Most Helpful Customer Reviews
34 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Thoughtful Attempt at Reconciliation and Understanding of Science and Religion, April 12, 2008
This review is from: Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith (Hardcover)
Christoph Cardinal Schonborn's book titled CHANCE OR PURPOSE: CREATION, EVOLUTION AND A RATIONAL FAITH is a thoughtful attempt to make connections between religious belief and modern science. Readers should note tht Cardinal Schonborn is not a fundamentalist, whatever that term means, and he is not a militant atheist. This book is not an attempt at a "middle ground," but an attempt to let "both sides" know that there are possible areas where agreement can be reached for further debate and discussion.
Cardinal Schonborn is clear that a literal interpretation of the Bible is not science and that the Bible was not written as a science book. Cardinal Schonborn mentioned that even the early Church Fathers were clear that the Bible was not meant to scientifically explain the Cosmos. In fact, St. Augustine (354-430)stated that the Bible was not an astronomy book, and students could study science in the schools. St. Augustine stated that the Bible and the Church teachings were designed to help men achieve salvation and not to teach science. In fact St. Augustine as well as other early Church Fathers stated that the much of the Bible was allegorical.
Another topic that Cardinal Schonborn examined is the fact that the Catholic Church enshrined reason next to Revealed Truths as part of learning. The Medieval Scholatics and especially St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)stated that science and the Bible were not at odds. His conclusion was that apparent conflicts were due to an inadequet understanding of the Bible. In other words, Cardinal Schonborn argued that there were Medieval scholars who recognized that there were apparent differences between the Bible, Catholic teaching, and science.
The basic premise of Cardinal Schonborn's book is that there is a starting point for all learning including scientific learning. The use of a priori thinking and logic are fundametnal to scientic learning(biology, geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc.)as well as mathematics. Cardinal Schonborn is also clear that reason is also important to metaphysical questions and learning such as ethics, good vs. evil, justice, etc. He is clear that ideas and concepts are just as real as scientific studies. The key for Cardinal Schonborn is that there is a starting point by which ideas and science can be understood and advanced.
What Cardinal Schonborn critisized in this book were the concepts of formlessness and radical skepticism. He was clear that ideas of formless ness and extreme skepticism led to nowhere. Without reason and some fundamental starting point such as religion or the concept of a Creator, there could be no science or advance in knowledge. If nothing is accepted as a priori premises, nothing is achieved due to no basics from which to build knowledge.
Cardinal Schonborn was also critical of the misuse of Darwin's ideas. Cardinal Schonborn had some good comments on the use of Social Darwinism. For example the rulers of Big Communism had a "plan" whereby those in the Workers' Paradise would react to the plan by "successful adaptation." In spite of concentration camp brutality and mass murder, the plan failed because men are more complex than what the Plan allowed. Social Darwinism was also the rationale of the strongest race. Anyone not fit was doomed. In fact, one modern biologist stated that some people needed to be biologically upgraded to be fit for the modern world. A rational religious view was much better means of understanding social organization.
Cardinal Schonborn also commented on the vastness of the universe and the insignificant size of the earth and the solar system. This discussion carried over to Man whom Cardinal Schonborn stated was created in God's image with dignity and that man had reason for a guide. Cardinal Schonborn is well aware that the solar system is on the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy. Yet, he is also clear that size does not matter. As far as we know, men are the only ones who is aware of the universe and his place in it. If one were to measure value by size, a man in love would give his fiancee a boulder rather than a diamond. Men would seek to live on Jupiter which is much larger than the earth. Yet, life cannot be sustained on that planet.
A very good point that Cardinal Schonborn made is that intelligence is important. Yet, intelligent men who are aware of the limitations of their knowledge demonstrate wisdom. The point that Cardinal Schonborn made is that those who ascribe to materialism and a chance universe as an ideology do not "know it all." Cardinal Schonborn explains that there are ultimate questions that give men a chance to think and if they do not know everything, they can at least have understanding.
