Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
47 of 50 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A whirlwind tour of Ian Barbour's thought, August 5, 2000
To my mind, Ian Barbour writes more clearly about the relationship between Christianity and science than any other published author I'm acquainted with. He is fully aware that Christianity is not the only path to God and salvation, but he is most comfortable talking within the framework of his own Christian background, so this book is really about the relationship between Christianity and science, not religion in general and science. But that is okay, because he allows that other religious traditions can also be paths to God. It's just that to give the book more focus and relevance to its English-speaking audience, he discusses the Christian encounter with science. Barbour presents a remarkably well thought out survey of this topic, always making it clear where he personally stands on the issues, and why.Barbour treats his subject matter in two-dimensional matrix format, with one axis portraying the degrees of cooperation between science and religion and the other axis the various branches of science. Barbour identifies four fundamental ways in which his topic is treated by interested parties. These are Conflict, Independence, Dialog, and Integration. He then outlines the major positions in each of these categories across the major branches of science: astronomy, particle physics, evolution by natural selection, neuroscience, and finally the natural world in general (as described by science). Biblical literalists and scientific materialists are in irreconcilable conflict on the issues of science and religion. Barbour thinks we can do much better than that, and makes quick work of both sides of the issues dealt with at the Conflict level. Neither is Barbour much impressed by the next level, Independence. In virtually every one of his analyses, treating religion and science as if they are independent categories of being that do not bear on each other is seen to be intellectually, spiritually, and scientifically bankrupt. Barbour perks up when he comes to discussing the ideas of scientists and Christians who are interested in constructive dialog and even better, integration. Dialog and integration blend into each other, as Barbour repeatedly shows. When both sides have open minds and are not dogmatic about their religious beliefs, it is apparently not that difficult to find many promising possibilities for integration. If the basis of religion is real (the experience of the divine), then it should not be surprising at all if the Ground of Being turns out to be thoroughly saturated and mixed up in the universe revealed by science. So why shouldn't it be a fertile area for thought that merits careful consideration? Barbour seems to place himself close to the process theologians, who believe that there is awareness at all levels of organized complexity, and that there is a freedom inherent in this complexity that is outside of the powers of God to interfere with. The one theme however that kept coming up (because of the interference of classical Christian beliefs about the omnipotence of God) was how God was only lacking omnipotence because he voluntarily relinquishes it for the sake of freedom in the world. Process theologians seem to want to hold onto the ultimate omnipotence of God over matter. He could instantly rub it out if he decided he didn't like it anymore. I personally would take one step further and say that God is inherently unable to control "brute matter" and it is not simply a matter of voluntary relinquishment of power. God can only influence "top down," by acting as a lure to conscious creatures. God is powerless against unconscious matter because of the very way he creates: in creating the fundamental particles, which have the lowest possible awareness of any wholeness regardless of complexity, he is by necessity giving up control over them, taking the risk that because they are ultimately from God himself they have within themselves the power to self-assemble universes and worlds such as the incredibly interesting one we live in. Then when self-conscious creatures such as human beings finally evolve, for the first time God has the possibility of self-consciously taking over the direction of evolution, through US, self-conscious, technological creatures. But that is a different book than the one Barbour writes. The one he writes is a whirlwind tour through his own thought and powerful ways of looking at the problems of science vs. religion. Barbour's book covers an incredible amount of material in 180, short pages. If this book takes your breath away and leaves you with the feeling that there is a lot more of extreme interest to this subject than Barbour allows himself in this little primer, fear not. Barbour provides much more satisfying treatments of his thought in books like "Religion and Science, Historical and Contemporary Issues" and "Ethics in an Age of Technology." If after reading this book, you feel teased if not cheated, those two books will deliver the richness and depth that "When Science Meets Religion" by its very design, cannot provide.
