Haridas Bhattacharya who was appointed Honorary University Professorof Indian Philosophy & Religion in the College of Indology in the year 1950was actually taking classes in the Department of Philosophy teaching M.A.
Because “science” and “religion” defydefinition, discussing the relationship between science (in general)and religion (in general) may be meaningless. For example, Kelly Clark(2014) argues that we can only sensibly inquire into the relationshipbetween a widely accepted claim of science (such as quantum mechanicsor findings in neuroscience) and a specific claim of a particularreligion (such as Islamic understandings of divine providence orBuddhist views of the no-self).
courses in Philosophy and Indian Philosophy & Religion.
"Language games" -- is this analogy [simile] the best way to approach all philosophical questions? "When we look at such simple forms of language the mental mist which seems to enshrouded our ordinary use of language disappears." (ibid.) What is an example of a religious "language game"? I couldn't say. Is the analogy between language and a game played according to strict rules very helpful in the case of religion? [Remember that describing language-games is only a technique of understanding. The examples Wittgenstein actually gave of have nothing do with religion. See the below.] What Wittgenstein compared religion to was not a game but to the various in our lives (Lectures & Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief p. 56).
Philosophy of Religion | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Is "religion within the limits of language alone" the subject of the Philosophy of Religion? But the only "limits of language" are the limits of sense and nonsense, of language with meaning and language without. Compare: "religion within the limits of reason alone", but the limits of reason are the limits of all philosophy, because philosophy is "discourse of reason", of what can be put into words and cross-questioned.
Philosophy of Religion - Friesian School
It is unclear whether religious and scientific thinking arecognitively incompatible. Some studies suggest that religion drawsmore upon an intuitive style of thinking, distinct from the analyticreasoning style that characterizes science (Gervais and Norenzayan2012). On the other hand, the acceptance of theological and scientificviews both rely on a trust in testimony, and cognitive scientists havefound similarities between the way children and adults understandtestimony to invisible entities in religious and scientific domains(Harris et al. 2006). Moreover, theologians such as the Church Fathersand Scholastics were deeply analytic in their writings, indicatingthat the association between intuitive and religious thinking might bea recent western bias. More research is needed to examine whetherreligious and scientific thinking styles are inherently intension.
Audi Israhel Dominus Deus noster Dominus unus est
While integration seems attractive (especially to theologians), it isdifficult to do justice to both the science and religion aspects of agiven domain, especially given their complexities. For example, PierreTeilhard de Chardin (1971), who was both knowledgeable inpaleoanthropology and theology, ended up with an unconventional viewof evolution as teleological (which brought him into trouble with thescientific establishment), and with an unorthodox theology (with anunconventional interpretation of original sin that brought him intotrouble with the Roman Catholic Church). Theological heterodoxy, byitself, is no reason to doubt a model, but it points to difficultiesfor the integration model in becoming successful in the broadercommunity of theologians and philosophers. Moreover, integration seemsskewed towards theism as Barbour described arguments based onscientific results that support (but do not demonstrate) theism, butfailed to discuss arguments based on scientific results that support(but do not demonstrate) the denial of theism.
Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is One
In short, the world viewed religion, philosophy, and science in a very different way by the end of the seventeenth century because of these great philosophers.