과학시대의 새로운 종교양태 연구 -과학을 도구로 하는 종교양태를 중심으로-

장재호 ( Jae Ho Jeng ) 서울대학교 종교학연구회 2009 宗敎學硏究 Vol.28 No.-

This thesis chose a few of new religions among the `religions to use science as a means` that have great influences on modern society and dealt with how they adopted scientific contents as their religious creed, More than any others, `Raelian Movement` and `Scientology` which started from scientific base and transferred it into religion are the new religions that represent the age of science. Rael established `Raelian Movement` through his contact with aliens with high-tech science and Hubbard founded Scientology to distribute best scientific technology to treat even human brain. In addition, `Christian Science` and `Religious Science` belonging to the `Mind Science` spectrum which asserts spiritual science to treat human diseases can be included in the `new religions to use science as a means`, They accept metaphysical and transcendental things as science and adopted them as their major creed. In addition, the `UFO-worship group` and the `New Age` religion which speaks about a new world utilizing astronomical contents are included in the new religious patterns of the science age. Studying how these religions were born, what kind of scientific knowledge they accepted as their religious creed, and how they made their religion grow based on such creeds will reveal the characteristics of the religions that use science as their basic material. How should we understand that `religions to use science as a means` come out as such. that is. how should we theologically understand the co-existence of contradictions? Why do people prefer the word `science` which is a difficult concept to understand? Why do they show such an intense interest in unproven and even seemingly unscientific UFO, alien, and so on while they say they are pursuing scientific religion? The present author tries to find the answers to these questions in the desire of `dialectical integration of scientific contents and religious creed`. As science develops. things that do not look scientific lose their ground. On the contrary. however. religion cannot maintain its vitality with continuous pursuit of something scientific. Without symbols and images. religion is nothing but an incident or miracle. The modern new religions in pursuit of science accept in different manner the symbols and images which they have rejected in previous religions. which sometimes reveal themselves as visible external image such as UFO or sometimes as metaphysical and transcendental images to be found in `Mind Science` or `Human Potential Development Movement`. In the times when the existence such as God and angel is invisible. UFO can play the role of a visible God, and focusing on supernatural power inside human being is sufficient to incorporate mystery which is an important element in a religion. Religion cannot exist independent of the times, and thus it makes its temporal adaptation. But it can be seen that religion does not deviate from the basic archetype of salvation even though times change. It is presented to people being interpreted as appropriate for the times with its basic archetype remained sound. Therefore, examining the meaning of age-specific religion can become an important measuring stick to read the times.

종교와 과학 담론의 문명사적 함의

전철(Chul Chun) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2017 신학논단 Vol.87 No.-

The clash between Religion and Science in the contemporary Korean society has been generating a highly complex situation. Amidst of a rapid scientific development, the status of religion is becoming subject to various kinds of reflections - even in the discourse of deconstructionism. On the other hand, in extreme cases, numerous scientific achievements and insights are not receiving the much-deserved acknowledgement from religion. Hence, this study aims to illuminate the understanding of the relation of religion and science based on the perspective of Whitehead. Whitehead’s profound research and understanding on the relation of religion and science have been providing a bridge in the approach to the same and can therefore gift us a tangible prospect on the contemporary discourse. Although Whitehead’s perspective is rooted in the tradition of science, a considerable portion is allocated toward the study on religion in the age of science. His monumental work, Religion in the making (1926) still offers significant religious insights. Whitehead referred to religion and science as the two main engines driving a civilization and he pursued a profound definition and understanding of religion in the age of science. This study is an attempt to shed light on Whitehead’s understanding on the definition and meaning of religion in the age of science through a philological research. Especially, this study is dedicated to understand the metaphysical and historical relation between religion and science in order to unearth a new message toward the discourse between religion and science of the 21st century and the Korean society. The clash between Religion and Science in the contemporary Korean society has been generating a highly complex situation. Amidst of a rapid scientific development, the status of religion is becoming subject to various kinds of reflections - even in the discourse of deconstructionism. On the other hand, in extreme cases, numerous scientific achievements and insights are not receiving the much-deserved acknowledgement from religion. Hence, this study aims to illuminate the understanding of the relation of religion and science based on the perspective of Whitehead. Whitehead’s profound research and understanding on the relation of religion and science have been providing a bridge in the approach to the same and can therefore gift us a tangible prospect on the contemporary discourse. Although Whitehead’s perspective is rooted in the tradition of science, a considerable portion is allocated toward the study on religion in the age of science. His monumental work, Religion in the making (1926) still offers significant religious insights. Whitehead referred to religion and science as the two main engines driving a civilization and he pursued a profound definition and understanding of religion in the age of science. This study is an attempt to shed light on Whitehead’s understanding on the definition and meaning of religion in the age of science through a philological research. Especially, this study is dedicated to understand the metaphysical and historical relation between religion and science in order to unearth a new message toward the discourse between religion and science of the 21st century and the Korean society.

종교와 과학의 관계에 대한 한국 개신교의 이해

이진구(Lee Jin-Gu) 한국기독교역사연구소 2005 한국기독교와 역사 Vol.22 No.-

This paper aims to examine the Korean protestant intellectuals’ discourses on the relationship between science and religion during the Japanese colonial period. Modem secular rationalists criticized Christian belief system as a kind of superstition. Especially anti-Christianity and anti-religion movements by socialists became a fatal threat on the identity of protestantism as a religion. In response to such challenges, Protestant intellectuals produced four kinds of discourses on the relationship between science and religion. The first was a product of protestant modernists, who compared the relationship of science and religion to two wheels of a vehicle. This means that science and religion are two instruments of civilization, always supporting each other. The second was mainly produced by the theologically liberal camp, which gave a stress that religion ought to accept the scientific spirits. In their opinion, the conflicts between science and religion come from religion. Therefore religion, especially the conservative protestantism, should be rationalized in order to survive in the age of science. The third was produced by the fundamentalists, who judged that the conflicts between science and religion originate from the misplaced scientific inferences, not science itself. In other words, the war between science and religion comes from secular materialism, under the guise of science. Therefore they tried to reveal the intellectual violences of scientific imperialism, arguing that science itself need not be enemy. The last was produced by theological modernists and secular liberalists, who demand ed the complete separation of science and religion. They stressed that scientific language and religious language should be separated for the sake of the permanent peace between science and religion.

Religious science teachers’ views on the relationship between science and religion and their practices in the classroom

조헌국,송진웅 서울대학교 교육종합연구원 2012 The SNU Journal of Education Research Vol.21 No.-

This study delineated science teachers’ views on the relationship between science and religion and their teaching practices in the classroom in Korea. We focused on the experiences affecting participants’ views on the relationship between science and religion, and investigated how they related their views and practices to religiously minded science instruction and how they interacted. We interviewed four Christian teachers of science with an approach to oral history and interpreted the data categorizing different periods: before pre-service teaching, during pre-service teaching, and during in-service teaching. The participants held divisive views concerning science and religion: from the view that science is not only incompatible with, but also separate from religion to the view that science is an integrated subset of religion. They adhered to such views and their experiences in their college and workplace contributed to forming their views. In terms of teaching practices, they showed different levels of religious acceptance ranging from inactive to active. In addition, the participants’ views on the nature of science and nature of religion, and their vision as science teaching hinged on their attitude towards science education as well as on religious practice. The study suggests that religious instruction of teachers is connected not only to their views on the relationship between science and religion but also to other values such as a vision of science teaching, the nature of science and religion, and religious commitment.