|
|
|
17 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Process this . . ., August 12, 2003
When Science Meets Religion is the winner of the Templeton Prize for advancing religious understanding. As a humanist, this topic is always of interest to me, and I found Barbour's view on process theology most interesting. The typology of the book was such that four "topics" were discussed in each chapter with respect to the "view" being discussed: Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration. So, for instance Astronomy and Creation are "analyzed" from those four points, as are the other major sticking points between science and religion.Barbour seems to treat each position with respect and objectivity and clearly states his own position so that the reader is not required to "guess" where he is coming from in his own thinking. For example, in chapter five (Genet6ics, Neuroscience, and Human Nature) Barbour states clearly the "I will defend an integral view of the person as a psychosomatic unity, which I believe is closer to both the biblical view and the evidence from contemporary science." And so it goes through all the major topics of the book. And, in the next to the last paragraph, we have this conclusion: "Finally, I find the concepts of process philosophy particularly helpful, but I am aware that a single coherent set of philosophical categories may not do justice to the rich diversity of human experience." In the end, Barbour has not convinced me to leave off my Humanist views, but he has indeed given me the framework I need to understand the need for others to use a religious model to express their sense of unity with all the Cosmos. As he so eloquently explains, all models are limited and partial, and none gives a complete or adequate picture of reality. So it is just a matter of where you wish to put your faith when it comes to understanding your own place in that infinity. One can put faith in science eventually giving us answers to the major questions we have or one can put faith in religion explaining the mysteries. Whichever system one chooses, one must keep in mind that no one model fulfills all needs or answers all questions. From the Foreword:
"Quantum Physics: A Challenge to Our Assumptions about Reality?
Classical physics was deterministic and reductionistic in assuming that the behavior of all objects could be exactly predicted from accurate knowledge of their smallest components. Quantum physics, by contrast, acknowledges an inherent uncertainty in the prediction of events at the atomic and subatomic levels. It is also holistic in showing that the behavior of larger wholes is not simply the sum of the behavior of their parts, but involves distinctive system laws. More over, the quantum world can never be known as it is in itself, but only as it interacts with the observer in a particular experimental system. Quantum physics thus suggests the openness of the future, the inter connectedness of events, and the limitations of human knowledge. Some theistic interpreters propose that God determines the indeterminacies left open by the laws of quantum physics. Advocates of Eastern mysticism say that quantum holism supports their belief in the fundamental unity of all things. The new physics has led scientists, philosophers, and theologians to exciting discussions about time, causality, and the nature of reality."
|
|
|
23 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good explanation but unwittingly wedded to materialism?, September 14, 2001
Ian Barbour is a major contributor to the fast growing subject of Science and Religion in Interface. (He tells us that in the 1990s 211 books per year were published on the subject.) Recently he was a winner of the prestigious Templeton Prize for progress in Religion. (Tom Torrance was the first to win the prize) This is one of Barbour's smaller books which is meant to give an overview of the various beliefs, discussions and arguments that are most important for the subject. However a new comer to the subject would be advised first to read a simpler introduction such as John Polkinghorne's `Quarks, Chaos and Christianity', and then turn to books such as this. What is it all about?
For millennia philosophers and theologians have attempted to address such questions as:
1. Is the universe eternal or did it begin?
2. Does the rational structure of the universe mean it must be the product of a great Mind?
3. Is there any purpose to human existence?
4. What is life and how has it developed?
5. Can the experiences of consciousness and self-awareness be reduced to the properties of the brain or do they imply the existence of a soul? It is in the latter part of the 20th Century that some scientists have tried to get to grips with these most fundamental of fundamental questions. The discussion continues in the 21st Century and hence the increasing interest in the subject. Ian Barbour is well known for his four models of the science-religion relationship namely:
¨ Conflict (Galileo, Darwin, Dawkins, Young Earth Creationism etc)
¨ Independence (Stephen Jay Gold: they both address genuine issues but there is no overlap between them).
¨ Dialogue (science raises questions that it can't answer - questions that religions usually address).
