Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T09:45:29.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science, Religion, and Democracy*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Philip Kitcher
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Debates sometimes arise within democratic societies because of the fact that findings accepted in accordance with the standards of scientific research conflict with the beliefs of citizens. I use the example of the dispute about Darwinian evolutionary theory to explore what a commitment to democracy might require of us in circumstances of this kind. I argue that the existence of hybrid epistemologies – tendencies to acquiesce in scientific recommendations on some occasions and to defer to non-scientific authorities on others – poses a serious problem for democratic decision-making. We need a shared conception of public reason, and it can only be secular.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 2008, pp. 5 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

References

REFERENCES

Berger, Peter. 1999. “The Desecularization of the World: A Global Overview.” In Berger, P. (ed.), The Desecularization of the World, pp. 1–18. Washington, DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 1995. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Tocqueville, de, Alexis, . 1835, 1840. Democracy in America.Google Scholar
Dewey, John. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Dewey, John. 1934. A Common Faith. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ehrman, Bart. 1997. The New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eisen, Arnold. 1983. The Chosen People in America: A Study in Jewish Religious Ideology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, Robert and the Seminar, Jesus. 1998. The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.Google Scholar
James, William. 1902. The Varieties of Religious Experience. New York: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2005. “The Many-Sided Con.ict Between Science and Religion.” In Mann, W. (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2007. Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lofland, John and Stark, Rodney. 1965. “Becoming a World-Saver.” American Sociological Review 30: 862–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mill, John Stuart. 1859. On Liberty.Google Scholar
Miller, Kenneth R. 1999. Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. New York: Cliff Street Books.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa and Inglehart, Ronald. 2004. Sacred and Secular. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagels, Elaine. 2003. Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Spong, John Shelby. 1994. Resurrection: Myth or Reality? San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.Google Scholar
Stark, Rodney. 1996. The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wuthnow, Robert. 1993. Christianity in the Twenty-First Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar