Customer Reviews

Religion and Science (Gifford Lectures Series)

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

 

 

"Religion and Science" is an in-depth philosophical discussion of religion and science. Ian Barbour's initial aim is to analyze the goals and methodologies of both science and religion - determining their similarities as well as their differences. The analysis is broad in scope and thorough in detail. Key scientific theories are examined and their metaphysical and theological implications are discussed. Different points of view are given fair consideration as the author takes the reader on an enlightening journey through a history of philosophical thought.

At issue here is what separates scientific truth from religious truth. To be sure the author goes to great lengths to answer this question and the reader will gain a plethora of insights along the way; however, the bottomline is this - namely, that science relies on objectivity while religion on subjectivity.

Is it possible to reconcile the objective truth with the subjective? Yes. How? Answer: "Process Thought."

What is Process Thought? Process Thought (or Process Philosophy as it is sometimes called) is a metaphysical system that views processes instead of irreducible particles or substances as the fundamental constituents of reality. It overcomes the duality of mind and matter by proposing a "dipolar Godhead" - one with both a physical as well as a mental pole. Moreover, it asserts that each process or event has both a mental and physical aspect. Dipolar Theism (the designated term for this viewpoint) "holds that the world is in God (panentheism), a view that neither identifies God with the world (pantheism) nor separates God from the world (theism)." "God includes the world but is more than the world." pg. 295.

Process Philosophy has important implications for both science and religion. It provides a rational basis for resolving the apparent dualism of mind and matter, and thereby reconciles the seeming conflict between science's quest for objective truth and religion's for subjective truth.

This tome is a great work of erudition; It is well-written, engaging and thought-provoking. It will offer you a wealth of insights as well as an education in both the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of science. This book is highly recommended for the individual who is seriously seeking to reconcile the religious mind-set with the scientific - the intuitive mind with the analytical. You will not be disappointed.

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.

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.

In an era where many in the US believe the universe was made 6000 years ago and Adam and Eve walked alongside dinosaurs, and many religious believers are rejecting the theory of evolution (a keystone of modern science), there is a desperate need to bring religion and science into a better and more fruitful relationship.

The situation unfortunately is not helped with the rigid fanatacism on both sides of the fence, either with theologians who dismiss geology and biology because it contradicts the bible, or who reject advanced biotechnology because of medieval theories of the person, or by scientists like Richard Dawkins who try their best to use science as a hammer with which to smash down all religious systems and myths as worthless fictions which belong in the dustbin of history, and try to whitewash any possible influence religion and religious values may have to offer science or a scientific worldview.

Barbour offers in this work an impartial analysis of the relationship between religion and science and offers four basic modes of how the two human enterprises can relate to each other. While he does offer his own perspective, Barbour is rational in his arguments and avoids getting mired in pointless polemics against theological or scientific oppenents, and lets them be.

This book is of interest to any theologian, philosopher or scientist who is concerned about how religion and science relate to each other, especially in our turbulent times.

I got the book super-fast, really inexpensive, and it was exactly as described!! Thanks for saving me money on a textbook!!

Barbour famously divided approaches to science and religion into conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. Regardless of your worldview, educated readers benefit from knowing this classic text. Fundamentalists in science or religion will rankle at Barbour's liberal stance on many issues. His writing is clear but dry; thorough but bookish. It holds prominence in the field, but it takes a special person to enjoy it.

I needed this book for an upper division religious class and it helped me tremendously in the class. Fast shipping and saved me alot of money instead of buying it from the bookstore.

There are so many good things that can be said about this book. It is broadening, thought provoking, and stimulating. Ian is an evolutionary theologian, a term I use to describe one who believes God has directed and guided evolution to bring about humankind. If you have chosen to adopt God created the universe and human beings specifically, in this manner, you will indentify with its contents. When we tackle the questions and issues contained in this book, we can only come away saying no one really knows the answers-- the conclusion of Hawking in a Brief History of Time. With all his broad mindedness expressed throughout the book, I was so disappointed in one statement he makes relative to intelligent design (called 'Creation Science') and those who espouse it.

He says in respect to those who try in our educational system to
acquire some time for an opposing view in our school cirriculum,the following: "But when absolutist positions lead to intolerance and attempts to impose particular religious views on others in a pluralistic society, we must object in the name of religious freedom." Who turns out to be the narrow mind wanting no opposition, demanding he only understands the mysteries of the universe?"

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.

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?)