Scientific Justification of Religion

  1. Lemma
  2. Naucno opravdanje religije
  3. Serbian
  4. Stevanovic, Aleksandra
  5. Modes of interaction
  6. 28-2-2017
  7. Milin, Lazar [Author]. Scientific Justification of Religion
  8. Scientific Justification of Religion - Belgrade: Faculty of Orthodox Theology, 2002.
  9. dialogue - Apologetics
    1. The book Scientific Justification of Religion consists of IV main parts. In the preface, the author concedes the unusual title and implies that it does not relate to the apologetics of religion but to the affirmation of the trustworthiness.

      The introductory part introduces apologetics and provides as with a review of its literature throughout history. Part I is devoted to religion in general, listing diverse definitions of religion. Part II explores the elements of religion, part III the relationship of religion towards spiritual activities and the last one tackles diverse encounters of religion.

      Second part of Part III explores the relationship of science and religion. The author begins with listing scientists that were religious, implying that the greater the scientist was, the more faith he had. Hence, science does not necessarily lead to atheism. The author says that the opposite side claims that there is conflict between science and religion. A part of intelligentsia believes that they would fulfill their duty towards science if they were against religion.

      The author adds that science cannot replace religion, but that religion cannot replace science either. This is because there is a huge difference between them. That distinction though, is not a contradiction. If two people discuss different matters from diverse perspectives, that is not contradictory, but simply distinct. Thereby, it is obvious that science and religion complement each other.

      Those opposing religion accentuate that religion is pure faith while science is pure knowledge. But that is not true. What is true is that scientific truths are reached by reason and experience, that is, observation and logics, while religious truths are obtained by faith. However that distinction is not antagonistic. The author accentuates that what opposes faith is doubt, not reason. Reason and faith cannot be contradictory. They are rather interferent – partly differing and partly matching.