과학과 종교의 이합집산: 개념사의 관점에서 본 과학과 종교

장석만 ( Jang Suk Man ) 한국종교문화연구소(종교문화비평학회) 2016 종교문화비평 Vol.30 No.30

이 글은 19세기 후반과 20세기 초반이라는 역사적인 조건의 한국에서 과학과 종교라는 개념이 어떻게 등장하며, 서로 어떤 관계를 설정해 가는지에 관해 논의한다. 과학과 종교의 개념이 등장하였다는 것은 각각 구별되는 영역이 설정되었다는 것을 의미하며, 이를 바탕으로 두 영역 사이에 여러 가지 다양한 관계가 상정될 수 있다. 즉 종교와 과학의 개념 및 각 영역 설정은 양자(兩者) 사이의 이합집산(離合集散)을 함축한 것이다. 때로는 이산하고, 때로는 합집한다. 서로 떨어지거나 붙고, 헤어졌다가 서로 모인다. 이 산(離散)하면서 서로 대립할 수도 있고, 아니면 서로 간섭하지 않고 각자도생(各自圖生) 할 수도 있다. 이 글에서는 역사적 문헌의 사례를 통해 각자도생과 합집의 두 가지, 모두 3가지 관계의 구체적인 모습을 살핀다. 한국의 상황을 보다 분명하게 드러내기 위해, 이 글은 우회적인 절차를 취한다. 우선 서구에서 science와 religion 사이의 관계가 어떻게 설정되고, 상호의 성격이 규정되는지 살펴본다(2장). 여기서 과학과 종교의 갈등 관계가 부각되거나, 양립 가능하다는 관점이 역사적 변화와 함께 부침한다는 것, 그리고 이런 관점의 변동은 과학과 종교의 개념 네트워크과 연동(聯動)된 권력 다툼에 이어져 있다는 것을 확인한다. 결국 질문의 초점은 과학과 종교의 경계선에 관한 것이 될 수밖에 없는 것이다. 3장은 “과학과 종교의 경계선이 도대체 왜 만들어지게 되었는가?”의 질문과 관련이 있다. 인도와 중국에서 과학과 종교의 경계선이 어째서 당초에 만들어질 필요가 없었는지, 왜 그것을 “결핍”의 관점에서 보는 것이 부적절한지의 문제에 관해 논의한다. 4장은 일본과 중국에서 과학과 종교의 개념이 어떻게 등장하여 서로의 관계가 만들어졌는지 검토한다. 19세기 후반 과 20세기 초반의 상황을 공유하는 중국과 일본의 경우를 비교의 준거로 삼아서, 한국 의 경우가 지닌 특성이 보다 잘 드러나도록 준비한다. 일본의 국가신도 정책, 그리고 중국의 지방 사원 공격으로 시작된 미신타파 운동을 특징적인 면모로 부각시키면서, 한국의 경우를 논의하는 부분으로 이어진다. 한국의 경우를 다루는 부분은 두 가지로 나누어 논의한다. 하나는 당시의 사전에 나타난 과학과 종교의 용어를 살펴봄으로써 서구어 science와 religion에 대응하는 번역어로서 자리 잡는 모습을 추적하는 것(5장)이고, 다른 하나는 20세기 초의 한국에서 과학과 종교가 맺는 관계를 세 가지 유형으로 나누어 각 사례를 관련 문헌을 통해 구체적으로 제시한 것이다(6장). 종교와 과학의 관계를 거론하는 작업에서 개념사적 연구는 선행적인 위치를 갖는다. 이 부분이 제대로 연구되지 않을 경우, 자칫하면 시대착오적인 논의로 빠질 수 있기 때문이다. 이 글은 한국에서 종교와 과학의 관계에 대한 논의가 이루어지기 위한 하나의 선행 작업의 성격을 지니고 있다. This paper examines the conceptual emergence of `science` and `religion` and their relationships in the late 19th and early 20th centuries of Korea. The introduction of new concepts presupposes their distinctive conceptual space which makes a room for their various relationships. Sometimes they come together, and sometimes they part company and keep a distance. In this paper, three types of their conceptual relationships are discussed: 1) separation, 2) integration under the dominance of `religion` 3) integration under the dominance of `science`. This study starts with the discussion about the both emerging and changing relationships between science and religion in Western context, and shows the close connection of their conceptual network with the related power regime. The need to focus on the question of boundary-making between science and religion is recognized (chap 2). In chapter 3, the following question is presupposed as the hidden agenda; why and how the boundary-making between science and religion was made from the start. The discussion shows that because of the different frameworks of both Indian and Chinese cosmology, the two concepts and their boundary were not needed in India and China. It is out of context to consider the unnecessary as the lack. In chapter 4, I turn to focus on the historical context of the two concepts and their relationships in East Asian countries. In particular, the Japanese policy of State Shinto and the Chinese suppression of superstition (mixin, 迷信) are examined. The next two chapters deals with the Korean case of two concepts. Chapter 5 analyses the dictionaries which have the items about `science` and `religion` in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including several bilingual dictionaries. It indicates that the two terms got the secured position in the 1920s of Korea. In chapter 6, I explore three types of relationships between science and religion, examining the printed materials of colonial Korea. One of the benefits of studying conceptual history is to keep from the anachronistic point of view. This paper provides the groundwork for further research related to the historical dynamics of the conceptual relationships between science and religion.

종립사학과 학문의 자유

정재현 한신인문학연구소 2009 종교문화연구 Vol.- No.12

What is science in a general and wider sense, and how should we do it, particularly in relation to religion? This question, though sounding obsolete, must be asked intentionally. For the times have been changed so drastically so that our self-understanding becomes fundamentally different. Especially the relation of religion and science is asked to be reconstituted in a new fashion. Thus, the identity of science and its way of carrying out should be revised and updated to the contemporary spirit, in comparison with its traditional relation to religion. For this purpose, we should pay attention to the relation of the human and religion. Thus far, the human has confined itself to religion at the negligence of 'being human,' though s/he is 'homo religiosus.' As if being human does not need to be examined and reflected upon! However, there was great pitfall in this fainted relation between the human and religion. The human has forgotten his/her own being human in the name of religion. For this reason, there is no reading of religion in the genuine sense. Thus, we need to investigate into the relation of the human and religion. Thereafter, we may go into the sphere of science in order to find out the proper way of studying science. Here we are supposed to look over the evolutionary process of culture by means of genealogical analysis. For if human culture is nothing other than a way of the humans' living in the world, we should take the relation of religion and science into consideration on the basis of cultural history. From this we may draw upon that although both religion and science are for the humans, they cannot but undergo the tension included in the cultural transition from sphere to sphere such as art and myth. And at this point, we may expect to see the dual relation between religion and science. Our discussion thus far eventually arrives at the apex which requires thorough examination of the relation between truth as the aims of both religion and science and freedom either as provided by truth or as required by truth. The relation of truth and freedom, overcoming the ordinary contradiction, constitutes paradoxical unity in such a way that it may serve as the basic framework for both religion and science. And this is the very way in which we may constitute the relation of religion and science for the authenticity of religion-affiliated schools more properly and appropriately.

