METAPHYSICS, SCIENCE AND RELIGION.
Introduction
Man as a rational being is ultimately with an inquisitive
mind to know variety of things as they exists, hence the emergent of the
different fields of studies with their peculiar object of inquiry. Among the
different fields, this paper primarily concerns itself with “Metaphysics, Science,
and Religion.” It follows then that our focus in this paper is to conceptualize
metaphysics, science and religion. Our focus also involves explicating their methods
and their objects of inquiry since every discipline has its own peculiar object
of inquiry. In doing this, we will relate what they share in common and how
they differ. Finally, we will recap in few sentences all that we have
explicated and enunciated about metaphysics, science and religion as a
conclusion to this paper.
The Term “Metaphysics”
The term “metaphysics,” etymologically comes from two
Greek words meta meaning after and physika meaning physics (nature). Thus,
it literally means “what comes after physics or nature.”[1] By
this, it connote that metaphysics tries to understand what comes or lies after
nature, or the empirical world. Metaphysics[2] as
a word was coined by Andronicus of Rhodes, an early student of Aristotle to designate the contents of Aristotle's
treatise on what he himself called “first philosophy.”[3]
But why did Aristotle called it first philosophy? For Aristotle, metaphysic is first philosophy
in as much as it treats the first cause and first principle of reality. More
so, it might interest you to know that the science designated by this term
“Metaphysics” had already began in the 4th century B.C. by
philosophers like Plato, Heraclitus, Parmenides, but it was predicted of
Aristotle primarily because of how he systematically treats it.[4]
It follows then that for a clear definition of what
metaphysics is, we could perhaps go back to history, in other words we could go
back to the ancient’s philosophers and then we see that the term “metaphysics”
carries with it a wide range of meanings such as: the speculative science of
reality, the science of non-material, of the real in itself, of the unknowable,
of the absolute and so forth.[5] We
must investigate further what metaphysic is according to Aristotle. Aristotle
speaks of metaphysics more accurately, as the science which study being qua
being.[6] By being, it means that which is, that which
exist, reality as a whole. Metaphysics
studies the ultimate causes of all reality and not particulars or secondary causes
which belong to practical science like physics or chemistry.
Metaphysics
studies the first principles of all reality; hence it is called the first
philosophy. A metaphysician asks questions like “what is being?” “What is
essence?” and what is existence? But the botanist will ask questions like “how
much water is needed to keep this particular plant in good shape?” But if he
does ask what is the very being of this plant he is posing a metaphysical
question
The Object of Metaphysics
Every discipline has its own object, though there are
many disciplines that study the same material object, but what distinguishes
them is there formal object and there point of departure. For instance the
natural sciences like geology study the earth in its rock formation; geography
studies the earth in its natural or artificial partitions; and geogeny studies
the earth to discover its origin.[7] But metaphysics, studies being qua being. So,
when we speak of the object of metaphysics, it means being qua being, reality
as a whole. Being is so elusive to conceptualize univocally but predicated
analogically. Being has many meanings, of which we cannot discuss here, it
cannot be defined or properly described but it can be said to designate what
exist.[8]
Being, which connote what is or exists, is the object of Metaphysics.[9]
What is Science?
Etymologically, the word “science”
is derived from the Latin word Scientia, meaning “knowledge or wisdom.”[10]
But in a strict sense, when we refer to science, we speak of natural sciences
like physics, chemistry, biology[11]
etc. they are sciences, because they are organically constituted body of
knowledge by which the mind through demonstration or analysis proves the
property of another subject. In short, science is all about proving the
property of formal subject. Hence, Aristotle defined science as the
demonstration of conclusion.[12]
The term science as history has it was coined in the
19th century by William Whewell.
And it was in that era that science took a different dimension that is
professional due to the scientific revolution which placed science as a source
for the relative growth of knowledge.[13]
The practice of science took a more professional dimension in the nineteenth
century and was institutionalized in a pattern that continued in the twentieth
century. Moreover, the history of science includes the study of the historical
development of scientific knowledge (natural and social sciences). The history
of science is often presented in progressive narratives such that the true
theories replace the false beliefs.[14]
The history of science is labeled and marked with series and change of advances
in technology and knowledge which has always complemented each other and as
such, science cuts across many epochs, the ancient era was a primitive and
challenging period for science, in the Medieval era, science was not in charge
of herself, the church was, and science was not really at liberty, science was
restricted and could say and do only that which the church permits and
approves.[15]
However, in the modern era, as we ourselves can see the effects in this our
contemporary era that science has run so fast as to unfold its various folders
so that it present to man that which led man to question his faith, his religion
belief among other things which it offers.
The Object of Science
Science deals with
human’s understanding of the real world, human beings, the inherent properties
of space, matter, energy, and their interactions. Hence, the object of natural
science is nature. Though the usage of the word science generally
applies to a wide variety of disciplines or intellectual activities which have
certain features in common, it particularly refers to those disciplines that
are characterized by the possibility of making precise statements which are
susceptible to some sort of check or proof-empirical verification.[16] Though problematic in his demarcation, this
however, distinguishes sciences from non sciences and pseudo sciences. Science
carries out this empirical verifiable inquiry about reality through what is
known as the scientific method.
Scientific Method
When we speaks of scientific method, it connotes the techniques
by which science arrive at their theories and laws. Scientific method is an
ongoing process, which usually begins with observations about the natural
world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with
questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses)
about why things are the way they are. The methods
include observation, Experiment, explanation and induction etc.
1. Observation
connotes the proper scrutiny and examination of natural occurrences with the
aim of discovering the antecedent of a consequence which appear in an
invariable sequence.[17]
It has also been define as the verification of phenomena spontaneously produces
by nature.[18]
2. Explanation
connote an act or operation designed to discover, test, or illustrate a truth,
in principle, or effect; a test especially one intended to confirm or disprove
something which is still in doubt.[19]
3. Experimentation
connotes artificial observation because it involves the use of scientific
apparatus to do analysis of event. For Chalmers, experiment is the mother of the facts which serve as bases for science rather
than any old observable facts.[20]
4. Induction has
to do with deriving theories from the facts. By inductive method, scientists draw
conclusions based on few events. “Induction” denotes the form of reasoning that
distinguishes the natural sciences of chemistry, meteorology, and geology from
mathematical subjects such as algebra, geometry, and set theory.
On method, Aristotle maintained that the scientist
should induce explanatory principles from the phenomena to be explained, and
then deduce statements about the phenomena from premises which include these
principles. Scientific explanation thus is a transition from knowledge of a
fact to knowledge of the reasons for the fact.[21]
What is Religion?
What is
religion? This question should remind us of St. Augustine’s quote about time:
“If you do not ask me what time is, I know. If you ask me, I do not know.”[22]
It seems the same with religion. Everybody knows what religion is before you
ask them. But if you ask them what religion is, they will find it difficult to
give a concise definition. Thus, we can say that Religion is notoriously
difficult to define, every theory has its limitations,
and however, each perspective contributes to our understanding of this complex
phenomenon. Nevertheless, according to James Livingston, Religion is that system of
activities and beliefs directed toward that which is perceived to be of sacred
value and transforming power.[23]
While for Durkheim, Religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices
related to sacred things, that is, things set apart, endowed with special
meanings, and values, treated with reverence and respect.[24]
Nature and Object of
Religion
Religion has
its origin and drives its power from an encounter with the natural world. Religions
develop as an attempt to appeased natural forces that are beyond human control.[25]
Religion plays a very crucial and fundamental role in bestowing meaning and
significance on human existence. It marks off what is special and true, it
provides order and structures, and set forth the project and goal of humanity.[26] More
so, every religion has belief-a profession of faith. They equally have
ritual-ceremonies, practices and custom that is oriented towards the worship of
the sacred. They also have emotionalism- the belief in sacredness evokes the
feeling of reverence and awe in believers.
Metaphysics and Science
What does it mean to say that metaphysic is science?
In Aristotle and also in Aquinas, metaphysics is a speculative science and not
a practical science like physics, chemistry and biology because it treats of
being whose existence and definition does not depend on matter but beings that
can exist without matter.[27]
In others words, as said earlier, metaphysics treat of metaphysical reality
like God, substance etc, while science deals with our empirical world. More so,
the science of being qua being which metaphysic is, is indeed the science of
non-sensible, or the non material,
though we cannot anticipate more than the possibility of beings that are positively
non-material. Thus, it follows then that, the definition of metaphysics as the
science of being is both genuinely comprehensive and the most illuminating,
since it is in being. Furthermore, metaphysics as a speculative science exists
for its own sake and desirable for the sake of knowledge which is unlike
science that work for practical needs. While metaphysics seeks to know the
causes of universals, while natural sciences are concern with the particulars
things that are empirical. Universal means that which entails particulars.
