Religion and Science (Gifford Lectures Series)

Rating:
Summary: Religion and Science: Historical and comtemporary issues
Review: Barbour is known for his expertise involving the connection between science and religion. As a student of science/theology this is the best treatise i've seen on this subject. It will serve very nicely as a textbook and for personal reading.It should be part of every library. It will definitely go down as a classic.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting but ...
Review: Barbour's book is interesting and, I think, worth a careful read. The first part of the book, which focuses on the historical dialogue between science and religion, is particularly good. His treatment of modern scientific thought and some of the controversies therein is worthwhile, as well. The author emphasizes the interrelatedness of science and religion and the respective ways in which they create knowledge. It is pretty clear that Barbour writes from a liberal, pluralist Christian perspective. Most of his examples and expertise seem to focus on the Christian tradition but he does talk about Buddhism a bit. The position that is perhaps least represented is that of the conservative, Bible believer. This book is best read as a summary of various philosophies as Barbour's theology is flawed.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting but ...
Review: Barbour's book is interesting and, I think, worth a careful read. The first part of the book, which focuses on the historical dialogue between science and religion, is particularly good. His treatment of modern scientific thought and some of the controversies therein is worthwhile, as well. The author emphasizes the interrelatedness of science and religion and the respective ways in which they create knowledge. It is pretty clear that Barbour writes from a liberal, pluralist Christian perspective. Most of his examples and expertise seem to focus on the Christian tradition but he does talk about Buddhism a bit. The position that is perhaps least represented is that of the conservative, Bible believer. This book is best read as a summary of various philosophies as Barbour's theology is flawed.

Rating:
Summary: On Dinosaurs and Liberals
Review: I find Barbour's book deeply offensive on several counts. First and foremost is the assumption underlying his entire project that somewhow science provides a kind of massive analogy for metaphysical speculation (see page 180). It is as if one has to forget the Kant ever lived. And this isn't just a small analogy here and there that Barbour is attempting. It is supremely monolithic. His basic working premise within his larger assumption -- of science driving our knowledge of God -- is that there is some kind of "dynamic and interconected" reality in the cosmos (ibid.). Changing, but still there (remember Kant?)in some kind of "intial aim" and "coherence." Of course Barbour is hanging his hopes on the eventuality of that greatest of all the secular desiderata -- a unified field theory. And what will that look like. Kind of like Anselm's God that is even greater than that which we CANNOT conceive?
But forget Kant, he is too difficult, too old, too dead. Let's talk Pomo. This is after all "ontic-theology" writ large across the entire cosmosmology. And you thought "phallo-logocentricism" died along with the dinsosaurs? Well wake up all you Branch Derrideans, you slumbering skeptics! Here comes Barbour! With yet another remake of Whitehead-does-God. How many categories do you we need? 138 at my last counting! (Only 7 in Process and Reality -- you better keep reading!) Boys and girls, do we got boxes for you! But we can now rest assured, God is not dead. On the contrary, he has been fully cataloged, compartmentalized, duly noted, and filed away, perhaps, for further use. Barbour has managed to de-transcedentalize the transcendal signifier in ways that Caputo, Taylor and Vattim could never even of imagined.
But I am not even sure if Barbour's God was ever transcendental. "It" surely was never omnipotent (page 326). And if God is not ominpotent then what of "transcendence"? What exactly might "God" be other than just another sytematically ambiguous signifier? -- not even a "transcendental" one! (Mixing my Wittgenstein and Derrida here -- but don't worry, Barbour has apparently read neither).
This "God" of Barbour's, like all of Process theology, is a God stripped of the history of the Christian Church. It is a new God, a better God, a one-size-fits-all. This is that weird kind of old liberal theology which will not die its final death, because it is kept alive on the artificail life support of that one strain of ossified university, seminary and divinity School style of theology. Stripped of the stories of Jesus, of the martyrs, of the councils, the great debates, the wars and the saints, we have a theology with out "theos," an "ology" with no subject matter but the metaphysical speculation of an obsolete professional class.
And ethics? Is there any sense of ethical resposibiltiy or obligation in this sytstem without a heart and without a face? There is an "interrelatedness" in this "continued journey toward greater harmony and enrichment" certainly (page 326). And is that supposed to be meaningful? The furthest Barbour can drag himself towards the ethical, is too quote that other dinosaur John Hick and say that the world is "an appropriate place for moral action" (page 302). Oh boy! But "process thought goes further" says Barbour (the excitment is almost unbearable). Because process theology knows that "evoulution is a long, slow, step-by-step process." Wow! Inspired for moral action and duty yet? I would say that is about as exciting as Walter Rauschenbusch, Hebert Spencer, and the rest of the social gospelers and evolutionists of over a hundred years ago.
If your idea of God is an amoral "process" stripped of all historicity and neatly compartmentalized for any liberal view, this is the book for you. Obviously, the only requirement for you to join the club, is that you must view all conservative Christians as "literalists," "absolutists," and equivialant to "nazis" (pages 82-85). Well, that should just about take care of half of all the practicing Christians in America. No need to "dialogue" with them! Kind of makes you wonder who the book was written to in the first place? (Maybe that tiny set of liberal "process" academicians of a dinosaur-persuasion?)

Rating:
Summary: Amazing scope; comprehensive; religion part too intellectual
Review: Whatever anyone thinks of "Religion and Science," it is clearly a definitive if not the definitive work on this subject because the book's references and discussion of them are extremely comprehensive, almost to the point of being mind-numbing!

I feel that the author does a far better job of explaining science and scientific methodologies than religion and its methodologies, though I do find it useful to consider religion and religious experiences in terms of normally scientific terms, which he defines as agreement with data, coherence, scope, and fertility.

I really enjoyed Chapter 7, entitled "Physics and Metaphysics." Mr. Barbour gives a very good presentation of the basic concepts of twentieth century physics, such as quantum theory, relativity, and chaos theory, and also presents some thought-provoking ideas about how modern physics can and cannot be related to religion, especially Eastern religions and mysticism. Barbour, with some validity, takes on books such as "The Tao of Physics," and criticizes what he feels is overstressing the similarities between physics and mysticism. Again, there are many references provided that are well worth further study.

As I stated above, I found the discussion of religion less appealing, precisely because it is far too intellectual, and is limited to what I will call "human-only" theses, and there are so many models and points of view presented I found it impossible to keep them straight. The author does state repeatedly that religion is "interpretive experience," yet he seems to feel that hundreds of intellectual explanations and theories of religion and God are what is called for to be "coherent;" however, the effect to me what was basically the opposite.

The explanation of Whitehead's main theses is good in developing what the author calls "process theology." Yet I am sorry to say that I got the impression that the author, who uses the word God over and over, has himself little experience of God other than what he has read from philosophers and the Old and New Testaments, i.e., intellectual only. He barely mentions reincarnation and karma, and clearly doesn't accept them. To me they are vital concepts in understanding the way "God" is, or I would say the laws of the "Universe," and certainly in trying to understand what the relationship of our souls is to the temporary, material existence. There is virtually no discussion of death in this book other than vague references to Christian doctrine, from what I remember, and to me a thorough discussion is absolutely crucial in any book about comparative religion.

The author himself admits that models don't represent literal (physical) reality, and I would add that they also do not represent spiritual reality, and thus are overrepresented here in the latter context.

Mr. Barbour also supports, among many suggested models, modes of interaction as well as dealing with the obvious differences in scope between the two disciplines, with which I agree. He maintains that the two disciplines in principle occupy difference realms of knowledege, really experience, and thus he supports the "Independence" model, in order to avoid the kind of confusion that arises when religious leaders try to defend their beliefs with the latest findings in science. As for interaction, Barbour supports the "Dialogue" model, not only between religion and science, but among different religions, eschewing any claim of exclusive truth by any group.

My criticisms of this book are perhaps harsh given its amazing scope. I do recommend it as a valuable resource. The author takes on the almost mpossible task of presenting religion and science and their relationship very credibly, perhaps better than any other author.