근대철학과 종교 -과학에 의한, 과학을 위한, 과학의 종교-

이태하 ( Lee Tai-ha ) 한국가톨릭철학회 2012 가톨릭철학 Vol.0 No.18

본 논문은 17∼8세기 유럽 근대 철학의 전개과정을 과학과 종교의 연관성 속에서 설명하고자 하는 것이다. 17세기 종교적 분쟁이 야기한 참상을 목도한 근대 철학자들의 철학적 관심사는 계시적 종교로 인한 종교적 분쟁을 종식시킬 수 있는 방안을 찾는 것이었고, 그들이 마침내 발견한 방안은 자연뿐 아니라 신과 영혼의 영역에서도 과학의 방법을 적용하여 보편적이고 합리적인 신의 개념을 찾는 것이었다. 바로 이것은 로고스에 의해 뮈토스의 월권을 바로 잡겠다는 것이었다. 따라서 근대철학자들은 처음에는 종교를 과학적 시각에서 조명하는 ‘과학에 의한 종교’를 추구하였다. 그러나 이리한 시도는 시간이 흐르면서 종교를 과학적 세계관을 뒷받침하는 이데올로기로 전락시킨 ‘과학을 위한 종교’로 발전되었고, 마침내는 종교의 자리에 과학을 앉힘으로써 과학의 종교를 만드는 로고스의 월권으로 나타났다. 이는 근대철학자들이 로고스와 뮈토스의 균형을 추구했던 고대 그리스 철학과 르네상스의 참된 정신을 제대로 이해하지 못했기 때문이다. This article is to explain the unfolding process of modern philosophy in the light of the interrelation between science and religion. Modern philosophers who watched a terrible sight of the seventeenth century caused by the revealed religion were concerned in the way to resolve the religious dissension. The way which they finally found out was nothing but to search for the universal and rational god by applying the scientific method to the field of god and soul, as well as that of nature. It is to correct an arrogation of mythos by means of logos. Thus, at the outset modern philosophers searched after ‘religion by science’ which illuminates religion in the light of science. Later, however, it was transfigured to ‘religion for science’ in which religion is no other than an ideology to support the scientific world-view, and it finally became ‘religion of science’ in which science cuts out religion. This meant the arrogation of logos which was caused by the ignorance of modern philosophers who did not comprehend the purpose of Ancient Greek Philosophy and Renaissance to keep the balance between logos and mythos.

기독교학교의 정체성에 근거한 종교학 교육과정의 문제점

박상진 한국기독교교육학회 2013 기독교교육논총 Vol.36 No.-

From 2014 onwards, according to the national Department ofEducation, the subject previously called ‘Life and Religion’ will changeits name to ‘Science of Religion’ in the high school curriculum. Christianschools wishing to teach the Christian faith according to their foundingphilosophy now must choose the subject ‘Science of Religion.’ However,the change from ‘Life and Religion’ to ‘Science of Religion’ does not stopat the mere title of the subject, but means that the identity of thesubject is also changed. Teaching religion is different from teaching ascience of religion. Teaching a science of religion emphasizes a cognitiveand objective understanding about religion rather than experiencingreligion itself. The change from ‘Life and Religion’ to ‘Science of Religion’raises problems in that it undermines the possibility of teaching ‘faith.’As is well known in Korean church history, H. G. Underwood and H. G. Appenzeller founded the first Christian schools in Korea in the1880s. At that time, the Bible was taught directly in the Christianschools. Although Christian schools were persecuted in time under therule of Japanese imperialism, Christian schools continued teaching theChristian faith on the basis of their founding philosophy. From the 4thRevision of the national curriculum after the high-school equalizationpolicy, the subject of ‘Religion’ has been included officially among the subjects of general education. From this time on, although Christianschools were private schools, the curriculum of religion in those schoolswere ruled by the curriculum policy of the government. And today,Christian schools are now required to teach ‘Science of Religion’ by thecurriculum policy, which is very different from the founding philosophyof Christian schools. This paper focuses on the problem of the ‘Science of Religion’curriculum on the basis of the identity of Christian schools. In order toanalyze this problem, I will study the history of change in thecurriculum of religious education, and analyze the meaning of and thelimitations imposed by the change to ‘Science of Religion’. Finally, I willsuggest alternative approaches to overcoming this problem of religiouscurriculum on the basis of the identity of Christian schools. 오는 2014년부터 고등학교 교육과정에 있어서 기존의 ‘생활과 종교’라는 명칭의 종교과목이 ‘종교학’이라는 명칭으로 바뀌게 된다. 기독교학교가 건학이념에 따라 ‘신앙교육’을 하기 위해서는 이 교양 과목 중 종교학을 선택하여 가르쳐야 하는 것이다. 그런데 ‘생활과 종교’에서 ‘종교학’으로의 교과목 변경은 단지 명칭의 변화가 아니라 정체성의 변화라는 중요한 의미를 담고 있다. 종교를 가르치는 것과 종교학을 가르치는 것은 동일한 것이 아니다. 종교학을 가르치는 것은 종교에 대한 지적 이해만을 강조하고 종교를 객관적으로 바라보도록 하기 때문에 종교를 경험할 수 없다. ‘생활과 종교’에서 ‘종교학’으로의 변화는 사실 특정종교의 신앙교육의 가능성을 거의 제거한 것이기 때문에 엄청난 변화라고 할 수 있다. 한국의 기독교학교는 1885년 이후부터 언더우드와 아펜젤러가 세운 경신학당과 배재학당의 개교로 시작되었는데, 초기 기독교학교는 자율적으로 직접 성경을 교수하였다. 일제시대에는 기독교학교에 대한 일제의 탄압이 있었으나 기독교학교는 종교계 사립학교로서건학이념에 근거하여 신앙교육을 지속해왔던 것이다. 그런데 평준화 정책 이후인 제4차교육과정 시기부터 교육과정에 교양 선택으로 종교과목이 개설되었고, 이때부터 국가가정해주는 종교과목 교과과정에 의해서 교육이 이루어지게 되었으며 정부와 기독교학교 간에 교육과정에 대한 이견으로 갈등이 심화되게 되었다. 그리고 이제 종교과목의 명칭이‘종교학’으로 바꾸어지게 되면서 기독교학교의 건학이념과는 너무나 상이한 종교교육이 이루어질 수밖에 없는 현실에 직면하게 된 것이다. 이 글은 ‘종교학’으로서 종교교육이 이루어지게 되는 것이 기독교학교의 정체성에 근거할 때 어떤 문제점을 갖는지를 파악하기 위한 것이다. 이 문제를 진단하기 위해서 종교교육에 있어서 교육과정 변천사를 파악하고, 종교학으로의 교육과정 변화가 구체적으로 무엇을 의미하며 어떤 한계성을 지니는지를 파악하려고 한다. 그리고 기독교학교의 정체성에 근거해 이 문제를 극복할 수 있는 대안들을 제시하고자 한다.

