Rating: 
Summary: Process this . . .
Review: When Science Meets Religion is the winner of the Templeton Prize for advancing religious understanding. As a humanist, this topic is always of interest to me, and I found Barbour's view on process theology most interesting. The typology of the book was such that four "topics" were discussed in each chapter with respect to the "view" being discussed: Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration. So, for instance Astronomy and Creation are "analyzed" from those four points, as are the other major sticking points between science and religion.Barbour seems to treat each position with respect and objectivity and clearly states his own position so that the reader is not required to "guess" where he is coming from in his own thinking. For example, in chapter five (Genet6ics, Neuroscience, and Human Nature) Barbour states clearly the "I will defend an integral view of the person as a psychosomatic unity, which I believe is closer to both the biblical view and the evidence from contemporary science." And so it goes through all the major topics of the book. And, in the next to the last paragraph, we have this conclusion: "Finally, I find the concepts of process philosophy particularly helpful, but I am aware that a single coherent set of philosophical categories may not do justice to the rich diversity of human experience." In the end, Barbour has not convinced me to leave off my Humanist views, but he has indeed given me the framework I need to understand the need for others to use a religious model to express their sense of unity with all the Cosmos. As he so eloquently explains, all models are limited and partial, and none gives a complete or adequate picture of reality. So it is just a matter of where you wish to put your faith when it comes to understanding your own place in that infinity. One can put faith in science eventually giving us answers to the major questions we have or one can put faith in religion explaining the mysteries. Whichever system one chooses, one must keep in mind that no one model fulfills all needs or answers all questions. From the Foreword:
"Quantum Physics: A Challenge to Our Assumptions about Reality?
Classical physics was deterministic and reductionistic in assuming that the behavior of all objects could be exactly predicted from accurate knowledge of their smallest components. Quantum physics, by contrast, acknowledges an inherent uncertainty in the prediction of events at the atomic and subatomic levels. It is also holistic in showing that the behavior of larger wholes is not simply the sum of the behavior of their parts, but involves distinctive system laws. More over, the quantum world can never be known as it is in itself, but only as it interacts with the observer in a particular experimental system. Quantum physics thus suggests the openness of the future, the inter connectedness of events, and the limitations of human knowledge. Some theistic interpreters propose that God determines the indeterminacies left open by the laws of quantum physics. Advocates of Eastern mysticism say that quantum holism supports their belief in the fundamental unity of all things. The new physics has led scientists, philosophers, and theologians to exciting discussions about time, causality, and the nature of reality."
Rating:
Summary: God of the Shadows, God of Doubletalk
Review: While this book is well-constructed and contains much of value, Dr. Barbour consistently allows his Christian beliefs to drive his conclusions. For example, on page 45 he dismisses Stephen Weinburg's assertion that "the universe itself suggests no point" by countering that "The theist could then reply that if purpose is not ruled out by science, cosmic history can perhaps be coherently interpreted as an expression of God's purposes." This is a particularly insidious argument: as I read it, Dr. Barbour is asserting that unless the Universe is PROVEN to be pointless then that lack of proof itself is evidence for the existence of God. He thereby presents a common argument for a "God of the Shadows," in which theists point to any area where human knowledge is incomplete and exclaim, "There! THAT'S where God is!" Again, on page 64, he asserts that belief in God provides answers to fundamental questions, but he provides no explanation of how that may be: "Theistic belief makes sense of [the existence of intelligent life] and a variety of other kinds of human experience even if it offers no conclusive proof." This seems to me to be doubletalk. How, exactly, does it make sense? Does theism make sensible the existence of leprosy, or of schizophrenia? Why, precisely, does God require the deaths of infants? In reality, theism has always raised more questions than it answers, and not just about the nature of evil: Why would God wish to create creatures of flawed intelligence--would not either perfect beings or else the purity of light, matter, and space be more pleasing? Of what, physically, is God composed? How did God come into existence without benefit of either time or space, and where does He presently exist? And so forth, virtually without end. Put simply, I think Dr. Barbour glosses over too many fundamental questions. Religion springs from the internal workings of the human mind, as do superstitions and emotions; science attempts to quantify the external world in a way that makes it rationally understandable. Religion requires belief alone; science persistently questions belief. To infer, as Dr. Barbour does in the passages above, that the two systems approach parity is fundamentally flawed, I think. The question he poses in his subtitle--whether science and religion are enemies, strangers, or partners--is a red herring. He might have asked instead, "Religion: when will we grow out of it?"
| 
