共 4 条
A WAY FORWARD FOR SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON SCIENCE AND RELIGION: A REVIEW AND A RIFF with Mark Harris, "'The People of This Country Have Had Enough of Experts': In Defense of the 'Elites' of the Science-and-Religion Debate"; Fern Elsdon-Baker, "In Defense of Publics: Projection, Bias, and Cultural Narratives in Science and Religion Debates"; Elaine Howard Ecklund, Sharan Kaur Mehta, and Daniel Bolger, "A Way Forward for Sociological Research on Science and Religion: A Review and a Riff"; Nathan Crick, "Morality through Inquiry, Motive through Rhetoric: The Politics of Science and Religion in the Epoch of the Anthropocene"; and John H. Evans, "The Scope and Implications of Morals Not Knowledge."
被引:0
|作者:
Ecklund, Elaine Howard
[1
,2
]
Mehta, Sharan Kaur
[3
]
Bolger, Daniel
[3
]
机构:
[1] Rice Univ, Social Sci, Houston, TX 77005 USA
[2] Rice Univ, Sociol, Houston, TX 77005 USA
[3] Rice Univ, Houston, TX USA
来源:
关键词:
cross-national research;
race;
religion;
science;
secularity;
underrepresented minorities;
BLACK;
BOUNDARIES;
LATINO;
VIEWS;
SUNNI;
D O I:
10.1111/zygo.12542
中图分类号:
D58 [社会生活与社会问题];
C913 [社会生活与社会问题];
学科分类号:
摘要:
John Evans's new book Morals Not Knowledge pushes scholars to rethink contemporary debates about religion and science by moving past the rhetoric of societal elites to examine the perspectives of everyday Americans, identifying the moral conflicts at the heart of debates. We review Evans's key contributions while also extending and challenging his arguments, urging consideration of how renewed moral debates might be informed by a broader set of U.S. "publics." Drawing on empirical research, we highlight four sets of voices that are missing from Evans's analysis. Specifically, we highlight the voices of racial and ethnic minorities, religious communities (as opposed to individuals), members of minority religious traditions, and everyday religious scientists. Through doing so we offer avenues for future research on these diverse publics that will help facilitate a broader set of better and more informed debates about moral conflict between religious and scientific communities.
引用
收藏
页码:634 / 647
页数:14
相关论文