Customer Reviews

Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation

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

 

 

I have read quite a few books in the general area of science and religion, including many of the currently popular general interest books written by professional scientists, who often touch on the topic of religion. Haught is not a professional scientist, although he is very familiar with modern science. He is however well schooled in modern philosophy and theology. Haught's recently published "Science and Religion" is an eloquent treatment of the tensions at the interface of these two disciplines. It is arguably the best book that I have read on this subject.

The book addresses the following nine questions, with one chapter devoted to each:

1. Is religion opposed to science? 2. Does science rule out a personal God? 3. Does evolution rule out God's existence? 4. Is life reducible to chemistry? 5. Was the universe created? 6. Do we belong here? 7. Why is there complexity in nature? 8. Does the universe have a purpose? 9. Is religion responsible for the ecological crisis?

This book structures its discussion of these nine questions as a "debate" between four distinct schools of thought, which Haught terms conflict, contrast, contact and confirmation. Scientific and philosophic concepts introduced in ensuing discussion are explained clearly, so that the book is accessible to nonspecialists.

The "conflict" school of thought holds that modern science is irreconcilably opposed to religion. Skeptical scientists of this persuasion, including the likes of Dennett, Hawking and Weinberg, argue that modern science has indeed hit the final nail into the coffin of theistic religion. The Copernican revolution removed humans from the center of existence to an obscure speck in an unimaginably large and hostile universe. Newton showed that the universe is governed by natural law, not by continual supernatural intervention. Darwin demonstrated that living organisms on earth arose through a natural process over many millions of years. Quantum mechanics revealed the laws gov! erning the world of subatomic particles. Einstein removed any vestige of absolute space and time. Big bang cosmology removed any lingering need for a Creator. Thus it is no longer intellectually possible to accept modern science and still believe in God.

Ironically, this "conflict" point of view is shared by many religious fundamentalists. In a defense of their faith, some are determined to overturn conventional scientific theories, replacing this body of knowledge with an alternative version that they call "creation science".

The "contrast" school argues that most, if not all, of the tension between modern science and religion is unnecessary, stemming from a persistent failure over the past few centuries to recognize the separate domains of science and religion. Those advocating this view cede to science the outward description of the physical world, including the processes by which it came to be, but reserve for religion questions such as the nature of God and the meaning of existence. Along this line, the Catholic Church was completely out of order when it persecuted Galileo over Copernican cosmology -- the Church was invading the domain of science. But scientists are equally out of line when they invade the realm of religion (several modern examples are cited in the book). Indeed, many skeptical scientists betray their own unfounded belief systems in such writings. These belief systems include scientism (the belief that all knowledge comes only through the scientific method), materialism (the belief that all reality, including life and mind, is completely explainable in terms of its constituent material) and reductionism (the belief that the best approach to truth is through analysis at the lowest level). Thus the conflict between science and religion is really a conflict between scientism/materialism/reductionism and religion.

The author then describes the "contact" school of thought, with which he is obviously sympathetic. While those of this pe! rsuasion acknowledge the need for a respectful division between science and religion, they argue that a completely clean division is not really possible. Further, a total separation prevents science and religion from mutually nourishing each other in their quest for truth. Advocates of this view cite certain remarkable developments of twentieth century science, including the apparent requirement for an observer in quantum mechanics, the fact that the fundamental constants and laws of physics appear to be exquisitely tuned for our existence, and the findings of the emerging field of chaos, which indicate that the neatly mechanistic universe of Newtonian mechanics must give way to a universe that is fundamentally unpredictable and continuously creative of beauty and order. Developments such as these simply cannot be ignored when considering our place in the universe. They not only point to a divine Creator and a rational Lawgiver, but also to a universe that, in the spirit of the prophetic tradition, has the promise of eternal progression and creativity.

Finally, the author mentions what he calls the "confirmation" school, which notes that the whole notion of a universe that is rational and discoverable is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian thought. The Book of Job, for example, teaches us to trust in the rationality of the universe even in the face of seemingly incomprehensible tribulation and suffering. In this light, all scientists implicitly work from an underlying faith that the universe is ultimately simple, elegant, rational and comprehensible. Without this faith, which is entirely comparable to faith in God, there would be no point in performing experiments or trying to craft rational theories to explain the findings. In this light, the Judeo-Christian tradition, as it emerged from the Middle Ages, actually set the stage for modern science.

One important question is whether or not harmonious approaches such as those discussed in this book can gain acceptance, either by scientific o! r religious people. Haught observes that the outlook is not encouraging. Skeptical scientists seem unwilling to cede any domain of truth to religion. Typical is Tipler's claim that either religion must eventually be reduced to a branch of physics, or else it must be dismissed as a subject of no content. On the other hand, few deeply religious persons seem willing to even accept the theory of evolution, for example, much less weave this or any other theory of modern science into their personal religious fabric. But there remains some hope that if each side displays sincere flexibility on these questions, a meaningful dialogue can be established.

In summary, this book is highly recommended for college students and others who struggle with these questions.

There are two kinds of textbooks for a course on science and religion. One is the book that tells you everything you need to know. Ian Barbour and Holmes Rolston III have produced marvelous examples. The other is the book that invites the reader deep into the issues at stake, with just enough information to make those issues clear. This second kind of book usually needs supplementary sources of information. Haught's book is of this kind, and is outstanding of the type. I know because I use it in my own classes. By presenting each issue from four different viewpoints, the book allows a reader to identify her or his own position, in relation to possible alternatives. The reader has to sort through the pros and cons given by proponents of the four positions. So the student is propelled to a critical evaluation of alternataives. Haught provides many samples of ideas from contemporary thinkers, both religious and decidedly unreligious. The samples open the way to using more material from these primary sources, all in the context of the arguments and reasonings presented in the book. It is an excellent educational tool. END

This book is only about 200 pages, but I was frankly pretty spent by the time I reached the end, not because the writing isn't clear (it is), but rather because the material is inherently challenging. And how could it not be? After all, we're talking about the big questions, for which no one has definitive answers.