One minor weakness of this book is that Cardinal Schonborn could have cited fameous Catholics for their scientific achievements. For example, he could have cited St. Albertus Magnus (1193-1280)who did considerable work in experimental biology and astronomy. Cardinal Schonborn could have cited the outstanding work done by the Jesuits. A book that was published named the 300 best mathematicians beginning c. 900 BC. Five percent of these mathematicans were Jesuits. There over 30 craters on the moon named after Jesuits. The Jesuits pioneered the study of seismology which was once called the Jesuit Science. Mention could have been made of Father Gregor Mendal (1822-1884)who pioneered the study of genetics. Cardinal Schonborn could have used these examples as well as others to inform readers that men of deeply held religious convictions have made important contributions to mathematics and science.
This book does not claim to be the "final answer." All Cardinal Schonborn tried to do was to give a reasonable explanation that science and religion are not necessarily hostile. While this reviewer has some crticisms as noted above, this is book is highly recommended to those who have an interest in the "debate" between religion and science, if there is one.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
23 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Exposing Fundamentalism and Darwinism, February 8, 2008
This review is from: Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith (Hardcover)
I have been a fan of intelligent design (ID) since Darwin's Black Box. However the Protestant underpinnings that seem to be pervasive in ID are indeed hostile to the fruit of Darwinism, which is evolution. Many of the ID supporters that I know are secret semi-fundamentalists that don't want to admit that much of what they hold true in the area of origins comes from literal reading of the Bible and creation. While they won't admit to an Earth that is over 6000 years old (like some Fundamentalists do) they nevertheless abhor any fact or truth that emanates from scientific inquiry that might threaten their definition of God and of their reading of the Book of Genesis. Others in the ID camp are deists who see an original Creator - but one that now is afar and aloof and who is not involved in continuing and guiding creation. Having been raised by Catholic educators and scientists, I have always had great respect for Darwin's contributions to scientific methodology and science in general. However I have not been able to completely reconcile the "big divide" between believers in God (the Creator) and their warped view of science AND many prominent scientists, who claim the origin of the cosmos sprung from chaos, are atheists and who violently mock theists. I am a believer in a Creator, yet I also greatly respect true scientific methodology and the search for the truth. Why can't a believer in a Creator also be a respectful believer in the scientific search for the truth? Why can't the mysteries that have been unlocked for millennia and recently made evident by science be reconciled with religious beliefs? Could a Creator use evolution as a means to sustain and guide the original creation of everything (out of nothing and perhaps through the Big Bang) toward an ultimate purpose? My ID friends have blackballed me from their message boards when I sincerely asked the question whether a designer could use evolution as a tool in creation. I was told that I must be a "Papist". My science friends (many of them family members) have removed me from their email directories (and Christmas card list) when I again asked sincere questions about God and creation as I seem to find them in the beauty of nature. What I learned was that they took my inquiry as a mocking of their particular brand of "religion." [Interestingly many of my family were raised traditional Roman Catholic but now live lives very much far from the morality taught in that religion and seem to adhere to "relativism".] I had become in their eyes a heretic.
In his book, Chance Or Purpose - Creation, Evolution And A Rational Faith, Cardinal Schonborn has "healed" to a great degree my wounds suffered from the two camps of ID and evolution. I now do not see a big rift between religion and science. It was necessary and important that I receive this revelation from a respected member of the Catholic Church. [The Church needs to do this alot more on other related issues]. This book has awakened in me a great appreciation for everything I can see, feel and touch in nature. I do see a purpose in it all. My hope is that both ID and evolution camps can learn from each other and behave less like contemporary Congressional politicians (in polar gridlock). Science should stick to science and stay clear of origins and matters of philosophy. ID'ers should not fear truth that can be revealed in honest scientific inquiry, but should embrace it. I personally am not threatened by the earth revolving around the sun or our remote position in one average galaxy in the cosmos. [See "Rare Earth" by Ward and Brownlee]. The prejudices of each camp blind them from exposure to complete truth (scientific and theological). If the hostilities of both camps are left unchecked they will undoubtedly stay in perpetual combat which will affect us all, our culture and our accent as a species. This conflict will lead young minds into lifelong confusion.
To the non-directed, chaos believers of the science only camp, I ask you how do the components of life (the microscopic ones) seem to know how to evolve to improve upon say the macro mechanism of the eyeball? They do not have molecular or subatomic brains or blueprints, yet they seem to work in concert with totally unrelated microscopic parts to arrive at an improved way of "seeing". How does the theory of original chaos reconcile with such complex orchestration?
To the ID'ers, who dig their heals in the sand when evolution appears to be a rational explanation for say the creation of body plans in the Cambrian explosion, couldn't a Designer use evolution as the means to accomplish an ultimate creative purpose? Why do Chimps have nearly all our features and bodily processes and components? Is it not plausible that we are related? How does that in any way degrade the dignity of Homo sapiens? If you hold true to the Judeo/Christian heritage wasn't all of the original creation called "good"?
In conclusion, the mutual effort of science and theology (in their fundamentalist sense) to dispel each other is the crux of the Cardinal's book. He neither says that evolution is the prime truth that all other truths (material and beyond) are based (as the atheistic scientist would profess), nor does he say that intelligent design as that term is used by IDers should be the guiding force (or limiting force) for scientific methodology. Rather he is saying that there is no problem for one to believe in a Creator while admiring the hypothesis and theories developed by true scientists who stay within the bounds of scientific methodology. Also, one cannot live a schizophrenic existence by believing in a pure fundamental approach to Scripture while also accepting factual findings of science. For example to say the earth is 6000 years old (based upon literal reading of the Bible) while science has shown uncontrovertibly that the earth as older than 4 billion years makes one's religion absurd (see St. Thomas Aquinas). Faith and reason are not incompatible. So science should stick to that which it can measure and study (material) and not attempt to extrapolate Darwinism to things non-material or to attempt to answer the question in origins of why. So true should intelligent design not hamper scientific methodology because it is afraid of what science may uncover. [My guess is that ID may have been a reaction to atheistic scientists that crossed the line.] So in the end both science and theology should come to terms as to their respective limitations and domains. If they don't then the freedom of man (that the Creator bestowed to man) is at stake. A society dominated by science produces Marxism and Natzism. A society dominated by fundamentalism produces inquisitions and burning spiritual people at the stake (or hanging them on a cross).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Clear statement of the Catholic position but not otherwise a contribution to debate, July 5, 2008
This review is from: Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith (Hardcover)
In part, a well written account of intellectual Catholic belief on matters loosely related to the scientific theory of evolution, and a fairly convincing argument that traditional Catholic doctrine is not contradictory to the strictly biological theory. In somewhat larger part, the author takes issue with "evolutionism", the idea that "the interplay of chance and necessity" that drives evolution is all there is to say about the subject of human origins, and takes issue with the idea that "man is just another evolved animal", ideas that are manifestly opposite to Christian belief.
As a statement of traditional Catholic belief the book is just fine. But it simply doesn't address what I would consider the central issue in the evolution vs creationist debate: granted the physical laws of the universe and the state of the Earth some four billion years ago, is it logically possible and reasonable that the complexity of life could have arisen by the operation of physical laws alone? This is what most scientists implicitly believe, what those like Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design explicitly seek to demonstrate, and what a small minority like the author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution explicitly disagree with. But on this issue author abandons his otherwise sophisticated nuanced theology in favor of occasional statements like the following, without attempting to develop an argument.
It is entirely rational to assume that there is a significance to the development of nature .... Reason tells me there is an order and a plan, meaning and purpose, that clock has not come into being by chance, and far less still the living organism of a plant, an animal, or indeed a human being.
Anyone who wants to replace the Creator in the realization of this plan by a complete autonomy of evolution either attributes a mythical creative power to evolution itself, or renounces any attempt whatever at rational comprehension by explaining everything as the blind interplay of arbitrary chances .....
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
