Religion and Science (Gifford Lectures Series)

By Ian G. Barbour

Book Overview

Religion and Science is the definitive contemporary discussion of the many issues surrounding our understanding of God and religious truth in this scientific age. Ian Barbour, winner of the 1999 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion for his pioneering role in establishing the study of religion and science, explores many occasions where the relationship between the two was especially antagonistic. From physics in the sixteenth century to biology in the Victorian Era, Religion and Science is a fascinating exploration of two conflicting, yet at times interdependent schools of thought.

Ian Barbour is Professor Emeritus of Physics and Religion at Carleton College, Northfield, Minn. He was named the winner of 1999 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion for his pioneering role in establishing the study of religion and science. He donated the $1.42 million prize to the Berkeley Center for the Study of Theology and Science and to Carleton College. He is the author of many books, including Religion and Science, Ethics in an Age of Technology, and Religion in an Age of Science.

" M]agisterial in scope, balanced in perspective, rich in detail, and full of intellectual passion. For a generation to come, anyone setting out to explore the subtle relationships between science, religion, ethics, and technology will begin with Barbour as the guide."-- Religious Studies Review

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0060609389
• ISBN13: 9780060609382
• Release Date: August 1997
• Publisher: HarperOne
• Length: 384 Pages
• Weight: 0.98 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.1" x 6.1" x 9.3"

Customer Reviews

A good attempt at dialogue

In an era where many in the US believe the universe was made 6000 years ago and Adam and Eve walked alongside dinosaurs, and many religious believers are rejecting the theory of evolution (a keystone of modern science), there is a desperate need to bring religion and science into a better and more fruitful relationship. The situation unfortunately is not helped with the rigid fanatacism on both sides of the fence, either with theologians who dismiss geology and biology because it contradicts the bible, or who reject advanced biotechnology because of medieval theories of the person, or by scientists like Richard Dawkins who try their best to use science as a hammer with which to smash down all religious systems and myths as worthless fictions which belong in the dustbin of history, and try to whitewash any possible influence religion and religious values may have to offer science or a scientific worldview. Barbour offers in this work an impartial analysis of the relationship between religion and science and offers four basic modes of how the two human enterprises can relate to each other. While he does offer his own perspective, Barbour is rational in his arguments and avoids getting mired in pointless polemics against theological or scientific oppenents, and lets them be. This book is of interest to any theologian, philosopher or scientist who is concerned about how religion and science relate to each other, especially in our turbulent times.

Comprehensive, Thought-Provoking, Engaging, Scholarly

"Religion and Science" is an in-depth philosophical discussion of religion and science. Ian Barbour's initial aim is to analyze the goals and methodologies of both science and religion - determining their similarities as well as their differences. The analysis is broad in scope and thorough in detail. Key scientific theories are examined and their metaphysical and theological implications are discussed. Different points of view are given fair consideration as the author takes the reader on an enlightening journey through a history of philosophical thought. At issue here is what separates scientific truth from religious truth. To be sure the author goes to great lengths to answer this question and the reader will gain a plethora of insights along the way; however, the bottomline is this - namely, that science relies on objectivity while religion on subjectivity. Is it possible to reconcile the objective truth with the subjective? Yes. How? Answer: "Process Thought." What is Process Thought? Process Thought (or Process Philosophy as it is sometimes called) is a metaphysical system that views processes instead of irreducible particles or substances as the fundamental constituents of reality. It overcomes the duality of mind and matter by proposing a "dipolar Godhead" - one with both a physical as well as a mental pole. Moreover, it asserts that each process or event has both a mental and physical aspect. Dipolar Theism (the designated term for this viewpoint) "holds that the world is in God (panentheism), a view that neither identifies God with the world (pantheism) nor separates God from the world (theism)." "God includes the world but is more than the world." pg. 295. Process Philosophy has important implications for both science and religion. It provides a rational basis for resolving the apparent dualism of mind and matter, and thereby reconciles the seeming conflict between science's quest for objective truth and religion's for subjective truth. This tome is a great work of erudition; It is well-written, engaging and thought-provoking. It will offer you a wealth of insights as well as an education in both the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of science. This book is highly recommended for the individual who is seriously seeking to reconcile the religious mind-set with the scientific - the intuitive mind with the analytical. You will not be disappointed.

No opposing views please.....

There are so many good things that can be said about this book. It is broadening, thought provoking, and stimulating. Ian is an evolutionary theologian, a term I use to describe one who believes God has directed and guided evolution to bring about humankind. If you have chosen to adopt God created the universe and human beings specifically, in this manner, you will indentify with its contents. When we tackle the questions and issues contained in this book, we can only come away saying no one really knows the answers-- the conclusion of Hawking in a Brief History of Time. With all his broad mindedness expressed throughout the book, I was so disappointed in one statement he makes relative to intelligent design (called 'Creation Science') and those who espouse it. He says in respect to those who try in our educational system to acquire some time for an opposing view in our school cirriculum,the following: "But when absolutist positions lead to intolerance and attempts to impose particular religious views on others in a pluralistic society, we must object in the name of religious freedom." Who turns out to be the narrow mind wanting no opposition, demanding he only understands the mysteries of the universe?"

Religion and Science: Historical and comtemporary issues

Barbour is known for his expertise involving the connection between science and religion. As a student of science/theology this is the best treatise i've seen on this subject. It will serve very nicely as a textbook and for personal reading.It should be part of every library. It will definitely go down as a classic.

Amazing scope; comprehensive; religion part too intellectual

Whatever anyone thinks of "Religion and Science," it is clearly a definitive if not the definitive work on this subject because the book's references and discussion of them are extremely comprehensive, almost to the point of being mind-numbing! I feel that the author does a far better job of explaining science and scientific methodologies than religion and its methodologies, though I do find it useful to consider religion and religious experiences in terms of normally scientific terms, which he defines as agreement with data, coherence, scope, and fertility. I really enjoyed Chapter 7, entitled "Physics and Metaphysics." Mr. Barbour gives a very good presentation of the basic concepts of twentieth century physics, such as quantum theory, relativity, and chaos theory, and also presents some thought-provoking ideas about how modern physics can and cannot be related to religion, especially Eastern religions and mysticism. Barbour, with some validity, takes on books such as "The Tao of Physics," and criticizes what he feels is overstressing the similarities between physics and mysticism. Again, there are many references provided that are well worth further study. As I stated above, I found the discussion of religion less appealing, precisely because it is far too intellectual, and is limited to what I will call "human-only" theses, and there are so many models and points of view presented I found it impossible to keep them straight. The author does state repeatedly that religion is "interpretive experience," yet he seems to feel that hundreds of intellectual explanations and theories of religion and God are what is called for to be "coherent;" however, the effect to me what was basically the opposite. The explanation of Whitehead's main theses is good in developing what the author calls "process theology." Yet I am sorry to say that I got the impression that the author, who uses the word God over and over, has himself little experience of God other than what he has read from philosophers and the Old and New Testaments, i.e., intellectual only. He barely mentions reincarnation and karma, and clearly doesn't accept them. To me they are vital concepts in understanding the way "God" is, or I would say the laws of the "Universe," and certainly in trying to understand what the relationship of our souls is to the temporary, material existence. There is virtually no discussion of death in this book other than vague references to Christian doctrine, from what I remember, and to me a thorough discussion is absolutely crucial in any book about comparative religion. The author himself admits that models don't represent literal (physical) reality, and I would add that they also do not represent spiritual reality, and thus are overrepresented here in the latter context. Mr. Barbour also supports, among many suggested models, modes of interaction as well as dealing with the obvious differences in scope betwe