world, and the cosmos, and theology was by increasing secularization on the retreat. That single great theologians were able to remain an important voice in the public doesn't play a role so much n this longtime-development.

Today, in a liberal era, you are free as single scientist to see the relationship between theology and philosophy (inclusive epistemology) as you like, only your arguments and reasons count. In my view the history of epistemology, seen as a basic for philosophy in general, has to mention for every era the changing and dynamic relationship to "religion" resp. theology.

With our birth we come to know our identity under the moral course of caste,creed & religion & religion has got nothing to do for the different race of human beings & it has got nothing to do with the race ,language & custom tradition .

With this every religion is a way of traffic pass for human beings who are following the norms & wisdom of their incarnate . It is in this line I have my article under the captioned '' Religion the way of Human Being '' which I submit herewith for your kind perusal .

This is my personal opinion

This question arises only when science & religion are considered as two separate entities. The word 'religion' is stereotyped for various doctrines like Hindu, Muslim, Christianity etc. But refer to 'Manusmriti' by Baanbhatt - a well known text in Sanskrit Literature, the 'religion' is actually following the principles for moderate and sane personal and social life by individuals - "Dhriti-kshama-dam-asteya-schaucham-indriynigraha.....". While assimilating these principles, one unknowingly follow the philosophy of science, without considering/identifying any distinction between the two. Actually both are same and may be termed as Philosophy of Life!

In contrast to many of my predecessors who denied the question asked (whether the "philosophy of religion" belongs to the philosophy of science), I would like to answer the question with "yes".

Firstly, in the development of universities and sciences in Europe there is a very close historical link between science and religion. (I mentioned this above).

Second, the philosophy of religion is in no way bound to religious faith and to the revelation of a religious message. Religion, as part of the culture of a time, philosophical reflection and the spiritual interest of a society, is primarily the subject of scientific research. This is done in a descriptive way to establish an order of phenomena.

Great contributions!

Dear all,

Thanks for all your answers. To be short let us confine our selves to the christian religion.

My question would then (mathematically speaking) be: Is christian religion an element of the set of philosophy of science?

Since logic (=theory of reasoning) is the foundation of science (see one of the discussions going on in RG), would christian religion then be the very foundation of any science since christians allege that their God is the Logos itself (see John chapter 1: verses 1-5).

Please answer only upon this confined question. Sorry for the belated reply of myself.

Thanks in advance for all your answers! Marc.

Dear all,

Since my answer of 4 days ago there is no any added answer. What might be the reason? Please correct me if I am not right. Thank you! Marc.

possibly because those who have replied are most interested in general religious theory rather than any one faith. It is quite difficult to comment on your posed question by restricting answers to a specific religion, especially for people working in areas where this could be seen to be discriminatory or insulting. If one makes observations about religious philosophy then one doesn't necessarily get drawn into issues of truthfulness of a particular text, restricting discussion to Christianity could do.

Science and religion are two different ontological regions of mind, with different subregions, different givens, different transcendentals, and different transcendences. Same goes for epistemology; it is a different ontological region, distinct from science and religion. There is no univocity of Being, and thus no singular ontological region. There is no monism. Contra many traditional philosophies of religion and theologies from various religious traditions. There are only efforts to develop analogies between these ontological regions and with respect to certain phenomena a resemblance of overlaps between these ontological regions. There are also efforts to build bridges between them hoping they might meet and converse somewhere on such a bridge.

Dear Timothy,

It is simply a scientific confinement, never meant as discrimination etc.

Dear James,

May I shorten your answer briefly as follows: (i) philosophy of religion is not science. Am I right?; (ii) what do you mean by: ? please explain it to me!

Thank you both for the added answers! Marc.

(1) yes, but it also would be analogical to science

(2) I use the word 'mind' sensu lato to refer to the six or so ontological regions comprising most philosophical concepts. It can't be defined in any singular way. See my project

https://www.researchgate.net/project/In-Completing-the-Deconstruction-of-the-Concept-of-Being-and-its-Univocity

Dear James,

Firstly, thanks for the link of your research project at RG.

Secondly, your added answer at both points raises a couple of questions from me: Ad (1) what do you exactly mean by 'analogical to science'? What about the christian (see John 1: 1-5)? Ad (2) Please explain me on 'mind' in sensu stricto.

Thank you for the answers! Marc.

(1) Philosophy of religion in my humble opinion is not restricted to any particular religion, but 'of religion' in general, that is, any and all religions. Traditionally it has restricted itself to mostly 18th century British-American enlightenment theism or deism, which was based on either Aristotelian or Newtonian physics. Human evolution has been on-going since the chimpanzee human split time, variously calculated 6-9 million years ago. Given the huge advances in physics and paleoanthropology over last 50 years any philosophy of religion must make major advance beyond theism-deism and their refuted or relativized physics analogues.

(2) For example, theism and deism developed a conceptual model of divinity using an analogy to Aristotelian or Newtonian physics.

(3) Christian John 1 doctrine of god was his effort to synthesize Greek (Platonic or Neoplatonic, and a bit Aristotelian) notion of divinity with Biblical notion of divinity, within the confines of 100 CE physics. It is theological position. This raises the question of what is relation of philosophy of religion to theology, which has no simple resolution in academia with its different disciplines for each.

(4) There doesn't seem to me any philosophical consensus on the category 'mind' sensu stricto. Nor theological. For Plato it is nous, an ordering principle of the universe. Recently a massive cognitive science literature has emerged defining 'mind' sensu stricto in lots of different ways, e.g., extended mind theory. I use the term philosophically to refer to the six main ontological regions (epistemology, psychology, ethics, physics, culture and animacy (spirituality). I also use it as do Buddhists to refer to the 'heart-mind', which in my view is associated with the embodied chakra system, and especially the three middle chakras of a nine-chakra system, namely navel, solar and heart chakras. Its been almost 50 years since I got an MA degree in Christian theology (religious studies), so I can't recall what Jewish, Christian or Muslim terms designate the 'heart' or 'mind'.

Dear James,

Thanks for your extensive answer. It does however feel me obliged to answer as follows: Ad (1) (a) There are too many religions. That is why my proposal to confine ourselves to the christian religion (see 7 days ago); (b) christian religion is not based on Aristotelian logic or Newtonian physics; (c) christian religion is not based on evolution theory. Ad (2) see Ad (1). Ad (3) (a) Is the John 1 doctrine of God a synthesis of the Greek notion of divinity? Please explain it to me! (b) Does philosophy of religion not any relation to science? Please explain it to me! Ad (4) (a) see Ad (1) sub (a); (b) My question is about philosophy of religion (see the original question; later on confined to the christian religion (see again Ad (1) sub (a)) not about religious studies.

Thanks in advance for your answer. Marc.

As I suggested earlier, philosophy of religion as a subdiscipline of philosophy is free not to confine itself to one particular religious tradition. In the past it was confined to basically theism and deism, and still is so confined. That is why it is now irrelevant for the global community comprising multiple religious traditions.

All of its theistic doctrines are based in Newtonian or Aristotelian theories of space-time and the laws governing events in space-time. Example, omniscience and omnipotence. This is all refuted by the special theory of relativity. That is why Einstein said that while he had deepest appreciation for his Jewish tradition, Buddhism appears to be the only religious tradition on the planet that might be open to the basic physical laws of physical reality. Christianity has virtually nothing to say about science and physical reality. It deals with spiritual matters. Christianity is a seriously limited religion; after all, it is basically an expression of a male spiritual transformation process, crystallized in the dogma of the trinity (father, son, spirit; Augustine filioque, etc.). Because that is its focus it is a highly partial account of spirituality and religious behavior. It imprisons the human mind. It is unlikely to be of any help in the Anthropocene.

I think it has been accepted for hundred years or more -- I could be wrong -- that the Gospel of John was John's effort (after all it is written in Greek) to bring Greeks, including those grounded in Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy (and thus their views of physical reality), into knowledge of the Jesus teachings.

Dear James,

Sorry, but I have to say this that according to you . Do you mean by this that science and physical reality is everything that is scientific?

Thanks for your answer. Marc.

Dear Mr. Carvallo,

To study science you have to use knowledge. If knowledge comes from our religious faiths, which in many people it does to some extent, then religious philosophy contained in your knowledge does form part of philosophy of science. Do you agree?

Soumitra K. Mallick (CA), Somak Raychaudhury, Sandipan Mallick,

of The RHMHM School,

USA, Japan, India

Dear Soumitra,

(i) You use interchangeably and . Are they identical to each other?

(ii) I repeatedly advised everyone to confine to the christian religion (see my previous answers).

(iii) No! I don't agree, as for the christian religion. The reason is: the reality (as the subjectmatter of science) according to the christian religion is unlimitedly bigger than that of .

Thanks for your answer. Marc.

or is this a problem of language? science and knowledge are distinct entities in English but not in other languages

Dear Timothy,

(i) If language is the foundation of logic, and logic is the foundation of science, then yes.

(ii) Please explain to me that .

(iii) What is the English verb for science?

Thanks for your answers upon (i), (ii) and (iii). Marc.

in English the term science is taken to mean a particular thing that involves the acquisition of a certain type of knowledge, it is linguistically separate from other forms. In contrast other languages can use the same term (Arabic, French and Latin come to mind) and it is less precise to what they are referring.

iii) usually its a compound 'to do science'

Dear Timothy,

-Your answer upon my (ii) question is completely unclear. Let me try to simplify: what exactly is the distinction between science and knowledge?

-Again, your answer upon my question (iii) is completely unclear as well. The only conclusion to be drawn is this: there is NO verb in English for the substantive .

-You give me a further question (iv) (thank you!) : is the Latin verb scire identical to the Latin verb cognoscere? Compare my afore mentioned question (ii): is scire identical to cognoscere?

-Please answer the questions (ii), (iii), and (iv).

Thanks for your answer. Marc.