KJCKorea
Journal Central

@article{ART001683286},
author={Jin Park},
title={Science and Religion - Critique of ‘Consilience’ and the Way to Moral Religion},
journal={PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE},
issn={1975-1621},
year={2012},
number={14},
pages={64-90},
doi={}

TY - JOUR
AU - Jin Park
TI - Science and Religion - Critique of ‘Consilience’ and the Way to Moral Religion
JO - PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE
PY - 2012
VL - null
IS - 14
PB - Research Institute for East-West Thought
SP - 64
EP - 90
SN - 1975-1621
AB - The Latin father, Tertullianus said, "credo quia absurdum." He insisted that the relation between faith and reason is exclusive. On the contrary, Anselmus said, "credo ut intelligam" He sought after the relation between faith and reason as inclusive one.(fides quaerens intellectum) Because science is nowadays regarded as the standard of reason, many people think that faith or revelation is not scientific, therefore unreasonable. However I criticize ‘Consilience: The unity of Knowledge(1998)’(by E. Wilson) as scientific holism, which regards only knowledge proved by observation and calculation as reasonable and meaningful. The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the true relation between faith and reason. To disclose this relation, I search for the answer to the following questions. Is the relation between faith and reason an exclusive alternative? Is faith contradictory to reason? Is there any harmonious connection between faith and reason? If there is no way to God by scientific method, i.e. observation and calculation, does any other way remain? If does any other way to God for men's reason remain, which is the way? I found this way in Kant's Moral Religion, which admits the internal connection between faith and practical reason.
KW - ceation;faith;reason;practical reason;moral religion;Kant;scientific holism
DO -
ER -

Jin Park. (2012). Science and Religion - Critique of ‘Consilience’ and the Way to Moral Religion. PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE, 14, 64-90.

Jin Park. 2012, "Science and Religion - Critique of ‘Consilience’ and the Way to Moral Religion", PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE, no.14, pp.64-90. Available from: doi:

Jin Park "Science and Religion - Critique of ‘Consilience’ and the Way to Moral Religion" PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE 14 pp.64-90 (2012) : 64.

Jin Park. Science and Religion - Critique of ‘Consilience’ and the Way to Moral Religion. 2012; 14 : 64-90. Available from: doi:

Jin Park. "Science and Religion - Critique of ‘Consilience’ and the Way to Moral Religion" PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE no.14(2012) : 64-90.doi:

Jin Park. Science and Religion - Critique of ‘Consilience’ and the Way to Moral Religion. PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE, 14, 64-90. doi:

Jin Park. Science and Religion - Critique of ‘Consilience’ and the Way to Moral Religion. PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE. 2012; 14 64-90. doi:

Jin Park. Science and Religion - Critique of ‘Consilience’ and the Way to Moral Religion. 2012; 14 : 64-90. Available from: doi:

Jin Park. "Science and Religion - Critique of ‘Consilience’ and the Way to Moral Religion" PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE no.14(2012) : 64-90.doi: