When Science Meets Religion

Rating:
Summary: When science meets religion
Review: Barbour is known for his expertise involving the connection between science/religion. As a student of both science and theology I highly recommend this text. The only flaw in this treatise is the material covered is limited. For a more complete text I suggest Barbour's " Science and Religion: Historical and contemporary issues."

Rating:
Summary: Wishy-washy with an agenda
Review: Faith and science really have nothing in common, and it is science which draws the line, not on grounds of what it knows or doesn't know, but for the methodology involved to acquire this knowledge. Faith is unscientific, not because it leads to God, but because it is a bad method to build bridges. Nobody constructs even a church on nothing else but a prayer, but if you do, you better brace yourself for the consequences. It is really as simple as that. And a scientist who claims that faith and science hold common ground or could be "reconciled," oversteps exactly this line and loses all his authority as a scientist. His opinions become an entirely private matter. To be scientific means, to expose yourself to a rigorous regimen of verification and falsification. This is a matter of ethics, as much as of method. But you still have to show me the religious doctrine which would be willing to undergo an equally rigorous test and surrender the keys if it fails to pass. It is Mr. BarbourÕs contention that in the relationship between religion and science there are 4 options: firstly Òconflict,Ó which the author sees to be "represented by fundamentalists and scientific materialists." (This is a telling way of labelling. Telling for Mr. BarbourÕs own bias that is. Because I am not avoiding the confrontation, this makes me in the philosophical sense a materialist? How interesting.) The second option is termed ÒindependenceÓ - two languages, separate domains. A third option is termed Òdialogue,Ó and the last suggestion is called Òintegration.Ó Well, this kind of categorizing is just a red herring: First, there is no actual conflict because the two sides are not really talking or listening to each other, hence there is no dialogue either. And if, God forbid, ever there should be an "integration" then this would throw us straight back to medieval scholasticism and excommunication or worse as an accepted practice. Have we already forgotten, that for most periods in history and practically in every culture, science had been received with open hostility? And you know why? Not for its knowledge, but because science is asking questions. And what about the second Òoption?Ó What option? ÒIndependenceÓ is a CONDITION for doing science, not merely a choice. Whenever faith interferes with scientific methodology, you can be sure to get bad science, either because it sets a premium on the application of its methodology or because it limits the latitude of hypothetical propositions. (Recently I heard a "reborn" ex-scientist using the second law of thermodynamics to explain her newfound faith in "creation." It was the usual play with words. The law states, that in a closed system the amount of entropy increases to a point where all the energy comes to a rest in a state of equilibrium. So initially you have hot gas molecules clumping to clouds and drifting about in a closed chamber, which in the end will cool down and evenly distribute. From a state of low entropy we progress towards high entropy. To term the two states as "chaotic" and "ordered" is misleading and arbitrary, but it is exactly this lax use of metaphor on which people rationalize their faith.) I mean what kind of dialogue is there anyway with institutions of which some to the present day see it as their god-given right to persecute Òheretics,Ó culture, learning, science and art, whenever and wherever they happen to dissent from doctrine? Like no other institution, the Catholic Church has been - and still is - instrumental for the relentless terrorism over common peoplesÕ sexuality and the general outlook on life, as if it is a foregone conclusion that we are creatures of some metaphysically construed sin who, simply for breathing in a fallen world, are periodically required to grovel for forgiveness. Never has a political institution wielded a more powerful instrument of mind control. A scientist who willingly subjects himself to this sort of brainwash puts in question his own credibility. Who cares for a sorry figure like Teilhard de Chardin who compromised on his scientific integrity only to find himself shunned even by his own church! That's the best part! So much for dialogue! No! Doctrine and science are a contradiction in terms and there cannot be honest dialogue with doctrine, because dialogue implies a quid pro quo, which doctrine is never willing to permit. The most dangerous enemy of scientific methodology is bias, especially if this bias comes with institutionalized means of enforcement. So the assumption that there can be "dialogue" between the two positions, is an illusion. It is an illusion even for the inner dialogue in a single individual's conscience. Why? Because one side has yet to show that it can be flexible on its claim to hold the monopoly on exclusive "truth," while science leaves "truth" to the philosophy department and rather asserts "facts" by specific methods of enquiry and experimentation, which are to be based on hypothetical algorithms and statistical prognosis, wherever possible. It is certainly a good thing, if both sides treat each other with courtesy, but this changes nothing of the fundamental chasm - no matter how civil the behavior, the two positions remain mutually exclusive. The "dialogue" is an exchange of monologues in two different languages, and Mr. Barbour is not the man to act as a translator here. Coming to think of it, I begin to suspect a hidden agenda in Mr. BarbourÕs book. The spots of this leopard begin to look familiar ... .

Rating:
Summary: Not very useful
Review: I did not find this book to be very useful. It is essentially a survey of the various viewpoints on Religion vs. Science. It certainly won't help anyone looking for reasons to lend credence to religion. All it accomplishes is showing that the existence of God is not disproven by Science; doesn't come close to showing that God exists. There was no new science, and no new theology. If you already are a believer, then perhaps that lends some comfort, but a skeptic won't be moved an inch.

Rating:
Summary: Good explanation but unwittingly wedded to materialism?
Review: Ian Barbour is a major contributor to the fast growing subject of Science and Religion in Interface. (He tells us that in the 1990s 211 books per year were published on the subject.) Recently he was a winner of the prestigious Templeton Prize for progress in Religion. (Tom Torrance was the first to win the prize) This is one of Barbour's smaller books which is meant to give an overview of the various beliefs, discussions and arguments that are most important for the subject. However a new comer to the subject would be advised first to read a simpler introduction such as John Polkinghorne's `Quarks, Chaos and Christianity', and then turn to books such as this.

What is it all about?
For millennia philosophers and theologians have attempted to address such questions as:
1. Is the universe eternal or did it begin?
2. Does the rational structure of the universe mean it must be the product of a great Mind?
3. Is there any purpose to human existence?
4. What is life and how has it developed?
5. Can the experiences of consciousness and self-awareness be reduced to the properties of the brain or do they imply the existence of a soul?

It is in the latter part of the 20th Century that some scientists have tried to get to grips with these most fundamental of fundamental questions. The discussion continues in the 21st Century and hence the increasing interest in the subject.

Ian Barbour is well known for his four models of the science-religion relationship namely:
¨ Conflict (Galileo, Darwin, Dawkins, Young Earth Creationism etc)
¨ Independence (Stephen Jay Gold: they both address genuine issues but there is no overlap between them).
¨ Dialogue (science raises questions that it can't answer - questions that religions usually address).
¨ Integration. (There is enough overlap between science and religion's quest for truth that a genuine search for truth in one can illuminate the other.)

Each chapter in the book is built round this scheme. The main chapters are: Astronomy and Creation; The Implications of Quantum Physics; Evolution and Continuing Creation; Genetics, Neuroscience and Human Nature; God and Nature. He tells us that he is writing as a Christian but nevertheless usefully discusses other religious worldviews.

In the text we meet such pioneer scientists, theologians, philosophers and controversialists as John Polkinhorne, Arthur Peacocke, Richard Dawkins, Michael Behe, Paul Davies, T. F. Torrance, Karl Barth, Neils Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein, Newton, Stephen Hawking, Cullman, Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Polanyi, Karl Popper, Ilya Prigogine and many others.
Although in the space of 200 pages Barbour's explanation of the discussions can only be a brief summary, he writes very clearly, almost always fairly and very concisely so that the reader really does get a good grasp of the issues. Just one example of this is his helpful summaries of how physicists themselves differ in their understanding of what quantum physics tells us about the nature of physical reality, and how both philosophers and theologians have interpreted the significance of these various scientific interpretations for metaphysics and theology.
For these lucid explanations alone the book is to be highly recommended as a very useful resource for teachers and students alike. At the end of each chapter he gives very useful summaries, not only of what he has been saying but also of his own views. This adds significantly to the book, which otherwise would simply be a helpful survey of various opinions.

A question I would like to ask Ian Barbour relates to my observation that among many scientists who are asking religious questions there seems to be a real apprehension about moving too far away from the metaphysics of materialism. (Of course, because of the legitimate fear of the 'god of the gaps' it is right to be cautious.)
However how do we react to a statement Barbour makes in the midst of his very good section on consciousness and the mind-body problem?
He says "Most scientists today do not accept either body/soul or brain/mind dualism, though these ideas can still be defended on theological or philosophical rather than scientific grounds." My question would be: 'Do "most scientists" hold this view because the results of their research or because they fear getting too far away from a more respectable metaphysical materialism - a materialism which Kurt Godel, referring to the relevance of his famous theorem for our metaphysics, described as "the great prejudice of our day"?'

Another question I have relates to his 'conflict' model. One can imagine certain religious people being against science per se. That is clearly conflict. But what about those who are all in favour of science but hold views of the significance of science which are divergent from the views of present day scientific orthodoxy? Many may judge them to be in conflict with science but their claim is that they are pro-science. As examples of the conflict model he refers to two astrophysicists: Gerald Schroeder (an orthodox Jew) and Hugh Ross (an evangelical Christian who turned to Christianity after reflecting on the significance of discoveries in Maths and Physics). Neither is a young earth creationist but each holds relatively conservative theological views and both attempt to back up their theology from their physics. Both, I am sure, would put themselves in the 'integration' category but Ian Barbour places them firmly in the opposite 'conflict' category. Although he disagrees with some of Hugh Ross's views on the significance of Relativity and a multi-dimensional universe, he places them both in the conflict category mainly because he disagrees with their religious views. My question is then: Is present-day scientific respectability together with a relatively liberal theology necessary if one is to be granted a place in the dialogue or integration categories? Surely that must not be the case.

A possible omission.
Ian Barbour says he is writing from a Christian perspective.
When most people think of Christianity they think of prayer and worship and beliefs about Jesus Christ. There is little or nothing in the book about these topics. It is not as though scientists don't write about how their scientific view of the world relates to their experience of answered prayer or their beliefs about incarnation and atonement- some scientists who Ian Barbour clearly respects definitely do and very helpfully. Although one cannot expect him to cover everything, discussion of these topics would have added greatly to the interest of the book and also given it more 'warmth'.
The Contents and also the Index pages (names and topics separately), as well as the endnotes are very good and helpful.

Apart from a few criticisms mentioned above, the book is so clear, succinct and wide ranging that I certainly recommend it.

Rating:
Summary: Is there a physicist in the house?
Review: Plain and simple. There is some thought-provoking points made in this book. But there are some difficulties for the average reader to comprehend.

Rating:
Summary: Is there a physicist in the house?
Review: Plain and simple. There is some thought-provoking points made in this book. But there are some difficulties for the average reader to comprehend.

Rating:
Summary: The Long Awaited Meeting Has Been Finally Conducted!
Review: This book is simply one of the best (if not the best) books that address this controversial issue: Science and Religion. I had to summarize the whole book (each chapter) for my religious studies class. It was like an amazing fantastic adventure that the author takes you through when you read this one-of-a-kind book.

The fourfold typology that the author has used is amazingly adequate to present any highly controversial issue, and lets you explore and master most (if not all) different views and positions of different scientists, scholars, experts, and theologians.

Any serious researcher or student MUST use this book as one of his MAIN tools of research and study. But if you just need a book for enjoyment, then this is it. It's a nice book to read in conjunction with any of Stephen Hawking's books, especially the brand new one: The Universe In A Nutshell.

Highly Recommended. A Must Read!

Rating:
Summary: The best book on its topic I have read.
Review: This book really focused on Reality vs. belief. It showed how science has more hard evidence with the eyes. Belief and religion is more with the mind being mentally satifying in a fantasy land of hope to better conditions than what we have here. We all have different hopes and beliefs. But science hits reality and evidence showing that we live and die. Being Zapped into a space that is a figment of imagination called Heaven is a great escape from what we call reality, as well as the science of how we came about in this mysterious surrounding called life. We live in a place and time where survival of the fittest is the key to success (more money more power to survive). This is a great book in that it brings us to reality and gives us the science of what life REALLY is. Hope and escape from this reality is what we call religion. We don't know the meaning to life. Maybe we've had the meaning to life all along. Maybe we just don't have the guts to recognize that this is it.

Rating:
Summary: Nice Intro to the Subject of Science and Religion
Review: This short 180 page book contains a summary of all the latest ideas coming out of the dialog of religion with science. It is respectfully and beautifully written. It is also intelligently written without losing clarity or using too much jargon. As a physicist I'd say Barbour got all the physics (and science) right, not something most writers in this area are able to do.

Barbour discusses the scientific and theological significance of several "hot" topics: the big bang and creation, the implications of quantum physics, Darwinian evolution and continuing creation, naturalistic challenges to theism, human nature (free will vs determinism, the nature of the "soul", body/soul and mind/brain dualities), and the theological implications of the fact that we live in a universe where both chance and law play major roles. In each chapter, Barbour discusses four ways of responding to these questions: conflict, represented by fundamentalists and scientific materialists, both of whom agree that a person cannot believe in both God and Darwinian evolution; independence (two languages, separate domains), dialogue, which invites a conversation between the two fields; and integration, which moves beyond dialogue to explore ways in which the two fields can inform each other, especially Process philosophy. Barbour sympathies lie with dialogue and integration, but I believe he is fair to all points of view. I also liked and approve of his use of "critical realism" in dealing with unseen realities like electrons and God.

