Debates about methodology have been central to the emergence of the “field of science of religion.” Two questions that have motivated scholars in that field over the past half century: “is it theoretically justifiable to bring scientific and religious beliefs into dialogue?” and “can theology be rational in the same way as science?” This article responds to commentary on Against Methodology: Recent Debates on Rationality and Theology, a book which critically examines three major methodologists of recent years: Nancey Murphy, Alister McGrath, and J. Wentzel van Huyssteen. Themes raised in the commentary include the status of realism and truth in science, the unity of science, the adequacy of the term “critical realism,” proper ways of seeking legitimacy for an academic discipline, and new directions for the field of science and religion.

中文翻译：

---

科学与宗教的方法论：对批判的回应

关于方法论的争论对于“宗教科学领域”的出现至关重要。在过去的半个世纪中，有两个问题激励了该领域的学者：“从理论上讲，将科学和宗教信仰进行对话是否合理？” 和“神学可以和科学一样理性吗？” 本文回应了关于“反对方法论”的评论：关于理性与神学的近期争论，该书严格审查了近年来的三位主要方法论者：Nancey Murphy，Alister McGrath和J.Wentzel van Huyssteen。评论中提出的主题包括：现实主义和真理在科学中的地位，科学的统一性，“批判现实主义”一词的适当性，为一门学科寻求合法性的适当方法以及科学和宗教领域的新方向。