Asprem Egil , The Problem of Disenchantment: Scientific Naturalism and Esoteric Discourse, 1900–1939 , Numen book series, vol. 147 (Leiden: Brill, 2014).

Asprem Egil , The Problem of Disenchantment: Scientific Naturalism and Esoteric Discourse, 1900–1939 , Numen book series, vol. 147 (Leiden: Brill, 2014).)| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用

Barbour Ian G. , Religion in an Age of Science (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990).

Barbour Ian G. , Religion in an Age of Science (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990).)| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用

Barbour Ian G. , Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997).

Barbour Ian G. , Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997).)| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用

Brooke John . Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

Brooke John . Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).)| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用

Geoffrey Cantor , and Kenny Chris , “Barbour’s Fourfold Way: Problems with his Taxonomy of Science-Religion Relationships,” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 36 (2001), 765–781.

Geoffrey Cantor and Kenny Chris , “Barbour’s Fourfold Way: Problems with his Taxonomy of Science-Religion Relationships,” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 36 (2001), 765–781.)| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用

Dixon Thomas , ; Cantor Geoffrey , and Pumfrey Stephen , eds., Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

Dixon Thomas ; Cantor Geoffrey and Pumfrey Stephen , eds., Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).)| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用

Drees Willem B. , Religion and Science in Context: A Guide to the Debates (London: Routledge, 2010).

Drees Willem B. , Religion and Science in Context: A Guide to the Debates (London: Routledge, 2010).)| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用

Drees Willem B. , Religion, Science and Naturalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

Drees Willem B. , Religion, Science and Naturalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).)| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用

Drees Willem B. , “Religious Naturalism and Science”, in Philip Clayton and Zachary Simpson, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 108–123.

Drees Willem B. , “Religious Naturalism and Science”, in Philip Clayton and Zachary Simpson, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 108–123.)| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用

Hammer Olav . Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age (Leiden: Brill, 2004).

Hammer Olav . Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age (Leiden: Brill, 2004).)| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用

Numbers Ronald ed., Galileo Goes to Jail, and other Myths about Science and Religion (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2009).

Numbers Ronald ed., Galileo Goes to Jail, and other Myths about Science and Religion (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2009).)| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用

Olson Richard . “A Dynamic Model for ‘Science and Religion’: Interacting Subcultures,” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 46 (2011), 65–83.

Olson Richard . “A Dynamic Model for ‘Science and Religion’: Interacting Subcultures,” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 46 (2011), 65–83. )| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用

 John Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 4–5. Discourse on ‘the complexity thesis’ has been nourished by a festschrift for Brooke: Thomas Dixon, Geoffrey Cantor and Stephen Pumfrey, eds., Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). A more popular book from such historians of science is Ronald Numbers, ed., Galileo Goes to Jail, and other Myths about Science and Religion (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2009). A defense of the usefulness of ‘conflict’, when understood as conflicts between subgroups, has been offered by Richard Olson, "A Dynamic Model for ‘Science and Religion’: Interacting Subcultures," Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 46 (2011), 65–83.

 John Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 4–5. Discourse on ‘the complexity thesis’ has been nourished by a festschrift for Brooke: Thomas Dixon, Geoffrey Cantor and Stephen Pumfrey, eds., Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). A more popular book from such historians of science is Ronald Numbers, ed., Galileo Goes to Jail, and other Myths about Science and Religion (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2009). A defense of the usefulness of ‘conflict’, when understood as conflicts between subgroups, has been offered by Richard Olson, "A Dynamic Model for ‘Science and Religion’: Interacting Subcultures," Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 46 (2011), 65–83.)| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用

 Ian G. Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990), 3–30, and in his Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1997), 77–105. A historically informed challenge has been offered by Geoffrey Cantor and Chris Kenny, "Barbour’s Fourfold Way: Problems with his Taxonomy of Science-Religion Relationships," Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 36 (2001), 765–781. For my understanding of Barbour’s scheme as driven by the ‘conflict’ motif and concern about secularization, see Willem B. Drees, Religion and Science in Context: A Guide to the Debates (London: Routledge, 2010), 5.

 Ian G. Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990), 3–30, and in his Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1997), 77–105. A historically informed challenge has been offered by Geoffrey Cantor and Chris Kenny, "Barbour’s Fourfold Way: Problems with his Taxonomy of Science-Religion Relationships," Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 36 (2001), 765–781. For my understanding of Barbour’s scheme as driven by the ‘conflict’ motif and concern about secularization, see Willem B. Drees, Religion and Science in Context: A Guide to the Debates (London: Routledge, 2010), 5.)| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用

 Olav Hammer, Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 206.

 Olav Hammer, Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 206.)| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用

 Willem B. Drees, Religion, Science and Naturalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) and Willem B. Drees, "Religious Naturalism and Science", in Philip Clayton and Zachary Simpson, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 108–123.

 Willem B. Drees, Religion, Science and Naturalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) and Willem B. Drees, "Religious Naturalism and Science", in Philip Clayton and Zachary Simpson, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 108–123.)| false
• 检索谷歌学术
• 导出引用