Thus, when a metaphysician is knowledgeable in universals, it can be said that
he knows also in some respect the particulars.[28]
But while metaphysics claim to be a speculative
science, for some philosophers and some scientists, metaphysics is nothing but
pseudo science. Thus, Between the 19th and 20th Century,
the praise of science and its method merged with a critique of traditional
Aristotelian/Scholastic Philosophy (generally labeled ‘Metaphysics’), as based
on the improper use of language and non verifiable knowledge claim. George
Edward Moore, for example, stated that metaphysical questions arise from
misunderstanding due to the bad use of language; and that, consequently,
metaphysics is to be regarded as a mere obstacle to the proper inquiry into the
nature of things.
Science and Religion
We have seen from our previous expositions what
science is and what it deals with. It then falls under this sphere to show if
there is a relationship between science and religion and in what does this relationship
consist. But, what room does the science leave for religion? Our intention here
is not to do natural theology or establish any particular religion but to show
that the natural and social sciences are open to theological enquiry and
beyond. This can be seen in the fact that presently, the sciences address
incompletely the ultimate questions and must be completed by religious
interpretations. The interface between science and religion is in a certain
sense a no-man’s land. Science is the first fact of modern life and faith is
seen as the perennial carrier of meaning. From their long range of personal and
cultural impacts, science and religion seems to be the most important forces of
the world today. This no man’s Island thus, can only be surveyed when we take
religious beliefs together with scientific knowledge. It is true that the
sciences have specialized concepts which of cause carry great knowledge but
when certain questions pushes Scientists out of this realm into a speculative
zone there is the need to fall on religion or as the case may seem, religious
philosophy.(Christian philosophy).[29] As
a matter fact, religion and Science are interlaced when we talk about their
approach to matters such as in inquiry (Creeds, Experience, Paradigms Logic),
in discussing Matter (Astrophysical Nature, Relativity), Life (evolution,
cybernetics), Mind (psychology) and culture. These are very wide scopes thus we
will consider their relationship in terms of discusses on life, nature and God.
Also, although science has it flaws, we can use it to
understand nature which in turn leads us to understanding the supernatural such
as the principal first cause which is the object of religion. Both science and
religion are driven toward collective terms. In this also constitutes the
relationship between science and religion -that the many are referred to the
one.[30]
Science tends towards explaining things whereas religion talks about the
meaning of these events. Thus, when scientists talk about cosmology, evolution,
genetics, theologians have to write a theology of nature in support or against
on-top of these findings.[31] But
in all, if a religion is strictly tied to a science today, it will become
extinct tomorrow since the sciences lives room for a continuous reevaluation
and possibly complete overhauling of its stands. Yet religion has to fit into
the sciences to understand its immediate environment, so, religion has to
maintain its autonomous integrity.[32]
Moderation in things is the most perfect way things can exist; science needs
value and morals to guide it. Otherwise it would be like the situation of a
skilled but lawless gangster with an AK 47 in the midst of hundreds of people.
Russell, on the other hand argues that
religion emerge out of fear of the unknown, thus it needs science, science can
help religion to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so
many generations in the name of religion. Science can teach us Russell say, and
our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports,
no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts
here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of
place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.[33]
One question seems not to be asked here, and this is
the question of the first cause of Life and not those who claim to make it
better or cater for it. This leads us to evolutionary biology. Although genes
coexist with an organism, they do not preexist before it. Looking at the
various intricacies found in the genes, do we say the genes poses the secret of
life? Now, it is neither the chemistry nor physics that makes a gene a gene.
But, it is the information it carries and the gene makes no sense except as the
control center of an organism. This information it carries gives life a certain
sacredness which transcends Biology or Physics. There is then, a “Significance”
to life which can be subject to religious interpretation rather than a scientific
interpretation.[34]
Looking at a seemingly simple event such as an “Escherichia coli” reproducing itself in your intestine just as you
are listening to me, typically synthesizing each second some four thousand
molecules of lipid one thousand protein molecules, each containing about three
hundred amino acids, and four molecules of DNA, so it would have made ten
thousand molecules while you were reading and listening. This is a kind of
intricacy in the human system among others which should not be seen as being
caused by mere combination of the male and female sex gametes. It then becomes
necessary to posit of a first cause which lies outside the jurisdiction of the
sciences but fortunately in the Religious.[35]
Here we see that, to see the various degrees of complexities in the human
system we need the scientific know-how, and to investigate beyond these
complexities to the cause behind them we need Religion.
Critique of Metaphysics
Contrary to the metaphysicians claim that
Metaphysics is a speculative science, some modern philosophers and scientists
have argued that metaphysics is nothing but a pseudo science. It connotes no
meaning, nor does it offer any form of knowledge. Among those who held this view first were David
Hume, and later, the Logical Positivists. David Hume with his empiricist
attitude argued from knowledge point of view that the so called metaphysics
offers no form of knowledge because its knowledge claim cannot be verify
empirically. Hume wrote that;
“When we run over libraries, persuaded of
these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume;
of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, does it contain
any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any
experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it
then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”[36]
Also, Alfred Ayer, the official spokesman
of the logical positivism, a movement, which traced its origin to the Vienna
circle, like Hume rejects metaphysics. Ayer’s attitude was quite negative; his
argument was from language while that of Hume was from knowledge.[37] It was quiet clear to him that an
epistemological premise like that of Hume or Kant will not suffice as basis for
the rejection of metaphysics. As such, he set out to reject metaphysics with a
linguistic premise.[38]
Hence, he wrote that, “The metaphysician produces sentences, which fail to
conform to the conditions under which alone a sentence can be literally
significant.”[39]
Furthermore, like Hume, the logical positivists insist that unless a statement
is analytic or synthetic, it is meaningless.
The synthetic statements of the empirical
science were held to be cognitively meaningful if and only if they were
empirically testable in some sense. They derived their justification as
knowledge claims from successful tests.[40]
It follows then,
that for the Logical positivist, metaphysical assertions are ultimately
meaningless since they are neither synthetic nor analytic.
To say that something is real is to say that certain data are observed,
that certain facts are the case.[41]
Mach
also saw science as an advance over metaphysics.[42]
This is because for him, metaphysical claim cannot be confirmed nor refuted
unlike science that we can empirically account for.
Critique of Religion
Religion has been critique of emerging out
of fear. Among those that find religion faulty is Bertrand Russell. In his work
why I am not a Christian, Russell argued as follow: Religion is based, I think,
primarily and mainly upon fear.[43]
It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to
feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your
troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing ‐‐
fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death.[44]
Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and
religion have gone hand‐in‐hand.
In other words, for Russell, Religion is not a science, it emerge out of fear.
Critique of Science
Regardless of the impacts of science,
scientific knowledge has been critique of been uncertain.[45] Desidério Murcho in
his work does science need philosophy made a critique of science. He argues
that scientific knowledge claims are not certain because their theories are not
open to debate.[46]
The student is not expected to evaluate the truth claims of those theories
against competing theories, because there are no competing theories.[47]
In other words, he meant that science is built on shaking foundation, is
knowledge claim is not knowledge per se; they are merely a guess and
predication.
Conclusion
In this paper, we have exposed briefly what metaphysics,
science, and religion is. We did mention that metaphysics studies being qua
being, science studies the natural world, while religion deals with the
supernatural forces. We have indeed explicated their objects and methods of
inquiry. We have also indicated how they relate, and how they differ with
regards to their objects of inquires. More so, we have related their
limitations, and the different critiques made of them. Finally, we could say from above, that
metaphysics, science and religion though differs in their objects of inquiries
and methods, share certain similarity which is the search for knowledge. This
is so because while metaphysics has the quest to understand being qua being,
science strives to understand the natural world, and religion sought to
understand the supernatural powers or forces behind some mysterious occurrences
that are beyond sciences.
References
Books
Kuhn,
Thomas. The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago press,
1962.
Gardeil,
H.D. L. Introduction to the Philosophy of
St. Thomas Aquinas Vol. IV Metaphysics.