¨ Integration. (There is enough overlap between science and religion's quest for truth that a genuine search for truth in one can illuminate the other.) Each chapter in the book is built round this scheme. The main chapters are: Astronomy and Creation; The Implications of Quantum Physics; Evolution and Continuing Creation; Genetics, Neuroscience and Human Nature; God and Nature. He tells us that he is writing as a Christian but nevertheless usefully discusses other religious worldviews. In the text we meet such pioneer scientists, theologians, philosophers and controversialists as John Polkinhorne, Arthur Peacocke, Richard Dawkins, Michael Behe, Paul Davies, T. F. Torrance, Karl Barth, Neils Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein, Newton, Stephen Hawking, Cullman, Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Polanyi, Karl Popper, Ilya Prigogine and many others.
Although in the space of 200 pages Barbour's explanation of the discussions can only be a brief summary, he writes very clearly, almost always fairly and very concisely so that the reader really does get a good grasp of the issues. Just one example of this is his helpful summaries of how physicists themselves differ in their understanding of what quantum physics tells us about the nature of physical reality, and how both philosophers and theologians have interpreted the significance of these various scientific interpretations for metaphysics and theology.
For these lucid explanations alone the book is to be highly recommended as a very useful resource for teachers and students alike. At the end of each chapter he gives very useful summaries, not only of what he has been saying but also of his own views. This adds significantly to the book, which otherwise would simply be a helpful survey of various opinions. A question I would like to ask Ian Barbour relates to my observation that among many scientists who are asking religious questions there seems to be a real apprehension about moving too far away from the metaphysics of materialism. (Of course, because of the legitimate fear of the 'god of the gaps' it is right to be cautious.)
However how do we react to a statement Barbour makes in the midst of his very good section on consciousness and the mind-body problem?
He says "Most scientists today do not accept either body/soul or brain/mind dualism, though these ideas can still be defended on theological or philosophical rather than scientific grounds." My question would be: 'Do "most scientists" hold this view because the results of their research or because they fear getting too far away from a more respectable metaphysical materialism - a materialism which Kurt Godel, referring to the relevance of his famous theorem for our metaphysics, described as "the great prejudice of our day"?' Another question I have relates to his 'conflict' model. One can imagine certain religious people being against science per se. That is clearly conflict. But what about those who are all in favour of science but hold views of the significance of science which are divergent from the views of present day scientific orthodoxy? Many may judge them to be in conflict with science but their claim is that they are pro-science. As examples of the conflict model he refers to two astrophysicists: Gerald Schroeder (an orthodox Jew) and Hugh Ross (an evangelical Christian who turned to Christianity after reflecting on the significance of discoveries in Maths and Physics). Neither is a young earth creationist but each holds relatively conservative theological views and both attempt to back up their theology from their physics. Both, I am sure, would put themselves in the 'integration' category but Ian Barbour places them firmly in the opposite 'conflict' category. Although he disagrees with some of Hugh Ross's views on the significance of Relativity and a multi-dimensional universe, he places them both in the conflict category mainly because he disagrees with their religious views. My question is then: Is present-day scientific respectability together with a relatively liberal theology necessary if one is to be granted a place in the dialogue or integration categories? Surely that must not be the case. A possible omission.
Ian Barbour says he is writing from a Christian perspective.
When most people think of Christianity they think of prayer and worship and beliefs about Jesus Christ. There is little or nothing in the book about these topics. It is not as though scientists don't write about how their scientific view of the world relates to their experience of answered prayer or their beliefs about incarnation and atonement- some scientists who Ian Barbour clearly respects definitely do and very helpfully. Although one cannot expect him to cover everything, discussion of these topics would have added greatly to the interest of the book and also given it more 'warmth'.
The Contents and also the Index pages (names and topics separately), as well as the endnotes are very good and helpful. Apart from a few criticisms mentioned above, the book is so clear, succinct and wide ranging that I certainly recommend it.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Ian G. Barbour
by Paul Kurtz
by John Polkinghorne F.R.S. K.B.E.
by J. C. Polkinghorne
See all Editorial Reviews
