The Faith of a Physicist: Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker (Theology and the Sciences)

Rating:
Summary: Scholarly, revealing, timely, and thought provoking
Review: Another well written work by Dr. Polkinghorne; the material is scholarly and well organized. Realizing that the content is derived from his Gifford Lectures, it is repleat with citings of other scholars' works with which the reader should be acquainted to dervive fullest benefit and make "Faith of a Physicist" a fluid read. Citings are referenced and annotated. Most readers, including this reviewer, need a good dictionary "at the ready." A glossary is provided, but it is not inclusive.

The information is thought provoking, stimulating, informative, and timely. It offers a perspective of serious Christian thought not frequently found in the current lay press from a point of view of a noted scientist and priest. He shows how God might be, or have been at work and not be in violation of known scientific laws. It is, above all, a book of faith, not a book of "proven scientifically, beyond doubt." One omission of the work is its failure to address the possibility and Christian implication of life elsewhere in this (or any other) universe.

One may find objection to some of his absolutes, e.g., "I know that God is neither male or female..., etc." However nowhere does he say that science has proven the existence of God. The musings of Polkinghoren about unprovable theology is no more outlandish than the musings of cosmologists about unprovable multiple universes.

Rating:
Summary: Good but challenging to read
Review: Be prepared for some serious challenges to your mind in reading this book. The author is both a physicist and an Anglican priest who explains his view of the relationship between science and religion and the role of faith. He does not argue that science proves that God is real but argues strongly that scientific understanding of the universe leaves ample room for a God who intercedes in the Universe, controls it and will bring a good end. Rigorously reasonable, it is sure to offend doctrinaire persons from atheists to fundamentalists but presents a good framework for people seeking to reconcile the claims of science and religion.

Rating:
Summary: Can I Give This Six Stars?
Review: I agree that the materialist, the atheist and the strict fundamentalist will find much to dispute about this book. The latter being said, Polkinghorne is actually far more orthodox in his theology than many modern academic theologians. For believing Christians who are uncomfortable rejecting either orthodox science or orthodox Christianity, this book provides many fascinating insights. If you need to believe that God does not exist or that he created the world in six 24-hour days, you won't be happy with this book. A final caveat. The reading is challenging. However, Polkinghorne provides a short glossary of scientific and theological terms. This book is more accessible to the general reader than his most recent work "Belief in God in an Age of Science."

Rating:
Summary: Best argument I've seen for orthodox Christianity
Review: I just finished reading John Polkinghorne's "The Faith of a Physicist." I really liked it. Maybe because I'm a fellow physicist, the book really resonated with me. It was by far the most intelligent argument for orthodox Christianity I've read so far.

Refreshingly for someone advocating orthodox Christianity, Polkinghorne is not a fundamentalist, a Biblical literalist or a creationist, for he does not believe the Bible is inerrant (that's good or I'd stop reading him) and he also believes in a kind of universalism (he thinks everyone can go to heaven but that some sort of spiritual purification takes place in some cases (Hitler, etc.) and no one is forced to go to heaven against their will). He also believes in all the well-established findings of science (while rejecting the reductionistic and materialistic metaphysics which some scientists advocate). For example, he believes in the 15 billion year old universe and evolution. He see God working behind cosmic and biological evolution, but he rightfully rejects any kind of "God of the Gaps". He also rejects the Deistic God of the Enlightenment. He argues for the personal God of Christianity, as opposed to the "lowest common denomenator" God of many philosophers and religious pluralists.

The format of the book is that he goes through the Nicene Creed line by line (one line per chapter) and defends it in light of our modern understanding of science, psychology and history. This guy is a brilliant and well-respected physicist and he said nothing in the whole book I would object to as a scientist. He is articulate, rational and coherent throughout. Obviously, all positions on God / ultimate reality involve metaphysical and theological speculations. Even if such speculations are coherent and rational, it does not mean they are right. But he argues that all such speculations are grounded in hard evidence and some speculations fit the evidence better than others. Partially for this reason, he calls himself an inclusivist as opposed to a religious pluralist. He thinks anyone sincerely searching for the truth will not be denied full benefits upon death, but he thinks the resurrection of Jesus really happened and refuses to deny that to accommodate a full religious pluralism like the one John Hick advocates. (Polkinghorne says: One can't deny what one regards as the truth even in an effort to be tolerant. Reality is what it is. For example, almost all scientists currently believe the earth is over 4 billion years old. To deny that for the sake of young-earth creationist would be wrong, even if it reduces conflict and tension. Both can't be right. One must use the evidence as it presents itself and infer to the best explanation.) So in his opinion Christianity (orthodox Christianity) is the best way, but not the only way.

Even if you don't agree with all of his conclusions, I think you'll find this book very thought provoking and intelligent. I plan to read more of his books in the future. I also recommend books by Ian Barbour and Arthur Peacocke on this subject, although they advocate a more process theology and panentheistic point-of-view which Polkinghorne disagrees with. In my opinion, anyone serious about the current dialog between science and religion needs to read these three authors at a minimum.

