In the preceding Part 1 of this two-part paper, I set out the background necessary for an understanding of the current status of the debate surrounding the relationship between science and religion. In this second part, I will outline Ian Barbour’s influential four-fold typology of the possible relations, compare it with other similar taxonomies, and justify its choice as the basis for further detailed discussion. Arguments are then given for and against each of Barbour’s four models: conflict, independence, integration and dialogue. In contradiction of the recent trend to dismiss the conflict model as overly “simplistic”, I conclude that it is the clear front-runner. Critical examination reveals that theology (the academic face of religion) typically proceeds by first affirming belief in God and then seeking rationalisations that protect this belief against contrary evidence. As this is the very antithesis of scientific endeavour, the two disciplines are in unavoidable and irreconcilable conflict.

在这篇由两部分组成的论文的前面第 1 部分中，我阐述了理解围绕科学与宗教之间关系的辩论的现状所必需的背景。在第二部分中，我将概述 Ian Barbour 有影响力的可能关系的四重分类，将其与其他类似分类法进行比较，并证明其选择是进一步详细讨论的基础。然后给出支持和反对巴伯的四种模式的论据：冲突、独立、整合和对话. 与最近认为冲突模型过于“简单化”的趋势相反，我得出的结论是，它显然是领先者。批判性检查表明，神学（宗教的学术面貌）通常首先肯定对上帝的信仰，然后寻求合理化以保护这种信仰免受相反证据的影响。由于这是科学努力的对立面，这两个学科处于不可避免和不可调和的冲突中。