Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Science, Religion, and the Human Experience$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

James D. Proctor

Print publication date: 2005

Print ISBN-13: 9780195175325

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: February 2006

DOI: 10.1093/0195175328.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 22 September 2018

In We Trust: Science, Religion, and Authority

In We Trust: Science, Religion, and Authority

Chapter:
(p.87) 5 In We Trust: Science, Religion, and Authority
Source:
Science, Religion, and the Human Experience
Author(s):

James D. Proctor (Contributor Webpage)

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/0195175328.003.0006

This essay considers science and religion as major institutions of epistemic and moral authority. Proctor argues that authority is at the heart of most discussions related to science and religion, given the ways these discussions generally compare their authoritative claims. Both the ideological means by which scientific and religious authority are constructed and defended, and the different patterns of trust in authority by ordinary people and communities of people, are relevant to understanding science and religion. In the former case, a common tendency is to elide the humanness of scientific and religious institutions, and ground their authority based on some notion of objectivity or transparency, such that science points directly to reality, and religion to God (or the sacred). This claim, however, ignores the ways both are fully enmeshed in the human experience. In the case of people’s differing trust of authority, Proctor refers to his recent survey and interviews of adult Americans on their trust in four major domains of authority: science, religion, nature, and the state. Results suggest two primary models of authority Americans decide whether or not to trust: theocracy, with God (religion) as the ultimate authority and the state as the mediating human authority; and ecology, with nature as the ultimate authority and science as the mediating human authority. Though problems exist in both of these models, Proctor notes that some measure of trust in authority is unavoidable — and as representing commitment to life — potentially beneficial as well. He ultimately argues that both commitment and critique must be present if trust in authority is to lead to meaningful epistemological and moral guidance in our lives.

Keywords:   authority, ecology, religion, science, theocracy, trust

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .