Rating: 
Summary: credible eschatology - not
Review: A thin volume that is very dense! John Polkinghorne is a physicist and theologian. In this well written book, he attempts to pull together our experience in this modern world with a belief in God. He uses the "model" of scientific thinking to support his theological thinking. Many of the writers on my book page are taken to task here, and I admit to having a bit of a struggle following all of Rev. Dr. Polinghorne's logic. In the end, I was not convinced, yet the writing is compelling and I have now gone through much of the book several times over. I was looking for an understanding of ancient scripture that breaths new meaning for today. And indeed, some cases of "updated thinking" has given new life to the stories and metaphors of the Christian scriptures of my youth. But some must simply be abandoned. There is precedent to do so. Yet we seem, as a people, to stubbornly hold onto other literal interpretations and it gets us cross-wise of our intellectual understanding. Polkinghorne has received recognition from the Templeton Foundation for this work. No doubt it is well deserved. For example, Polkinghorne has this to say about an updated Christian view: "A credible eschatology, which takes account of the eventual death of the universe and looks beyond it to God's new creation, is surely an indispensable component in realistic Christian thinking." Still, I am not convinced that he has shed any light for the belief in God in an age of Science. Despite his credentials in science, his theology gave me no sound logic for "proving" the existence of God. In the end, it is still a matter of faith - you either believe it, or you do not. You either have it, or you do not and this book, to my understanding, did not change the picture for me. Yet I highly regard and highly recommend this book to you!
Rating: 
Summary: Intellectually satisfying
Review: As a Christian with an undergraduate exposure to theology and a Ph.D. in physics (and a continuing interest in both), I am offended by the lack of intellectual integrity shown by so many authors who address science/theology issues. Whether from the "creationist" side (which seems to be the principal voice being heard from the Christian viewpoint) or the secular-humanist side (which has been the principal voice being heard from the scientific community) the "discussion" (if you can call it that) is all too often characterized by a circular kind of reasoning which begins with a particular world-view and then, by entertaining nothing but "evidence" congenial to that viewpoint, proceeds to arrive at the pre-held viewpoint as the only "logical" conclusion. Equally insidious are the "post modernists" and "subjectivists" who essentially question the point in seeking "truth" of any kind since they regard our perception of "reality" to be hopelessly distorted by our individual and societal agendas, or those who try to compartmentalize faith and reason as equally legitimate but incompatible activities -- as if the reality of faith is somehow different from the reality of the physical universe. Polkinghorne is a refreshing change from this usual dismal discourse. If you are seeking confirmation that a first-rate scientific mind can exist in company with an unapologetically orthodox Christian faith, this book should do the trick. This is not to say that all readers will agree with all of Polkinghorne's stances. Those of the "Biblical literalist" stripe will undoubtedly be offended that Polkinghorne tolerates no traffic in the Creationist agenda. Secularists will be offended that Polkinghorne unabashedly holds that the revelation of God through scripture and the experience of the Church are expressions of a legitimate reality. Many Christians will be offended that Polkinghorne isn't dogmatic that the Christian faith has a "lock" on theological truth and that he is willing to accept that the other great world religions also have something to contribute to the dialogue. On the other hand, non-Christian religious may well be offended that Polkinghorne is not prepared to negotiate the truth of primary Christian doctrines, such as that of the incarnation. And anyone looking for a "light read" or pat answers will become quickly discouraged -- this is the kind of book you have to read carefully, with the brain fully engaged and open. The satisfaction comes not from achieving closure, but from being engaged with interesting and meaningful questions. Polkinghorne skilfully and credibly notes how the insights and discoveries of modern physical science have, contrary to the expectations of the 19th century scientific community, become more, rather than less amicable to a theistic worldview. He regards this, not as "proof" of the latter, but rather as a demonstration of his principal thesis: that there is a cosmic reality in the search for which both science and theology are fellow travelers. Science, using tools of experiment and quantification seeks to comprehend the mechanism by which the universe operates. Theology, using the insights of revelation and experience seeks to understand the author of the mechanism and His ongoing purposes. But there is only one reality -- the reality of theology must ultimately be congruent with the reality of science, and vice versa. Another prevailing theme is that a true seeker of truth must be prepared to accept the tentativeness of our current state of knowledge on any subject -- reality is complex, and our understanding will always be incomplete. At the same time, Polkinghorne believes passionately that reality is accessible to our intellect (which is in itself a pregnant truth to ponder) and he convincingly demonstrates how the journey of truth discovery (allowing for the occasional mis-step along the way) inevitably enlarges rather than overthrows the prior reality. Just as physicists were challenged in the early 20th century to integrate the new realities of relativity and quantum mechanics into the durably functional framework of classical Newtonian physics, so too the early Christian church was challenged to integrate the new reality of the risen Christ and the tangible activity of the Holy Spirit into the durable truth of traditional monotheistic Judaism, resulting ultimately in the Trinitarian formulation. In neither case was the new synthesis achieved by an instant and tidy process (or without controversy surviving even to the present), but this should not be perceived as an embarassment in either case, but rather as a testament to the integrity of the process -- "orthodoxy", whether in science or theology, is the end result of surviving controversy and challenge. In science, the hallmarks of an ultimately acceptable theory are not only that it encompasses all available information, but also that it is fruitful in suggesting new areas of insight, and also conforms to a certain aesthetic of "elegance". The requirements for achieving theological orthodoxy are, in fact, not all that different. Polkinghorne believes that, in both cases, the process does indeed help us to ever more closely apprehend the reality which is our objective. Periodically, I have been fortunate to have encountered a book whose pages offered both insight and on-going intellectual challenge. This is one of those rare finds. I highly recommend this book for the serious inquirer.
Rating: 
Summary: Presumptuous and verbose
Review: I have a simple question: can anybody show me a single scientific discovery that had been based on the hypothesis that there is a God? Just one? I am not talking about a scientistÕs individual motivation - which can be anything, even to look into Òthe mind of GodÓ (Hawking). No, I am talking about the procedure of going from a hypothesis to a mathematical model and then to the experiments which check on the predictions of the model and establish the facts that result from such trials. So, was there ever a hypothesis that included ÒGodÓ in the master-equation and actually yielded science? Well? I am listening ... thought so. There is obviously a difference between actually doing science and the appropriation of science for screwed up metaphors, in order to rationalize an irrational urge to believe. Recently I heard a "reborn" ex-scientist referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics to ÒexplainÓ her newfound faith in "creation." The law states, that in a closed system the amount of entropy increases to a point where all energy comes to rest in an equilibrium. So hot gas molecules in a closed chamber initially clump together and drift in clouds before they evenly distribute and cool down. From a state of lower entropy we progress towards maximum entropy. The 2nd lawÕs application is universal and goes from steam engines to the entire Universe, it is the reason why time has a one way direction. But everyday parlance, in a completely arbitrary fashion, likes to term the two states as "ordered" and "chaotic," meaning that over time there is a gradual increase of disorder. Strange what the urge to believe can do to your faculties of reasoning. The reborn believer claimed compatibility of the 2nd law with the Bible account of Òcreation.Ó I was puzzled. The 2nd verse of Genesis says: Òthe earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep ... ,Ó or as the Hebraic bible says, Òeverything was a tohubohu,Ó a great chaos. Not a single notion of a state of order in the beginning. It seems, man just canÕt bear the thought to be a mere sideshow. In our egotism we require a God who is exclusively concerned with us; we would rather accept hell than our own insignificance. In Sir Winston ChurchillÕs words: Ò... if there is no God and we are snuffed out like candles, then there is no point to anything. Therefore I believe ... .Ó Of course, an infidelÕs urge to disbelieve, could be just as irrational. However, whenever in rare moments of intellectual honesty we squarely face the world, then all we can see, are widely scattered patches of knowledge, surrounded by our ignorance, which, as it so happens, is the favorite playground for religious fantasies. I am not saying that science is the only path to intellectual and spiritual integrity. Marc AurelÕs ÒMeditationsÓ are a great testimony to intellectual honesty and humility in a pre-scientific age. My point is: we donÕt do science to find comfort, and who can claim to find comfort in the ÒtruthÓ is a rare bird indeed. No true scientist and no true philosopher ever claims to possess a know-it-all panacea. But religious doctrine does. That is its comfort and its lure; it unashamedly exploits the human weakness. Babies cry and Òthunder teaches praying,Ó because as a species we either lack what it takes to cope with the facts of life on their own terms, or the modicum of intellect which grandmother Evolution has bestowed upon us, came for a price - the price of boredom. Bored minds try anything to fend off the bottomless void. Even an illusion, even religion! But science is science; if properly conducted, it does not depend on views and philosophies. Mr. Polkinghorne speaks for his own limitations not for an expansion into the realm of truth. To compare science and theology as 2 equally legitimate Òfellow travellersÓ toward the one Òcosmic realityÓ completely overlooks that one of the 2 ÒtravellersÓ isnÕt travelling at all, but more of a waylaying highwayman who waits to hijack for his own ends what the other has acquired through hard work and determined effort. Dogma always knows where it is going, but religious doctrine still has to show that it would be willing to undergo an equally rigorous test of verification and falsification as the hard sciences and surrender the keys if it fails to pass. Till then I find little more than a haze of grand words, and little sense. In the end it all comes down to an old observation of mine: that even very good scientists usually make lousy philosophers. The question how the Universe came about is NOT really a scientific question, and skills are skills - although Òhow to treat spouse and kids, how to cope with pain and failureÓ are not, as one reviewer seems to think, purely Òmatters outside of science.Ó And even if it were true, and if indeed Òfor literally everybody, skills of that kind are more important than scientific knowledge,Ó it is not a substitute for Òtruth.Ó Knowledge about the physical world is far from being at the most basic level - it can only be acquired after an ethical commitment to intellectual integrity, hard work, and exposure to a rigorous regimen of trials and checks. Truth doesnÕt come in candy wrappers and it is a sad fact that literally billions of the human race pass their life without ever facing a basic truth on their own. Books like Mr. PolkinghorneÕs are poor and presumptuous substitutes.
