Customer Reviews

The Faith of a Physicist

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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."

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.

This is tough reading. Polkinghorne melds science and theology, specifically Christian, in a commentary on the Nicene Creed. Or, rather, he uses phrases from the Nicene Creed to illustrate the compatability of science and belief in God/Jesus Christ. The strict Materialist and the strict Fundamentalist will find much to dispute. Polkinghorne contends, however, that from a "bottom-up" approach (Polkinghorne the scientist) one can defend (Polkinghorne the theologian/priest) a reasonable belief in God. He discusses in detail "how" God can and does interact with His creation in terms that (some/most) scientists may be able to accept. It will be necessary to have a dictionary at hand. He does tend to use very technical language (scientific and theological) without definition. A tough read, but very much worth the time and effort. Multiple readings are encouraged by this reviewer.

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.

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.

For those of us layman raised to revere religion as factual and non-optional but shaken by our realization that the foundation of our religious convictions are based on non-provable claims, Polkinghorne's "The Faith of a Physicist" is a detailed journey into the body of thought, which leads towards or away from faith. Embodied within the pages of this scholarly, richly referenced document, are vivid descriptions of the pivotal points of religion that must be accepted to believe in the Christian God. Polkinghorne does not hide the issues that strain faith but illuminates them beyond the imagination of the average layman while sharing his personal beliefs and understandings. Entangled within this treatise on faith is a strong argument that faith in God need not be abandoned by those who embrace today's theoretical physics. Too many, too big words make this a difficult read for the undergraduate and the context usually does not illuminate the meaning..(have your dictionary ready.)

For a volume that contains less than 200 pages, this book is certainly rich with interesting ideas. Furthermore, the author has mulled them over until they came to intellectual ripeness. Within an outline drawn from the Apostles' Creed, Polkinghome gives his view of the anthropic principle, the relation of body to mind, the nature of God, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and other subjects, in a thoughtful manner. He strikes a good balance between authority and personal opinion. He refers frequently and in humility to what well-known thinkers on all sides of the questions at hand have said (he has obviously done his homework), but is confident, bold, and smart enough to pick his own path across the fields of fact. He argues, at one point, that "The titles assigned to Jesus play the role that models do in scientific investigation." In other words, the New Testament does not appear as a mass of dogmas artificially superimposed upon stories of Jesus' life. Rather, terms like "Son of God" show the early Christians groping for a way of coming to grips with remarkable facts. That is the kind of "bottoms up" approach Polkinghome appreciates.

I have three caveats. First, Polkinghome slips into theological jargon too often. Second, his idea that we do not have souls, but that at some point in the future, God will make copies of us from His perfect knowledge, not from the same bits of matter though, seemed weak to me. I mean, presumably God could do the same now -- there could be copies of us running around on other planets. But what does that have to do with you or I or the promises of Scripture?

Third, what Polkinghome primarily seems to give here is a cautious explanation of his faith, rather than a strong argument for it. His initial caution lends his ultimate conclusions about the resurrection of Jesus, for example, a great deal of weight. But while agnostics and atheists who make this book their token foray into Christian apologetics could do worse, they should be aware that the author is passing over some very strong areas of evidence for Christianity. Please do not put the book down saying, "Well, I survived that; I guess I'm safe." I suggest you also consider the psychological truths G. K. Chesterton discusses in Everlasting Man, the history Don Richardson relates in Eternity in Their Hearts, and the many testimonies of modern Christians on how God answers prayer. (Miracles are the most "bottoms-up" kind of evidence for God.) You might also find my new book, Jesus and the Religions of Man, worth a read, especially if the question Polkinghome raised about spiritual alternatives to the Christian faith is of interest.

d.marshall@sun.ac.jp

I picked this up after hearing Polkinghorne on the Mars Hill Audio Journal. These are his Gifford Lectures and provide a summary of his approach to theology "from the bottom up," that is, reasoning from the data to the truth.

It was interesting to me, particularly in the parts that dealt with epistemology and science, but it is probably a bit too dense both in style and substance for the casual reader. The reader needs some background in philosophy, theology, and science (esp. physics) before reading this book. (If, for instance, you've never heard of Alfred North Whitehead, the Q source in NT scholarship, or quarks, I'd wager this book is not for you.) It took me a while to get through.

Also, Polkinghorne does not have a high view of the Bible (e.g., he accepts the conclusions of modernism that the gospels are an admixture of truth and fiction), so don't buy this book expecting a theologically conservative take on things.

Sir John Polkinghorne is quite simply my favorite author. An accomplished particle physicist, he writes authoritatively about science; but with a second career as an Anglican priest, he has a unique perspective on the relationship between science and faith. Some reviewers express the view that Polkinghorne is difficult to read and I understand why; he uses many long words and replete sentences, which can initially be off-putting. For example: "I have suggested that the largely non-cumulative character of theology is a reflection of the fact that its Subject transcends us, while in the scientific exploration of the physical world we transcend objects of our investigation ... If we demand the localized clarities of a Newtonian epistemology, we shall deny ourselves all knowledge of quantum entities. If we accept the veiling of the world as part of its nature, then we shall encounter its idiosyncratic reality, even if it will occasion us a good deal of ontological perplexity."

However, it only takes a short while to appreciate that what he packs into one of those sentences captures a meaning that others spread over several pages. The Faith of a Physicist covers a lot of ground and requires significant reflection to derive full value, but it is nothing short of brilliant in explaining concepts that are often misrepresented by both sides of the naturalism versus faith debate. "We cannot begin by forming independently a theory of how God is knowable and then seek to test it out or indeed to actualize it and fill it with material content. How God can be known must be determined from first to last by the way in which He actually is known ... God is known because he has chosen to make himself known, through gracious disclosure. This revelatory action does not take the form of a mysterious conveyance of incontestable propositional knowledge; rather, it is mediated through events and people which have the character of a particular transparency to the divine presence and to intimations of a lasting hope." "Religious experience is not illusory human projection, but encounter with divine reality ... Atheists are not stupid, but they explain less ... Although atheism might seem simpler conceptually, it treats beauty and morals and worship as some form of cultural or social brute facts, which accords ill with the seriousness with which those experiences touch us as persons."

Polkinghorne takes a very different position on divine providence from the classical view of a Spiegel, while stopping short of entirely open theism. "The act of creation involves divine acceptance of the risk of the existence of the other, and there is a consequent kenosis of God's omnipotence. This curtailment of divine power is, of course, through self-limitation on his part and not through any intrinsic resistance in the creature." Of the deist position that God created but has not remained active in the world, Polkinghorne says: "There seem to be two motives for being willing to settle for so minimal a view of divine agency. One is a feeling that modern science will permit us nothing more. I hope I have already shown that to be a mistaken opinion. The other, and much the more significant, reason is the desire to solve the problem of theodicy by absolving God from any possibility of responsibility for specific happenings. A God of the 'one great act' is not a God who can be blamed for the Holocaust. Yet he is also not the God who raised Jesus from the dead ... our account of divine agency will have to be adequate both to the fact of evil and to the fact of hope."

With these short extracts from the book I have tried to give a representative sample of how the author expresses himself. Accurate, humble, deeply reflective and balanced, his style is rewarding for one who finds it worth the study. For those deterred by his exceptionally broad vocabulary and preference for long but tightly-packed sentences over a more simplistic style, there are other apologists who would probably prove more digestible. But for the unique wisdom of one who grasps the most complex of scientific concepts and is able to reconcile them with his Christian faith (to the confusion of his fellow countryman and grudging admirer Richard Dawkins) I cannot think of anyone who compares.

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.