Similarities and Differences Between Scientific and Religious Belief

  • Paul Weingartner
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 59)


According to the common view scientific belief (i.e. belief in scientific hypotheses or theories) has nothing to do with religious belief (i.e. belief in the creed of some religion). Though this common view is very widespread, it is usually not reflected upon or analyzed in some detail. One of the points in my paper is that on a closer look and deeper analysis it will turn out that there are a number of interesting similarities between the two. And also the differences show interesting and important characteristics. But to show that there are similarities and that there are differences is only one important task. It will become clearer on a more detailed analysis that both “similarity” and “difference” should not be taken too literally. Since in many cases a particular similarity will show some new differences in special details and a particular difference will show some new similarities on a deeper level.


Religious Belief Basic Belief Epistemic Logic Continuum Hypothesis Deontic Logic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, A. R. and Belnap, N. D.: 1975, Entailment. The Logic of Relevance and Necessity. Volume I, Princeton University Press, Princeton and London.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle: (Post. An.) ‘Posterior Analytics’, in Prior and Posterior Analytics, intr. comm. W.D. Ross, Oxford 1957.Google Scholar
  3. Augustinus: (Lib Arb) II, De Libero Arbitrio, ML Vol. 32, 1231–1310, (Ord) 2,18,47Google Scholar
  4. De Ordine, ML Vol. 32, 959–976Google Scholar
  5. Bocheński, J. M.: 1965, The Logic of Religion, New York University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Bocheński, J. M.: 1974, ‘An Analysis of Authority’, in: Authority, F.J. Adelmann, S.J. (ed.), Boston College Studies in Philosophy, Bd. 3, Chestnut Hill/The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 56–85.Google Scholar
  7. Boeihius: (Con) III,10; De Consolatione Philosophie, ML Vol. 63, 579–862;Google Scholar
  8. (Trin).
    Quomodo Trinitas unus Deus ac non tres Dii, ML vol. 64, 1247–1256.Google Scholar
  9. Clemens von Alexandrien: (Strom) V,12; Stromata, O. Stählin (ed.), Vol. 1–6 (1906)Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, P.: 1963/64, “The Independence of the Continuum Hypothesis”, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 50 (1963), 1143–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, P.: 1966, Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis, Benjamin, New York and Amster dam.Google Scholar
  12. Gödel, K.: 1940, The Consistency of the Axiom of Choice and of the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis with the Axioms of Set Theory, Annals of Mathematics Studies 3, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  13. Meessen, A.: 1989, ‘Is it logically Possible to Generalize Physics through Space-Time Quantization?’ in Philosophy of Natural Science, Proceedings of the 13th International Wittgenstein Symposium, Paul Weingartner and Gerhard Schurz (eds.), Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, Wien, 19–47.Google Scholar
  14. Neumann, J. v.: 1951, ‘Tribute to Dr. Gödel’ in Foundations of Mathematics, J. J. Bulloff, Th.C. Holyoke, S.W. Hahn (eds.), Springer, Berlin 1969.Google Scholar
  15. Popper, K. R.: 1934, 1969, Logik der Forschung, Julius Springer, Wien/J.C.B. Mohr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  16. Popper, K. R.: 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (English translation of Popper (1934)).Google Scholar
  17. Popper, K. R.: 1963, Conjectures and Refutations, Routlege-Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  18. Popper, K. R.: 1974, The Philosophy of Karl Popper, Part Three: The Philosopher Replies, P.A. Schilpp (ed.), Open Court, La Salle.Google Scholar
  19. Popper, K. R.: 1984, Auf der Suche nach einer besseren Welt, Piper, München.Google Scholar
  20. Schurz, G. and Weingartner P.: 1987, ‘Verisimilitude Defined by Relevant Consequence-Elements. A new Reconstruction of Popper’s Original Idea’, in What is Closer-to-the-Truth?, Th. Kuipers (ed.), Rodopi, Amsterdam, 47–77.Google Scholar
  21. Solovay, R.: 1976, ‘Provability Interpretations of Modal Logic’, in Israel Journal of Mathema tics 25, 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomas Aquinas (STh) I,2,3; 12,11 and 13,1. Summa Theologica, transl. by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Christian Classics, Westminster, Maryland 1981.Google Scholar
  23. Weingartner, P. and Schurz, G.: 1986, ‘Paradoxes Solved by simple Relevance Criteria’, Logique et Analyse 113, 3–40.Google Scholar
  24. Weingartner, P.: 1988, ‘Remarks on the Consequence-Class of Theories’, in The Role of Experience in Science, E. Scheibe (ed.). De Gruyter, Berlin, 161–180.Google Scholar
  25. Weingartner, P.: 1993, ‘Can there be Reasons for Putting Limitations on Classical Logic’, in Mathematical Philosopher, P. Humphreys (ed.), Patrick Suppes, Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Weingartner

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations