Yiftach J. H. Fehige

Although modern societies have come to recognize diversity in human sexuality as simply part of nature, many Christian communities and thinkers still have considerable difficulties with related developments in politics, legislation, and science. In fact, homosexuality is a recurrent topic in the transdisciplinary encounter between Christianity and the sciences, an encounter that is otherwise rather “asexual.” I propose that the recent emergence of “Christianity and Science” as an academic field in its own right is an important part of the larger context of the difficulties related to attempts to reconcile Christianity and a recognition of diversity in human sexuality as a norm. Through a critical discussion of arguments which are upheld most disturbingly on a global scale by the Roman Catholic Church and supported with much sophistry by important stakeholders of an influential stream in analytic philosophy of religion, this paper aims to contextualize and defend the legitimacy of the question why God would create homosexuals as such if it is true that every homosexual act is prohibited by God. While recently advanced nonheterosexist scientific models of sexuality in nature inform the discussion, I reject the simplistic view that religions suppress and the sciences liberate in matters sexual

While the influential analytical philosopher Hilary Putnam has made significant contributions to philosophy of mind, philosophy of language and philosophy of science, he isn't generally regarded as a philosopher of religion or a theologian. Nonetheless, I argue that his work should be of great interest to philosophers of religion and theologians. Focusing on the relationship between science and religion, this paper explores the importance of Putnam's attempt to reconcile his anti-metaphysical stance and his commitment to a religious form of life for theology. I first demonstrate why an anti-metaphysical stance and a commitment to Judaism can be deemed contradictory, and then characterize Putnam's anti-metaphysical stance as a modus vivendi to avoid both of what I call analytic and scientistic metaphysics. In a third step I offer my interpretation of Putnam's way of relating science and religion without metaphysics in the qualified sense, and subsequently spell out some important consequences of the emerging picture for theology. In my conclusion I give an account of Putnam as a transitional thinker, and draw a parallel between some of his work and Kierkegaard's “leap of faith”

This volume situates itself within the context of the rapidly growing interdisciplinary field that is dedicated to the study of the complex interactions between science and religion. It presents an innovative approach insofar as it addresses the Eurocentrism that is still prevalent in this field. At the same time it reveals how science develops in the space that emerges between the ‘local’ and the ‘global’. The volume examines a range of themes central to the interaction between science and religion: ‘Eastern’ thought within ‘Western’ science and religion and vice versa, and revisits thinkers who sought to integrate ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ thinking. It studies Zen Buddhism and its relation to psychotherapy, Islamic science, Vedantic science, atheism in India, and Darwinism, offering in turn new perspectives on a variety of approaches to nature. Part of the Science and Technology Studies series, this volume brings together original perspectives from major scholars from across disciplines and will be of great interest to scholars and students of science and technology studies, history of science, philosophy of science, religious studies, and sociology.

Drei Argumente scheinen insgesamt zur Bewältigung des akuten medizinethischen Problems der fremdnützigen Forschung an Nichteinwilligungsfähigen im Umlauf zu sein: Das Autonomieargument und das Innovationsforschungsfreiheitsargument , mit denen eine Berechtigung herbeizuführen versucht wird, als auch das Menschenwürdeargument , das dem Verbot dienen soll. AA hat nach wie vor den größten Einfluss in der Debatte um PfFN. Nach einer knappen Skizze des Ausmaßes von dem angemeldeten Bedarf an fremdnütziger Forschung mit Nichteinwilligungsfähigen, wird deswegen AA zunächst in verschiedenen Versionen diskutiert, um zu zeigen, dass es ebenso wenig überzeugen kann wie letztendlich MA und IF. Mit der Diskussion von MA zeigt sich jedoch, dass eine Limitierung der zur Disposition stehenden Forschungspraxis geboten scheint, nämlich die unhintergehbare Wahrung der Selbstzwecklichkeit der Person, die sich jenseits enthobener Spekulation im Rekurs auf den Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG konkret ausbuchstabieren lässt. Die Diskussion von IF indiziert dagegen eindringlich die unleugbare Berechtigung fremdnütziger Forschung an Nichteinwilligungsfähigen. Eine befriedigende medizinethische Lösung, so wird abschließend angezeigt, lässt sich in dem skizzierten Argumentationsrahmen wohl nur erreichen, wenn das Verhältnis von Gemeinwohl- und Individualwohl geklärt ist