New
York: B. Herder Book Company, 1967.
Aristotle,
Metaphysics Translated by Richard Hope. New York: Ann Arbor Paper Backs,
1968. Grenier, Henri. Thomistic
Philosophy, Vol. III Metaphysics . Canada: St. Dunstan’s University
Charlottetown, 1950.
Unah,
Jim. Lectures
on Philosophy and Logic. Lagos: Fadec Publisher, 2001.
Jan,
Golinski. Making Natural Knowledge:
constructivism and the history of science. Chicago:
University of Chicago
Press, 2009.
Reith C.S.C., Herman. The Metaphysics of st. Thomas Aquinas. Published By Bruce
Publishing
Company.
Jolivet,
Regis. Man and Metaphysics. New York:
Hawthorn Books Publishers, 1961.
Horrigan,
Paul Gerard. Introduction to Metaphysics
Lectures, 2003.
Chalmers,
David. “What Is this Thing Called
Science?” England: Open University Press, 2013.
Loose,
John. An Introduction to the Philosophy
of Science 4th edition.
New York: Oxford
University Press,
2001.
The
confessions of Saint Augustine, Book.13, Chapter xvi. Mumbai India: St. Paul’s,
2012.
Russell,
Bertrand. Why I Am Not a Christian: an
Examination of the God‐Idea and Christianity.
England, 6th March, 1927, Pdf
accessed 25th April 2015.
Hume,
Bertrand. An Enquiry Concerning Human
Understanding, Section XII, Part III edited by
Tom L. Beauchamp. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999.
Bittle,
N. Celestine. The Science of Correct
Thinking Logic. America: Brue
Publishing
Company, 1942.
A.
C. Bouquet, Comparative Religion. U.S.A:
William Clowes and Sons limited, 1941.
Ralston,
Holmes III. Science and Religion: A
Critical Survey. New York: Random House, Inc.
1987
Chalmers,
Alan. What is this thing called Science?
2nd ed. St. Lucia: University of Queensland,
1982.
Jules
Ayer, Alfred. Language, Logic, Truth and
Logic. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.,
1952.
Durkheim,
Emil. Elementary Forms of Religious Life.
New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd,
1912.
Harman,
J Sylvester . A Text Book of Logic.
America: America Book Company, 1936.
Dictionaries
Walter,
Brugger and Kenneth, Baker. Philosophical
Dictionary, 1974., s.v. “Metaphysics.”
Traupman
C. John. The New College Latin and
English Dictionary. New York: Bantam Books,
1966, s.v. “Science.”
Encyclopedias
McGraw,
Hill. “Science”, Encyclopedia of Science
and Technology, Vol. 12, 1960, 1966 ed., s.v.
The New International Webster’s Comprehensive
Dictionary of the English Language. 1999,
Encyclopedic Edition.
s.v “Experiment.”
Journals
Albert
E. Blumberg and Herbert Feigl “Logical Positivism” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 28,
no.
11, May 21, 1931.
Ilodigwe
Damian. “Ayer’s Critique of Metaphysics” Philosophy and Theology Journal of the
Catholic Major Seminary of All Saints Ekpoma
Review, Vol. 2, 2014.
Internet materials
Murcho,
Desidério. Does Science Need Philosophy? Pdf.
Thomas, Uebel. "Vienna Circle", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring
2014
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/vienna-circle/>.
Accessed on 10th April, 2015.
The
Uncertainty of Science pdf, http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Feynman-Uncertainty.pdf,
Accessed 15th May, 2015.
[1] Jim Unah, Lectures on Philosophy and Logic (Lagos:
Fadec Publisher, 2001), p. 55
[2] Jim Unah, Lectures on Philosophy and Logic, P. 55
[3] H.D. Gardeil, Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas
Aquinas Vol. IV Metaphysics (New York: B. Herder Book Company, 1967), p. 1.
[4] Walter Brugger and
Kenneth Baker, Philosophical Dictionary (1974),
s.v. “Metaphysics.”
[5] Regis Jolivet, Man and Metaphysics (New York: Hawthorn
Books Publishers, 1961), p. 13
[6] Aristotle, Metaphysics, Translated by Richard Hope
(New York: Ann Arbor Paper Backs, 1968), p. 130.
[7] Paul Gerard Horrigan, Introduction to Metaphysics Lectures (2003), p. 6
[8] Aristotle, Metaphysics, p. 130
[9] Henri Grenier, Thomistic Philosophy, Vol. III Metaphysics (Canada:
St. Dunstan’s University Charlottetown, 1950), p. 12.
[10] John C. Traupman, The New College Latin and English Dictionary
(New York: Bantam Books, 1966), s.v.
“Science.”
[12] Herman Reith C.S.C, The Metaphysics of st. Thomas Aquinas(Published
By Bruce Publishing Company), p. 231
[13]Golinski, Jan, Making Natural Knowledge: constructivism and
the history of science. (Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 2009), p. 2
[14]Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Chicago:
university of Chicago press, 1962), P. 137
[15] Thomas Kuhn, p. 145
[16] Cf. Hill McGraw,
“Science”, Encyclopedia of Science and
Technology, vol. 12, (1960, 1966 ed.), p. 71, s.v.
[17] Celestine N. Bittle, The Science of Correct Thinking Logic
(America: Brue Publishing Company,
1942), p. 297.
[18] Sylvester J. Harman, A Text Book of Logic (America: America
Book Company, 1936), p. 319.
[19] The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English
Language (1999), Encyclopedic Edition. s.v “Experiment.”
[20] Cf. David Chalmers, “What Is this Thing Called Science?”
(England: Open University Press, 2013), p.26
[21] Cf. Cf. John Loose, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science 4th edition (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 5
[22] The confessions of
Saint Augustine, Book.13, Chapter xvi (Mumbai India: St. Paul’s, 2012), p. 234
[23] Religion, http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=5006
(Accessed 20th April, 2015)
[24] Emil Durkheim, Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New
York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1912), p. 24
[25] Religiion http://www.studyreligion.org/what/index.html(Accessed
20th April, 2015)
[26] CF A. C. Bouquet, Comparative Religion (U.S.A: William
Clowes and Sons limited, 1941), pp. 11-12.
[27] Herman
Reith C.S.C, The Metaphysics of St.
Thomas Aquinas, p. 22.
[28] Herman Reith C.S.C, The Metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 205
[29] CF Holmes Rolston, III,
Science and Religion: A Critical Survey (New
York: Random House, Inc. 1987). Pp. v-vi
[30]CF Holmes Rolston, III, Science and Religion: A Critical Survey.
pp.297-298
[31] CF Holmes Rolston, III,
Science and Religion: A Critical Survey.
p.312
[32]CF Holmes Rolston, III, Science and Religion: A Critical Survey,
p. vii
[33] Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian: an Examination of
the God‐Idea and
Christianity
(England, 6th March, 1927) (Pdf accessed 25th April
2015), p. 15.
[34] CF Holmes Rolston, III,
Science and Religion: a Critical Survey.
pp. 85-86
[35] CF Holmes Rolston, III,
Science and Religion: a Critical Survey.
p. 89
[36] David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,
Section XII, Part III edited by Tom L. Beauchamp. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999), p. 114.
[37] Damian Ilodigwe “Ayer’s
Critique of Metaphysics” Philosophy and
Theology Journal of the Catholic Major Seminary of All Saints Ekpoma Review,
Vol. 2 (2014), p. 41.
[38] Damian Ilodigwe “Ayer’s
Critique of Metaphysics” p. 41.
[39] Alfred Jules Ayer, Language, Logic, Truth and Logic, (New
York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1952), p. 35.
[40] Uebel, Thomas, "Vienna Circle", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring
2014
Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.),
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/vienna-circle/>.
Accessed on 10th April, 2015
[41] Albert E. Blumberg and
Herbert Feigl “Logical Positivism” The
Journal of Philosophy, vol. 28, no. 11 (May 21, 1931), p.295
[42] Alan Chalmers, What is this thing called Science? 2nd
ed., (St. Lucia: University of Queensland, 1982), p
[43] Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian, p. 15.
[44] Bertrand Russell, Why I
Am Not a Christian, p. 15.
[45] The Uncertainty of
Science pdf, http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Feynman-Uncertainty.pdf
(Accessed 15 May, 2015), p. 9.
Comments
Post a Comment