Rating:
Summary: "seas too deep for simple knowledge"
Review: One may point to Polkinghorne's credentials as a theoretical physicist or an Anglican cleric, but in his writings we find that he is also a philosopher, theologian, and student of the humanities (art, history, comparative religion), although he is quick to label himself an "amateur" in these areas. A thoughtful reading of "The Faith of a Physicist" will be particularly valuable to philosophical materialists whose "skepticism" of Christian theism should itself be exposed to skeptical consideration. As Polkinghorne explains, dismissals of theism are often couched in convenient but ignorantly simplistic characterizations: "Scientists who are hostile to religion tend to make remarks such as 'Unlike science, religion is based on unquestioning certainties' [Wolpert]. They thereby betray their lack of acquaintance with the practice of religion. Periods of doubt and perplexity have a well-documented role in spiritual development . . . Religion has long known that ultimately every human image of God proves to be an inadequate idol."
Considering metaphysic's classic poles of dualism versus monism, the author is inclined to reject each in preference to a "dual-aspect monism." In this he is not particularly controversial, nor in his interpretations of quantum theory in terms of its philosophical implications. Polkinghorne's biblical exegesis will be controversial on certain points (whose isn't?). Although he is sometimes accused of being a process theologian, it seems clear that he is not. His theology is ultimately rather classical, including certain elements of process ("There are aspects of Whitehead's thought from which one can benefit without accepting it in its entirety") and what he calls a "tinge of deism" (recognizing that the cosmos was indeed "wound-up"). If the reader thinks that one must either demand that Christian scripture is inerrant or reject it as being errant, then Polkinghorne will offer him/her no satisfaction. In fact, all readers will be rather challenged.
(Regarding dual-aspect monism and David Bohm's metaphysics arising from his interpretation of quantum theory): "My instinct as a bottom-up thinker is to be wary of such grandiosities of philosophical fancy. Instead, I would want to follow the flight of such straws in a metaphysical wind as our understanding of the physical world provides. My own tentative ideas have been woven round two concepts: complementarity and openness." In other words, something like the particle-wave duality and something like the ordered-disorder of the so-called chaos theory.
(Regarding Stephen Hawking's suggestion that his "no boundaries" model displaces the need of a creator): ". . . theology is concerned with ontological origin and not with temporal beginning. The idea of creation has no special stake in a datable start to the universe. If Hawking is right, and quantum effects mean that the cosmos as we know it is like a kind of fuzzy spacetime egg, without a singular point at which it all began, that is scientifically very interesting, but theologically insignificant. When he poses the question, 'But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary, or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?' it would be theologically naïve to give any answer other than: 'Every place - as the sustainer of the self-contained spacetime egg and as the ordainer of its quantum laws.' God is not a God of the edges, with a vested interest in boundaries."
Polkinghorne uses statements of faith taken from the Nicene Creed as a springboard for his apologetic. He offers a "non-literalist" defense of the doctrine of divine creation that assumes a general correctness to present cosmological and evolutionary theories but also finds them to be unexplained apart from the Divine action of an intelligent will. While questions certainly remain unanswered within the theistic view, the materialistic alternative is seen to provide no ultimate answers at all. He offers a defense of Christianity's doctrine of "eschatological destiny" which sees the "optimistic arrow of time" (Davies term for complexity in spite of entropy) and entropy's "pessimistic arrow of time" (second law of thermodynamics) as vectors converging in a significantly unique event. He offers a defense of New Testament uniqueness and reliability (not inerrancy); and a strong defense of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. He argues that, when all is considered, the claimed resurrection of Christ is more credible than any alternate theories that have been proffered but which fail to explain subsequent events. Polkinghorne offers a defense of the doctrines of the Trinity and of eschatology, and concludes with thoughts of alternative views. If you find the last chapter (Alternatives) to be too brief, Sire's "The Universe Next Door" may be of further interest. In the course of the text here, Polkinghorne argues for a bold and far reaching teleology including, but not restricted to, physical theory, embracing "the natural theology of the arts". He argues also for a boldness in defending the authenticity of the canonical Christian gospel; a boldness not simply based in unquestioning fideism but arising from the best documentation of ancient history and human experience. In sum, it makes for a difficult but fascinating read.

Rating:
Summary: A tough read that is well worth it
Review: Polkinghorne's method of exploration is simply to look at the world as a scientist and interpret it as a theologian. In The Faith of a Physicist we get the opportunity to explore with him as he does this. He asks many of the same questions and struggles with the same issues that I do, basic questions that run through the heads of people who think seriously about the world. Fundamentalists may well discard his theological conclusions, but those with an open mind will appreciate his attempt to stay true to orthodox Christian belief while exploring its interaction with modern science.

This book is dense and not one that I would recommend for speed reading (believe me, I tried when I needed to read it for class). It takes time to digest and to ponder Polkinghorne's thought processes and conclusions. In addition, I found the first two chapters to be more difficult reading than the rest of the book (perhaps I was just tired when I read them), so don't let them stop you from finishing the book. The rest of the book is great.