15 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Lots of good insights after the first fifty pages, July 7, 2009
This review is from: Theology in the Context of Science (Hardcover)
This book is intended primarily for theology students and practicing theologians. However, if the general reader can get through the first fifty pages, (s)he will be rewarded with brief, insightful discussions of open theology, complex systems, quantum physics, the "new" natural theology, the anthropic principle, multiverses, theodicy, and divine providence.
Chapter six (Motivated Belief) is particularly good. In it, Polkinghorne describes his motivations for his religious beliefs, which do not consist of "irrational acceptance of unquestionable propositions," but rather two kinds of motivation: (1) "general aspects of the human encounter with reality," and (2) "the particularities of personal experience, including . . . specific acts of divine disclosure expressed through uniquely significant events and persons."
Even though it starts out slowly, I highly recommend this book for science-minded readers seeking to integrate Christian faith with their scientific worldview. Plus there is quote near the top of p.71 that is almost worth the price of the book, particularly if you enjoy understated British humour.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Serious thinking, but ponderous and wrong, I hope., July 26, 2009
This review is from: Theology in the Context of Science (Hardcover)
Polkinghorne is the John McCain of science: a man of good sense and many virtues, among which dazzling communication skills are not especially prominent. The writing style here seems especially cumbersome; I enjoyed his Faith of a Physicist more. Maybe that was also because he's recycling some old ideas in this book. As a writer myself, I don't blame him for that -- but the amount of original material in this book seemed rather low.
Most of what he says seems sensible. For example, instead of simply repeating cliches about "the arrow of time," he points out that there are "four such arrows:" "cosmic history," thermodynamics, increase in organization, and our psychological sense of moving forward in time. Though logically distinct, they all point in the same direction, suggesting that the direction of time is not just a matter of perspective.
Polkinghorne is also sensible (and informed) when writing about theology:
"The writers of the NT were driven to use both human and divine categories as they sought to express their experience of the risen Christ, without being able to give a coherent reconciliation of the seeming paradox involved."
That is, indeed, what the Gospels look like: a scattering of raw data by some historical "Big Bang," that the first Christians are trying to bring together and sort into cognitive galaxies -- theological postulates. (I think I'm borrowing a metaphor P uses elsewhere.)
Like McCain, Polkinghorne is a moderate, reconciling the insights of science and theology, trying to be fair to both:
"The notion of a plain text with a single meaning may suit the cookery book, but it will not do for writing that sets out to explore the multiple richness and depth of reality, either human or divine."
Where I think he trips up, is with his explanation of eternity. Polkinghorne supposes that we neither have a soul distinct from our bodies, nor are our bodies per se given new life after death. Rather, God creates a new body with some at least of the pattern that makes up our personality imprinted upon it.
If that's true, it seems to me we might as well toss Christianity entirely. God can make all the copies of me He likes -- in heaven, or on some distant planet in another universe. What does that have to do with ME? A copy is not the original. And if God's promises to his people -- think of martyrs like the Apostle Paul, who says it is better to be with the Lord -- only come down to being the original for God's cosmic copy machine, then we might as well say death IS the end for us, and God has broken His promises to US -- whatever he does with the copies, and whatever THEY think. Or we might just cut to the chase and say we never existed (in any important sense) in the first place.
You have to take Polkinghorne seriously. I did not, however, find this a very satisfying read, all in all, and I hope he's wrong at least in large part.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE COMPLEMETARILIT, May 7, 2009
This review is from: Theology in the Context of Science (Hardcover)
ONE of the most perplexing and indeed, \difficult issue for this writer has been reconciling science and religion,spirituality.I NOW REALIZE I WAS SEEKING AN EXPLANATION WHICH RATIONALLY DISSOLVED THEIR DIFFERENCES SO FAITH WOULD BE REDUCED TO SOMETHING WITHIN MY CONTROL.SUCH IS FOLLY,THERE IS NO WAY AND JP MAKES THIS ABUNUNTLY CLEAR. FAITH CANNOT EXIST APART FROM MYSTERY.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No