Customer Reviews

The Science of God

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

 

 

Alister McGrath recently completed his three-volume work A SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY (ST). The series focuses on the relationship to religion and science, particularly at the methodological level. Now Prof. McGrath has come out with THE SCIENCE OF GOD, a smaller work that summarizes the findings of his larger series.

I've reviewed ST so I won't go into great detail. If you are interested in ST, I would start with THE SCIENCE OF GOD. If you've read the full series, it's also worth reading. ST was long on case studies but short on argument, so reading SG helps you follow the thread of Prof. McGrath's arguments much better.

As I've mentioned in previous reviews, Prof. McGrath is always a pleasure to read, but the quality of his work suffers because he publishes so much. Even in this work, there is too much repetition. Within the space of thirteen pages we are introduced to T. F. Torrance's "landmark work THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE (1969), "1969 landmark work THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE," and "landmark 1969 work THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE."

McGrath is his inimitable self in this book. He never fails to impress with his intellect, his global knowledge, his ability to explain, and his eloquence. On the other hand, I was surprised at the amount of repetition in the book. From time to time I thought I was having d?j? vue. I enjoyed the read for the most part, but some of the material could have been left out and his arguments would have seemed tighter. He evidently admires Thomas Torrance immensely, since he repeatedly mentioned his name, but I can't recall anything Torrance actually said.
His choice of the scientific method as ancilla theologiae is a good one for several reasons. First of all, as he says, it is the closest thing we have to an objective and culturally inert system of inquiry. Secondly, it goes far to disarm the religio/scientific conflict by making friends of enemies. Not that religion and science are enemies at all, but as Hamlet says, "thinking makes it so." Adopting the methods of the natural sciences also gives him a great advantage when navigating between the currents of modernism and postmodernism. It gives him a "third way."
This introductory version has wetted my appetite for the mother tome(s), but I wonder if his choice for a grid such as the natural sciences may not in the end prove to be as limiting in some ways as it is helpful. I get the feeling that he wants so much for the marriage of natural science and theology to work that the marriage bed may end up being the proverbial procrustean one.

First, you should know that this book "summarizes" a larger, three-volume Scientific Theology. Whereas that collection is full of research and prospects, it lacks the coherence of thoughts present in this shorter volume. This work (although repetitive at times) shows the flow of McGrath's thought better than the trilogy. As such, I suggest it be read alongside the others.

This is in some respects, yet is not, a book dealing with the tired myth of the science and religion conflict. Someone so educated as McGrath in the two fields would not come to such a shallow conclusion. Whereas it briefly deals with this topic, it offers much more by presenting a scientific approach for thinking through theological issues. It relies heavily on two ideals that offer a wide array of possibilities within theology: Alisdair Macintyre's "tradition-mediated rationalities" and Roy Bhaksar's "critical realism." In our post-Enlightenment world, both give interesting possibilities for the future of theological thought. He takes the prospects of his mentor, T.F. Torrance and builds upon them in light of further philosophical and theological advancements over the past twenty five years.

Personally, it was amusing as to how the book seemed to anticipate my questions. Early on, I kept asking, "Natural theology, yes...but what about Barth's critique?" Of course, he deals with Barth in detail. I thought, "I agree that critical realism is the way to go, but how does one adequately respond to Don Cupitt and the anti-realists?" Of course, he deals quickly and sufficiently with Cupitt showing the underlying assumptions that undercut his entire project substantially. Later it was "but what about the analogia entis?" Of course, he dealt with this. Further on, in regards to the discussion on metaphysics I thought, "What about the Lutheranism that McGrath knows so well? Will he deal with Jungel's metaphysical critiques?" Of course, he concluded the meat of the volume with a discussion of Jungel's critique of metaphysical assumptions.

I enjoyed the conclusion of the book because it didn't merely summarize thoughts, but projected future possibilities for the project. It left the reader thinking through possibilities as well. How would one use this project to think through the development of Trinitarian theologies? How could one use this project to assess the value of different ideals for a more robust orthodoxy? The options seem endless.

In summary, I recommend this volume for those who love the natural sciences, theology and the possible integration between their fields of knowledge. As always, McGrath was a pleasure to read.

This long book took some effort to read, but it is unique, brilliant, and pivotal. Its most important point, for me, was that there is no logical or scentific basis for choosing atheism over agnosticism. Atheism must, therefore, compete with other faiths on terms common to all.
This point has been made before, but hardly so well documented historically and argued intellectually.

This is a short readable introduction to a series of three books
on a scientific approach to theology.

Considering the multi-levelled imprint
of God's revelation upon reality (as mentioned in the book) as
what one could observe in the way that a scientist would observe
the natural world (only)
and construct his/her theories, one could then
construct understandings/theories about God (doctrines, etc).
It would be interesting to apply the approach/system to
various doctrines, say the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit is often considered to be
in the category of secondary doctrines in the sense that it
is something inferred/derived from narratives and various
passages of the bible rather than directly observed (via an
explicit statement in the bible, for example).
I am no expert theologian and yet I benefited from the views
presented in the book. The view of nature as God's creation
is very well put forward. What I get from it seems to
be a wholistic way of looking at the world (nature as well
as the history of God's revelation in the bible, in Christ's
coming, etc) and of reality - all as bearing the imprint of
God. The reality one experiences
is like God's communication to mankind
which then needs to be responded to, i.e.
observed, critically thought about,
and theories and doctrines constructed for. Great book!

McGrath presents many side issues in a pleasantly readable fashion but he dodges the biggest question of all, is there a God? He presents alll the same old dispoved arguments and tries to bring science to the defense of religion. He fails and all we get is a defense if the supernaturalistic.

This is a important attempt to expose the religion of Charles Darwin, the Devil's Chaplain, and men like Richard Dawkins who works as the Devil's Deacon. Their religion is called naturalist fundamentalism, a blind faith that goes against all evidence.

This naturalist religion insists in advancing the idea that everything evolved out of nothing (as if nothing was something from which anything and everything could evolve!), that all univwerse evolved out of an infinitesimal particle, that life evolved out of non-life, and man evolved out of particles.

Although it claims to be scientific, naturalist fundamentalism has not been able to put forward any objective convincing scientific proof whatsoever. No one of these types of evolution can be scientifically demonstrated.

If you have any doubts, just consider the fact that naturalist scientists are yet to explain the cause of the Big Bang, the origin of the stars, galaxies, the solar system, the sun, the planets, the earth and the moon.

More down to earth, naturalist fundamentalists have not yet demonstrated the existence of a pre-biotic soup, the accidental origin of life, nor have they identified the alleged common acestor, nor found the billions of missing links in the fossil record that we should be able to find if evolution really took place, nor have they been able to find information generating mutations that would allow particles to people evolution.

All the other naturalist fundaemtnalists are yet too build a convincing case that gradual evolution is compatible with molecular biology, genetics and the fossil record.

In spite of failing to answer all the fundamental questions, naturalist "scientists" keep blindly boasting their"scientific" claims, falling to see that as far as true scientific knowledge is concerned these claims have not yet left ground zero. In vain do we look for definitve answers to the basic questions in current evolutionary theory.

My question is: instead of wasting your precious time with the naturalist fundamentalism and with teachings that lead you nowhere, why won't one listen to the Word of the Creator imself when it cames to answer the basic questions about the origin, meaning and destiny of one's life? After all, the Creator is the only living witness to the Creation.

It makes a lot more sense to me. If you one has the Creator's final Word right now, why wait for more tentative speculations and just-so-stories?

If the Universe was Created by God (a possibility that science cannot exclude a priori), than the true understanding of the Universe is only possible with a New Kind of Science, one that allows for God to direct and guide it and that operates for the glory of God and the service of mankind.

If all knowledge depends on indemonstrable assumptions, true knowlege about the Universe, Life and Man is only possible through faith in the Word of the Creator.