32 of 36 people found the following review helpful
Proves no barrier between science and religion,
This review is from: God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World (Hardcover)This is the story of Patrick Glynn's journey from a believer to an agnostic and then back to a believer. From the time of Copernicus to Galileo to Darwin and beyond, science has continuously raised questions about ideas of belief and then answered the questions in a manner that does not require religious belief. Religion has taken a beating more and more at the anvil of science. The problem is that science and religion have always treated each other as being mutually exclusive. You believe in one or the other.
While this book does not prove God exists, it does a very good job of showing that science and religion do not have to be at opposite ends. Science has advanced over the last 25 years to the point where the best explanations for some things are that a guiding hand has been at work. The position that if you believe in science then you cannot believe in God is shown to be untenable. This does not prove that God exists, only that there is no real obstacle standing between science and belief in God. Not an argument for a particular religion or a particular God, it points out that belief in a guiding intellect that pervades the universe is a tenable position and also the position most consistent with the current state of science.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 6, 2009 7:57:36 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 6, 2009 7:58:46 PM PDT
John Salerno says:
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2010 9:50:49 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 22, 2011 2:43:21 PM PDT]
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 27, 2010 7:56:07 AM PDT
John, I suggest you read Cosmic Jackpot by Paul Davies (who's not a theist) - there's nothing "ridiculous" or "laughable" about the statement you derided.
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2011 10:44:52 PM PDT
@rowley I suggest you read peer-reviewed journals by actual scientists. If you did then you'd learn that the statement john quoted is not only ridiculous but it is also pretty funny.
Its also pretty funny that you cannot recognize the difference between science and something that is not science...just to give you a hint... intelligent design is not even close to being scientific.
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2011 12:39:03 AM PDT
I'm curious, d_an, to understand what constitutes in your mind an "actual" scientist. The subject of God or faith is not one for peer-reviewed journals, since it is concerned with the metaphysical as opposed to the physical. Theistic scientists past (Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Kelvin, Maxwell, Planck et al) and present (Polkinghorne, Townes, Miller, Dyson, Barbour et al) understood this. To be a materialist is to deny the existence of the non-physical: to presume the hypothesis (there is no god) to be true and therefore to ignore any and all evidence suggesting otherwise. Adjectives such as "funny", "ridiculous", and "laughable" are no substitute for serious consideration of the facts. Modern atheism started with the Enlightenment; the combination of Newtonian determinism and the Darwin-Malthus evolution hypothesis provided their intellectual underpinnings; they (the early atheists) did not know about the Big Bang or quantum probability. I don't subscribe to the ideas of (I)ntelligent (D)esign but I do take seriously the research being conducted into models that contemplate the existence of the non-physical (whether or not supportive of theism); that, I suggest, is more true to science than a closed mind. But thank you for your comment.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›