I'd also recommend books by fellow scientist/theolgians and Templeton Prize winners (and critical realists) John Polkinghorne and Arthur Peacocke. Also, see David Ray Griffin's books for a process theology point-of-view. (Griffin is a follower of the famous philosopher Alfred North Whitehead.)

Rating:
Summary: A whirlwind tour of Ian Barbour's thought
Review: To my mind, Ian Barbour writes more clearly about the relationship between Christianity and science than any other published author I'm acquainted with. He is fully aware that Christianity is not the only path to God and salvation, but he is most comfortable talking within the framework of his own Christian background, so this book is really about the relationship between Christianity and science, not religion in general and science. But that is okay, because he allows that other religious traditions can also be paths to God. It's just that to give the book more focus and relevance to its English-speaking audience, he discusses the Christian encounter with science. Barbour presents a remarkably well thought out survey of this topic, always making it clear where he personally stands on the issues, and why.

Barbour treats his subject matter in two-dimensional matrix format, with one axis portraying the degrees of cooperation between science and religion and the other axis the various branches of science. Barbour identifies four fundamental ways in which his topic is treated by interested parties. These are Conflict, Independence, Dialog, and Integration. He then outlines the major positions in each of these categories across the major branches of science: astronomy, particle physics, evolution by natural selection, neuroscience, and finally the natural world in general (as described by science).

Biblical literalists and scientific materialists are in irreconcilable conflict on the issues of science and religion. Barbour thinks we can do much better than that, and makes quick work of both sides of the issues dealt with at the Conflict level. Neither is Barbour much impressed by the next level, Independence. In virtually every one of his analyses, treating religion and science as if they are independent categories of being that do not bear on each other is seen to be intellectually, spiritually, and scientifically bankrupt.

Barbour perks up when he comes to discussing the ideas of scientists and Christians who are interested in constructive dialog and even better, integration. Dialog and integration blend into each other, as Barbour repeatedly shows. When both sides have open minds and are not dogmatic about their religious beliefs, it is apparently not that difficult to find many promising possibilities for integration. If the basis of religion is real (the experience of the divine), then it should not be surprising at all if the Ground of Being turns out to be thoroughly saturated and mixed up in the universe revealed by science. So why shouldn't it be a fertile area for thought that merits careful consideration?

Barbour seems to place himself close to the process theologians, who believe that there is awareness at all levels of organized complexity, and that there is a freedom inherent in this complexity that is outside of the powers of God to interfere with. The one theme however that kept coming up (because of the interference of classical Christian beliefs about the omnipotence of God) was how God was only lacking omnipotence because he voluntarily relinquishes it for the sake of freedom in the world. Process theologians seem to want to hold onto the ultimate omnipotence of God over matter. He could instantly rub it out if he decided he didn't like it anymore.

I personally would take one step further and say that God is inherently unable to control "brute matter" and it is not simply a matter of voluntary relinquishment of power. God can only influence "top down," by acting as a lure to conscious creatures. God is powerless against unconscious matter because of the very way he creates: in creating the fundamental particles, which have the lowest possible awareness of any wholeness regardless of complexity, he is by necessity giving up control over them, taking the risk that because they are ultimately from God himself they have within themselves the power to self-assemble universes and worlds such as the incredibly interesting one we live in. Then when self-conscious creatures such as human beings finally evolve, for the first time God has the possibility of self-consciously taking over the direction of evolution, through US, self-conscious, technological creatures.

But that is a different book than the one Barbour writes. The one he writes is a whirlwind tour through his own thought and powerful ways of looking at the problems of science vs. religion. Barbour's book covers an incredible amount of material in 180, short pages. If this book takes your breath away and leaves you with the feeling that there is a lot more of extreme interest to this subject than Barbour allows himself in this little primer, fear not. Barbour provides much more satisfying treatments of his thought in books like "Religion and Science, Historical and Contemporary Issues" and "Ethics in an Age of Technology." If after reading this book, you feel teased if not cheated, those two books will deliver the richness and depth that "When Science Meets Religion" by its very design, cannot provide.