Rating:
Summary: An Accomplished Physicist / Theologian Addresses THE Issue
Review: If you are interested in a shallow, simplistic and facile treatment of an extremely important question, you will have to look elsewhere. The same goes for those who approach the subject with a closed mind, whether they are fundamentalists or atheists. If you think you already know all the answers, this book will only annoy you. However, if you've already spent some time studying this question, buy the book. Or if you are willing to hear from a gentle and thoughtful person who has the highest scientific and theological credentials, buy Polkinghorne's little book. It's short, but it isn't a quick read. Polkinghorne assumes his audience has some knowledge of the points in question. You might read a few pages, put down the book and think about it for a few days. You might feel a need to learn more about a certain aspect of physics, evolution or even philosophy. You might even find yourself asking a friend, "Do you think God will remember everything about me after I've died, so that He can put me back together again? What is a soul anyways?" Then your friend will smile uncertainly and change the subject. Right or wrong, Polkinghorne's ideas are reasonable, careful and thoughtful. Other physicists, more famous than Polkinghorne, have made pronouncements about God. They don't share Polkinghorne's expertise in theology. After reading his work, the difference is obvious. Anyone interested in the interaction between science and religion should read this book.
Rating:
Summary: An amazing intellectual trip - walking on water.
Review: In this book Polkinghorne tries to show that theology is a rational discipline. The book is intensely honest and filled with intelligent ideas you enjoy thinking about even if at the end you disagree with. Some of them, such as what the Christian dogma of the Fall of Man means within humanity's evolution, took my breath away. The same goes for his proposal on how actually God acts in the world and scientist's model on how He will act to resurrect all souls on the Second Coming. To see a scientist try to make science compatible with religion not to mention Christian mythology is really amazing. Since Galileo, the Church has been frantically retreating from its claims about nature and about natural theology. Today theology finds itself in the corner and Polkinghorne builds his last line defense on arguments such as the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in physics, the Anthropic Principle and the physicists' subjective search for beautiful theory. These arguments, even though brilliantly constructed, will not convince anybody who is not convinced already, and are, I think, wrong. Polkinghorne, being a scientist, is too respectful of science for my taste. I would have enjoyed a more aggressive stand, showing, for example, that human agency, not to mention human consciousness, is difficult to reconcile with the scientific view. Also, he devotes exactly one phrase on the spooky phenomenon of uniform mystical experience that cuts through time and religious denominations. He plays by the rules of science and insists on the losing proposition that theology is rational and therefore should be as convincing and taken as seriously as science. Polkinghorne puts a lot of emphasis on the "unity of knowledge" and tries to unify science and theology and to show that these are aspects of the same search for truth. A better strategy would be to have theology engulf science and explain that science forms only a small (not even a very relevant part) of knowledge. After all, how we should manage our spouse and kids, how to understand pain and failure in life, are matters outside of science and much more relevant to our well-being and to our understanding of the world and its meaning. For literally everybody, this kind of knowledge is more important than scientific knowledge. To a religious person God is everything and knowledge starts with God and passes through layers before reaching at its most basic level knowledge about the physical world. On the whole, this is a very worthwhile book that is filled with ideas and references to other books. I have not read much on this subject but this book probably shows how far rational theology can go which is not very far - a sobering and important conclusion.
Rating:
Summary: Religion and Science
Review: It is about religion, belief in god and aftermath with scientific thought in mind. Author agrees that there can not be a proof of the existence of God the way we define as proof but one could come convincing logical arguments in that direction.He tries to tie quantum indeterminism with miracels.He does not agree with evolution or anthropic principal and he believes in re-incarnation in the same form, Jesus being prelude to this. He seems to have a hope that Science and Theology will one day come together and become one knowledge for the entire creation, different aspects of the same thing.
Rating:
Summary: Critical Realism as a Bridge between Science and Theology
Review: Let me say up-front (before I get technical) that give this book (and all of Polkinghorne's wonderful books) my highest recommendation. Now let me give a definition (from Robert Russell): "Critical realism is a philosophical view of science and/or theology which asserts that our knowledge of the world refers to the way things really are, but in a partial fashion which will be revised as knowledge develops." This book and Polkinghorne's many other books, as well as those of fellow scientist-theologians, Ian Barbour and Arthur Peacocke, all strongly advocate critical realism as a "bridge" between science and religion. All three have somewhat different (but still Christian) theologies: Polkinghorne is the most orthodox, Barbour leans towards process theology, and Peacocke leans toward panentheism. Although I think it is a reasonable conclusion, I don't see why Christianity per say would be a forced and necessary conclusion of being a critical realist, but Polkinghorne argues strongly for that conclusion. It does, however, seem like critical realism is most congenial to some sort of monotheistic belief. Arguments based on the ground and unity of all knowledge leads you there. Polkinghorne argues that it is hard to defend a critical realistic view of impersonal and objective scientific data and yet deny such a view to personal and subjective data and experiences. And if you believe in the unity of ALL knowledge (which Polkinghorne does), that takes you to monotheism. Then, finally, if you believe in inferring from available evidence to the "best" conclusion, then Polkinghorne would claim that leads you to Christianity. Others might support all but the last conclusion and still be a strong critical realist and monotheist, although perhaps not a Christian. (Obviously more than critical realism and scientific evidence is used to reach this particular belief and Polkinghorne doesn't ignore that in his discussion.) John Polkinghorne says: "there appears to be no logically inevitable way to proceed from epistemology to ontology, from what we can know about entities to what they are actually like. However, he says unless we believe ourselves to be lost in a Kantian fog -- that is, unless we are condemned to a grouping encounter with phenomena (appearance) and we totally lack any grasp of noumena (reality) -- we must suppose there to be some connection between the two. What that connection should be is a central question for philosophy and, perhaps, the central question for the philosophy of science. It can be resolved only by an act of metaphysical decision. Such an act cannot be logically determined a priori, but it can be rationally defended a posteri, by an appeal to the fruitful success of the strategy adopted. (Polkinghorne, Barbour and Peacocke do a beautiful job of mounting just such a defense.) It appears to me that the decision made by the vast majority of working scientists, consciously or unconsciously, is to opt for critical realism, which (Polkinghorne defines as) being the attempt to maximize the correlation between epistemological input and ontological belief." (Polkinghorne likes to say: "Epistemology models ontology.") It is Polkinghorne's belief that "the cumulative success of science provides the necessary support for the pursuit of this strategy." There is much more in this book to recommend it, but these were some of the highlights for me.
Rating: 
Summary: By whose rules?
Review: Michael Sympson's one-star rating for this book got my attention! The scientific method has been phenominally successful in the last two or three centuries, and has straightened out much misinformation assumed by and propagated by the Churcn. However, one cannot demand that God fit our scientific criteria of proof. It doesn't work that way.
For instance,if I find that reading the scriptures helps me understand how God REALLY works, and if I find that with regular prayer and devotions I can improve my relationship with him, then I find prayers specifically answered over and over again, my faith is strengthened. Can I pray the same prayer and count on getting the same results? No. In fact, often similar prayers are answered in quite different ways. Can I tell you how I did it and expect you to get the same results? No. Clearly God is a live and loving individual, not a inviolable set of natural laws.
But, as one wise person said, "if you come, a priori, from a position of confirmed rejection of there being a God, then the natural law system is the only game in town."
I'm coming from a Christian experience and cannot vouch for other religious beliefs.
Although I'm familiar with the subject matter, I've only read the reviews of this book so far, so would have to give it a non-committal three stars.
Rating:
Summary: Wow.
Review: Simply put, unless you have a PhD. in Physics and Theology, which John C. Polkinghorne does, don't even try. The book is so dense that it took me several times reading each chapter to pull much out of it (and I still feel like there is more in there I haven't touched.) On the other hand, if you do have these PhD's or would like some good light (light being emphasized very sarcastically here) reading, this is the book for you. Polkinghorne did not mean to prove God's existence through physics or math, just open the minds of those that might never have thought that it is possible to believe in God in an Age of Science.
Rating:
Summary: Wow.
Review: Simply put, unless you have a PhD. in Physics and Theology, which John C. Polkinghorne does, don't even try. The book is so dense that it took me several times reading each chapter to pull much out of it (and I still feel like there is more in there I haven't touched.) On the other hand, if you do have these PhD's or would like some good light (light being emphasized very sarcastically here) reading, this is the book for you. Polkinghorne did not mean to prove God's existence through physics or math, just open the minds of those that might never have thought that it is possible to believe in God in an Age of Science.
|