미신 개념의 계보학: 20세기 초 한국 사회의 종교, 과학, 미신

이창익 ( Lee Chang Yick ) 한국종교문화연구소(종교문화비평학회) 2020 종교문화비평 Vol.37 No.37

이 글은 종교와 과학이라는 대결적 담론 지형의 형성에서 미신 범주가 어떤 역할을 했는지를 살펴보기 위한 것이다. 이 연구를 위해 나는 일제강점기의 신문과 잡지 자료에 나타난 미신 담론을 조사하였다. 그 결과 종교 개념, 과학 개념, 나아가 종교와 과학의 관계 양식을 이해하기 위해서는 반드시 미신 개념에 대한 심도 있는 연구가 필요하다는 사실을 인지하게 되었다. 이 글에서는 대략 아래와 같은 세 가지 큰 틀에서 종교, 미신, 과학의 관계를 추적하였다. 첫째, 우리는 ‘비과학적’이라 비난받은 종교의 일부, 특히 무속 같은 민간 종교가 폄훼 과정을 통해 미신 범주로 낙착되는 것을 목격한다. 한국의 종교 전통은 서구적인 종교 개념에 부합하는 형태로 재편되기 위해 ‘미신’으로 의심되는 요소를 종교 범주 밖으로 추방할 필요가 있었다. 이때 미신 범주는 종교 전통의 근대적 정화 작용을 위해 이용되었다. 이러한 과정에서 ‘과학성’이라는 기준이 ‘비과학적 종교/과학적 종교’라는 구분법을 작동시켰다. 정화를 통해 종교가 과학에 가까운 것이 될 수 있는 것처럼 보였다. 둘째, 과학이 종교의 영역에 침투하여 기존의 종교 담론과 실천을 미신이라 비난하면서, ‘종교와 과학’의 대립 구도를 선명하게 부각시키는 장면이 있다. 역사 속에서 이제 종교의 시대는 가고 과학의 시대가 도래할 것이라는 생각이 이러한 논쟁을 지배한다. 이때 종교 개념은 두 가지 선택지를 만나게 된다. 하나는 종교의 과학성을 입증하는 것이다. 다른 하나는 ‘과학성’과 대비되는 ‘종교성’에 대한 주장을 통해 종교의 독자적인 존재 양식을 규정하는 것이다. 그리고 이것은 ‘과학의 종교성’을 입증하려는 시도로까지 확장 될 수 있다. 이처럼 미신 개념은 근대적인 종교 개념의 형성에서 매우 중요한 역할을 수행했다. 종교는 마음의 공간으로 물러나 과학과는 다른 영역을 점유했다. 셋째, 미신론을 통해 비로소 종교는 더 이상 과학으로부터 위협을 느끼지 않은 채 세속과 분리된 공간 안에 굳건히 자리 잡을 수 있었다. 미신의 제거를 통해, 종교는 내면의 공간으로 퇴거했으며, 종교 없는 세속 공간이 마련될 수 있었던 것이다. 종교라는 개념은 독립적으로 형성되고 발전한 것이 아니라, 미신이나 과학, 또는 유사종교나 신종교 같은 다른 개념들과 연결된 복잡한 네트워크 안에서 형성된 것이다. The purpose of this article is to show how the concept of superstition contributed to the formation of the general discourse of the opposition between religion and science. For this, I surveyed the various concepts of superstition within the purview of the newspapers and journals from the early 20th century. This led to the discovery that we should reappraise the concept of superstition to understand the modern formative processes of the concept of religion, the concept of science, and the relationship of religion and science. This article traces the relations among religion, science, and superstition within the three frameworks. Firstly, we can witness how popular religions such as shamanism fell into the category of superstition, suffering the criticism of being unscientific. Korean religious tradition could conform with the western concept of religion by dispelling the superstitious things out of religious landscape. Like this, the concept of superstition was employed in order to purify the concept of religion. To this purpose, the criterion of scientificity divided religion between unscientific religion and scientific religion. By way of purification, religion seemed to be able to become more scientific. Secondly, science was gradually opposed to religion, rebuking religion for being superstitious. There was a powerful prospect that the age of science would supercede the age of religion. In this situation, religion was given two alternatives. One was that religion had to prove its scientificity. The other was that religion had to find its uniqueness in the name of religiosity, even to the point of disclosing religious aspects of science. Like this, superstition played a very essential role in the formation of the modern concept of religion. On the whole, religion could recede into mind space and occupy a different area from science. Thirdly, under the sway of the concept of superstition, religion was separated from secular space, and could be protected from scientific criticism. Stripped of superstitious elements, religion escaped into inner space, and then it became possible to construct the secular space without religion. Accordingly, the concept of religion was not formed independently, but constructed within the complex network connected with such concepts as superstition, science, quasi-religion, and new religion.

논문 : 종교와 과학 그리고 종교학: 관계유형의 다양성과 종교학의 역할

안신 ( Shin Ahn ) 서울대학교 종교문제연구소 2010 종교와 문화 Vol.0 No.19

The recent debate between religion and science is one of hot issues in religious studies. The role of religious studies in this discourse becomes more important, so we need to classify various existing models to relate religion and science in order to make the role of religious clear. First, Ian Barbour, an American scholar, suggests four models of the science-religion relationship: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. He prefers last two models to first two models. Second, Alister McGrath, an evangelical English scholar, reorganizes Barbour`s model to make two models: confrontational and non-confrontational models. He focuses on the science-religion relationship in the context of liberalism, modernism, neoorthodoxy, and evangelicalism. Both Barbour and McGrath are Christians, but their emphases are different. McGrath is more concerned about the diversity of Christianity. Third, Nicholas Wolterstorff, an American philosopher, criticizes the epistemological model of foundationalism and points out the integration of faith and reason. He argues that the belief content of Christian commitment should play a role of control belief in weighing theories in the discourse of religion and science. Four, van Huyssteen proposes post-foundationalism to overcome both the extreme rationalism of foundationalism and the extreem relativism of non-foundationalism. These various classification are mainly based on the assumption that religion and science are a kind of grammar and matrix rather than propositional system and inner experiences. In conclusion, the scholar of religion should tackle the issues of religion and science as observer, participant, or critics. But they should not become a new religion nor a new science in this discourse.