To be more specific, John Haught clearly knows his science and his theology, and this book provides a rather sophisticated and intense exploration of the relationship between the two (even though he modestly describes the book as only an "introduction" and a "prologue to conversation"). He frames his exploration by making the strongest case he can for four different views:

1. The Conflict view argues that science and religion can't be reconciled, and science has a vastly stronger evidential basis, so religion should be disregarded.

2. The Contrast view argues that science and religion ask different kinds of questions and use different methods, so they occupy different spheres and can't come into conflict, even in principle, unless they're mistakenly conflated or trespass into each other's domains (eg, when science drifts into the metaphysical pretensions of materialistic reductionistic scientism, or when religion tries to discern the order of the natural world).

3. The Contact view argues that a rigid boundary between science and religion is both naive and unproductive, and that science and religion, though distinct endeavors, should enter into dialogue to try to learn from each other, especially in the direction of religion evolving with advances in scientific understanding (eg, in physics, cosmology, and evolutionary theory).

4. The Confirmation view goes further and argues that science and religion are fundamentally engaged in the same quest for deep understanding of reality and existence, so they should work together harmoniously. Religion should thus gladly encourage and appreciate scientific research, no matter where it leads, while science should recognize that it shares religions's faith and trust that reality is indeed substantially intelligible.

Haught lays out his main findings from this framework in the first chapter, so this chapter is almost a summary of the book. The remaining eight chapters then apply this framework to more specific questions (Was the universe created? Why is there complexity in nature? Etc.). Haught goes into quite some detail, weilding all sorts of plausible arguments and counterarguments to the extent that I sometimes felt dizzy. Applying the four-views "debate" format to each chapter does result in significant repetition, but I think the pros of this format outweigh the cons.

One significant limitation is that, for the purposes of the book, Haught takes "religion" to mean the Abrahamic religions in a general sense, and he takes God to mean their shared conception of a personal God. This of course leaves out both more specific and more general understandings of religion and God, and it also leaves out other very different understandings, such as found in the East. Haught's particular choice here certainly doesn't undermine the book, but one should at least be aware that a different choice would have resulted in a different book.

In the end, Haught favors the Contact and Confirmation views, but he's not dogmatic about it, and he shows a genuine desire for continued and open-minded dialogue. I tend to agree with him, though I admit that started the book with those leanings, so the book primarily expanded and enriched my mind rather than fundamentally changing it. In fact, the book reinforced my sense that anyone who has their mind firmly made up on these matters has probably forgotten (or never realized) the uncertainties and fallibility involved, and has thus probably become prematurely trapped in a hardened dogmatism without even realizing it (though, to avoid self-inconsistency, I recognize that I could be wrong about this).

In summary, I highly recommend this book to anyone with a sincere interest in exploring the relationship between science and religion. This book is an exceptional resource for that purpose, and the science isn't significantly dated, even though the book was published in 1995. Just be prepared to expend substantial mental energy in reading the book; you may finish the book feeling as perplexed as I was, but it's the good kind of perplexity which comes from earnestly grappling with deep (maybe intractable) questions and thereby better appreciating their profound complexity.

The title of this book aptly describes what has been happening more and more in the relationship between science and religion since the publication of Ian Barbour's Issues in Science and Religion in 1966. Fortunately, as John Polkinghorne has pointed out in his work, Belief in God in an Age of Science: "Only in the media, and in popular and polemical scientific writing, does there persist the myth of the light of pure scientific truth confronting the darkness of obscurantist religious error." I find this an excellent introduction for non-experts (such as myself or college students) to the central issues in science and religion today.
The author has been teaching a course in science and religion at Georgetown University for more than 25 years. This is perhaps why reading the book feels like participating in a debate in a university classroom. The fact that each chapter has as its title a crucial question contributes to this experience. For example, "Is Religion Opposed to Science?" is the title of chapter one. Then the question is analyzed under each of the four basic approaches that have been tried to relate science and religion: 1) conflict, 2) contrast, 3) contact, and 4) confirmation. Even though professor Haught clearly favors the contact and confirmation approaches, he does an excellent job in explaining with authenticity the other perspectives. This feature of the work will definitely induce discussion and debate in a classroom setting.

As a sceptical agnostic who has become more aware of the limitations of evolutionary thought and scientific materialism in explaining the origins of the universe, of life, and of consciousness, I have found that the writings of John Haught are particularly insightful, profound, and original. Science & Religion is somewhat pedantic in style and occaionally redundant but often rises to brillance in its synthesis of science and metaphysics. Chapter 6 "Do we belong here?" is a real tour de force in exploring the implications of relativity theory and quantum physics upon the relationship of intelligent consciousness i.e. the "mind" and the universe at large. Science and Religion is significately more accessible than his book God after Darwin. The seeking individual who finds the current paradigm of scientific thought to be an inadequate explanation of the three singularities of origins should find this book to be a good read. Enjoy

This is an excellent book for anyone struggling to come to terms with the complexity of the subject matter giving the student an in depth appraisal in the most readable manner. Highly recommended.

I had to read this book for my Science and Religion class in college, and it was so redundant. The author says the same exact thing over and over. using various different kind of metaphors. I mean, I guess if you don't understand what he's trying to say, it helps that he's going over it over and over, so you can understand. But the material is pretty straightforward.
This book could probably be 1/3 of the length.
Maybe it's good for a person who's severely disinterested in the subject of Science and Religion, since it explains EVERYTHING. MULTIPLE TIMES.