Customer Reviews

Religion and Science (Galaxy Books)

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

 

 

Some people say that you must not read what is contrary to your religious beliefs. I advise those people not to read this book, as they will see their beliefs carefully explained, discussed and torn down by Russell. He does not mock the opposite points of view, but he explains them in a very clear fashion and then shows sound arguments to prove they are wrong. Even if you do not agree with his position, you will find the discussion enlightening. Recommended!

"Religion and Science" provides excellent insight into the historical struggle between religious faith and the scientific pursuit of facts. Russell outlines the differences in methodologies that inevitably lead to conflict between religion and science. He sites various examples of such conflicts including opposition to the heliocentric view of the universe and Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Russell infers throughout how science is superior to religion, at least from a pragmatic standpoint. This is perhaps not a revealing fact to enlightened readers. However, as Russell points out, in every age there are religious adherents and systems that have opposed progressive ideas and technologies made possible by scientific discoveries. Russell makes it clear that the reader should at least be aware of such historical precedence in order to be prepared to handle modern instances of conflict between religion and science.

Russell's "Religion and Science" explores, in a thoughtful and intelligent fashion, essentially the dark side of religion and its historical resistance (to say the least) to scientific discovery. This is clearly a must read for any rational thinking human.

I really enjoyed this book. Basically this is a history book of science and religion and how they have interacted over the history of mankind. Bertrand explains how almost every great scientific finding or revolution is oppressed ...by religion in some way or another. Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, Darwin, Vesalius, Harvey, Simpson, and many other distinguished scholars have all been at least fearful of the reactions of the churches, but also of the general population. Bertrand also goes into detail how the idea of ?soul? has changed through time: ?We not only react to external objects, but we know that we react. The stone, we think, does not know it reacts, but if it does it has ?consciousness.? Here also, on analysis, the difference will be found to be one of degree.? I rate this book with five out of five stars; I enjoyed it and still do enjoy it thoroughly.

Hard to believe that this Book (here in CD Audio Format) was written was back in 1932! Most of it is as current and relevent now as then. The CD is broken down in to several parts, including RELIGION AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD,RELIGION AND DISEASE,RELIGION AND EVOLUTION, RELIGION AND MYSTICISM. Always very polite and a bit understated, the CD begins commenting on Copernicus and Galileo, scientists contradicting the dogma of their times. Then onto Church responses to disease including 1600's Plagues, and Smallpox. The blame was put on demons and devils, not germs aor viruses. His comments on the Smallpox outbreak in 1880's Montreal are worth the price of the CD. Evolution and biology are discussed, and Russll has some interesting thoughts on mysticism. Very worthwhile in this CD format!

Quick overview of the centuries long conflict between religion and science. Russell firmly believes that religion has stood in the natural path of science on multiple fronts. Every time religion has been "pushed aside" by science (sometimes violently), man has made tremendous progressive strides. This includes discovering that blood flows through the body and the failure to find the soul within the body, amongst dozens of other examples.

The book's age takes very little away from the book. Russell even acknowledges that the fields of science he speaks about are still progressing and his words about them will one day be less poignant.

Fascinating and quick, I read "S&R" after "The Problems of Philosophy" and "The Conquest of Happiness," but before "Why I Am Not a Christian."

This book is the culmination of lengthy and grueling contemplations. It really reveals the author's depth of knowledge.

Religion and science are two major aspects of life. Religion (or to worship something more superior and powerful) has been around since the day humankind was created. In every epoch, in every land, human beings felt a need to believe in something which they can seek refuge when they are in need of protection, relief, solace and peace of mind. Whether you believe in a religion or not, it plays, perhaps, the biggest role in our lives everyday. Science, on the other hand, is the grand sum of all the endeavors that mankind expended in search of unraveling the mysteries of the universe.

In my opinion, the author could have named the book "Christianity and Science" as well, because he refers to other religions very briefly. I am sure he was not unaware of them, but to name a book with such a generic name, it entails a comprehensive treatise of all major religions. Although there are many common denominators among them, there are as well many stark contrasts. Furthermore, the historical development of major religions exhibit different features, distinct approaches and methodologies.

Having been raised in a Christian environment, it is not unusual for the author to bring forth such a book. At that time, the Islamic civilization was (and still is) in a state of decline and inertia. The concept of "religion and science" should be discussed in a forum with participants from all major religions. Hence, one will be able to produce a comprehensive treatise.

As for this book specifically, the chapter "Demonology and Medicine" is especially striking and includes very powerful stories. The outstanding difference between today's Western civilization and the Medieval Europe is characterized very successfully. In the latter chapters, the evolution of scientific thought in West is discussed with very illustrative examples. The notion of "relativity" in the sense that every human being perceives the Universe from a different angle with different assumptions and premises is argued and scrutinized very logically, effectively. This book really makes you ponder over the Universe in which you live, from many perspectives, with the ideas that shape it.

Personally, science and religions are not archnemeses. They are very powerful tools, which go parallel to each other, to perceive and comprehend the secrets of life.

Overall, a very powerful book for those who are not afraid of thinking!

Of the books I've read by Russell so far I think he is the easiest on religion here. I see two reasons for this. One, he never talks about sexual repression which is the subject that consistently gets him riled up about the church, and two, at the time this was written (1935) he was optimistic that the days of Christianity fighting progress were behind us and saw the real threats coming from the state. He was keenly aware that the governments of Russia, Germany and, to a lesser extent, his own Britain were throwing their citizens' freedoms under the bus. His later work shows that he later abandoned the optimism he had towards Christianity, but the important thing to remember is that he was pretty darn optimistic here.

The nice thing about the book is Bertrand doesn't particularly take a stand on whether or not religion and science are incompatible. Indeed his optimism about the future of Christianity suggests that at the time of this writing he thought that they could coexist. The first half is really just a history of instances when the church determined that science was incompatible with its teachings. The first few chapters are each dedicated to a specific scientific discovery the the church ardently opposed, often with the power of the state and serious threats against the scientists involved. This included discoveries like that the sun was the center of the solar system, that the earth was not a mere 6,000 years old and that the strata of rocks not only pointed to a very, very old earth, but did not show any evidence of a worldwide flood. He briefly mentions evolution, but doesn't seem to realize just how troublesome it would continue to be to many religious people.

Later chapters move away from the structure of relating the history of science being repressed by the church. This is of course because the church no longer had the power or, in Russell's opinion, the inclination to directly oppose science. Instead he focuses on religious schools of thought (not necessarily Christian) that are ideologically incompatible certain scientific thought. There's a chapter on determinism and the threat it poses to the doctrine of damnation (though it should be mentioned that Russell makes it clear that right now there is no way to know if determinism does in fact describe the movements of all things). Then he discusses mysticism and cosmic purpose. Sadly, because these two concepts really describe countless subsets of belief I found the chapters insufficient to really address them completely.

He finishes off with a chapter addressing the popular criticism of science that it doesn't say anything about morality. He did an excellent job talking about how, while technically true this doesn't mean that dependence on science will lead to immorality. Quite the contrary. He dismisses the idea of intrinsic morality and a conscience as illusions covering up the fact that morality is learned. Ultimately he ends up breaking down exactly what subjective morality is. He's 100 percent in step with The Ethics Of Spinoza though he more fully addresses the real world effect of a world where each person has their own personal morality which may in some ways contradict his fellows'. If nothing else that chapter alone deserves a read as it is the most complete and concise treatment of community and ethics I have come across.

The reason I made a fuss at the beginning of this review about Russell's relatively lenient attitude toward religion here and the fact that he himself does not declare religion and science incompatible is because of the introduction that was given to this book. It was written by Michael Ruse and by the time I had finished it I was certain that he hadn't read a word of Russell prior to getting the gig writing his intro. And after reading the book I'm not sure Ruse ever got around to reading this one either. He seems to think that it is Russell that asserts science and religion cannot coexist when Russell only recounts instances in which religion sees science as incompatible with itself, mostly in the past. To make matters worse Ruse doesn't seem to have a clue what either Russell or Spinoza thought of ethics, though that doesn't stop him from claiming that without religious morality Hitler's actions cannot be considered immoral. This is of course ludicrous since the entire basis of both Russell's and Spinoza's "good" is the fulfillment of the well-being of the individual and his community. It doesn't take a genius to know that the Nazis acted to annihilate the well-being of millions of people for the benefit of a few. I was stupefied that someone so ignorant of Russell and his ideas was given the task of writing his intro, it's really quite shameful. I've never come across such a poorly researched introduction before in my life.

Even though it's over 75 years old by now, this little book by Russell is still a very good introduction to the history of science and religion. Russell observes how at pretty much every juncture, the religious authorities (whom he categorizes as sadistic and misogynistic) stifled advances in science that contradicted their dogma. While couched in theological arguments, their motivations were actually more influenced by the fact that science put their authority into question. And anything that puts an authoritarian's rule into question must be eradicated. While he was writing of the past, Russell nonetheless saw the same forces at work at the time of writing, stating that communism and fascism became "the inheritors of theological bigotry."

And indeed, it seems these same dynamics are at play today. That's where I think Russell's analysis falls short. As Michael Ruse points out in the introduction, the book is a little out of date. The 'conflict' hasn't so much been a monolithic one of "science" vs. "religion". In my opinion, it has more to do with the psychology behind these impulses: one of open-mindedness and free discovery, and one of brute totalitarian rule. While religion has definitely typified the latter for its entire history, the worldview can also apply to secular institutions, as Russell noted. The identity of the problem isn't clearly defined here. I think David Ray Griffin's summary of Whitehead's views on the subject, as well as his own analysis on the circumstances surrounding the main players in the 'conflict' and the forces at play that left 'science' victorious gets closer to the heart of the matter (see Whitehead's Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy: An Argument for Its Contemporary Relevence). The battle was a political one, and competing 'religious' worldviews suffered just as much as 'science'. Griffin also presents a more coherent metaphysic than Russell's materialism, for what it's worth.

As for a more current take on the subject, I recommend Thomas Dixon's volume, Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction.

Bertrand Russell reflects on the conflicts of science and religion by outlining the history of each. Although Russell is a renowned critical thinker and agnostic proponent of science, his presentation is closer to a historical account rather than a one-sided argument. He finds faults and praise for both science and religion and views their respective conflicts in relation to the thought process of societies at their respective time periods.

Religion has been mainstream for at least two millenniums and as Russell points out it has only been in the last two centuries that science has gained considerable influence. For two thousand years even Aristotle's views on falling objects was considered unquestionably valid until simple scientific experiments proved his faulty lines of reason. The history of religion has also evolved throughout the ages, but unlike science there are no definitive tests that influence the lines of reason, there are only common accepted beliefs and faiths. Russell asserts it is this difference that is as the core of the conflict of between science and religion; a clash made most famous by Galileo's persecution for his pronouncement that the earth was not the center of the universe.

Russell's' philosophical views are as relevant today as in the early parts of the 20th century when this piece was written. He capably conveys the importance of looking back into history to better grasp the integrity of our own views. Anyone with an interest in these subjects will find Religion and Science worthwhile and enjoyable.