Thomas Mann) and on people in general than on academic philosophy.
Schopenhauer's tour for the optimist could now be much extended.
For the past fifty years, science and religion has been de factoWestern science and Christianity—to what extent can Christianbeliefs be brought in line with the results of western science? Thefield of science and religion has only recently turned to anexamination of non-Christian traditions, such as Judaism, Hinduism,Buddhism, and Islam, providing a richer picture of interaction.
Adolf Hitler never boasted of Auschwitz.
Schopenhauer accepts that distinction, and also that the Subject is free of the forms of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (space, time, causality, etc.).
First, at the beginning of Book I, comes the Subject of Knowledge.
The independence model holds that science and religion exploreseparate domains that ask distinct questions. Stephen Jay Goulddeveloped an influential independence model with his NOMA principle(“Non-Overlapping Magisteria”):
Thus his theory fails as phenomenology of religion.
The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lackof overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise.(2001: 739)
They better have read Kant, also.
While the conflict model is at present a minority position, some haveused philosophical argumentation (e.g., Philipse 2012) or havecarefully re-examined historical evidence such as the Galileo trial(e.g., Dawes 2016) to argue for this model. Alvin Plantinga (2011) hasargued that the conflict is not between science and religion, butbetween science and naturalism.