What do you think?
Religion in an Age of Science: The Gifford Lectures, 1989-91: v. 1
A comprehensive examination of the major issues between science and religion in today's world.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 14, 2024
THE PHYSICIST/THEOLOGIAN LOOKS AT MANY RELIGION/SCIENCE ISSUES
Ian Graeme Barbour (1923-2013) was an American scholar specializing on the relationship between science and religion, who taught at Carleton College beginning from 1955 until his retirement in 1986. He was awarded the 1999 Templeton Prize.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1990 book, "Five features of our scientific age set the agenda for this volume: 1. The Success of the Methods of Science... Science as a method constitutes the first challenge to religion in a scientific age. 2. A New View of Nature: Many of the sciences show us domains of nature with characteristics radically different from those assumed in previous centuries... What do these discoveries tell us about the nature of life and mind?... 3. A New Context for Theology: ... I will develop a relational and multilevel view of reality... [in which] interdependent systems and larger wholes influence the behavior of lower-level parts. Such an interpretation provides an alternative to both the classical dualism of spirit and matter... and the materialism that often replaced it... 4. Religious Pluralism in a Global Age... Religious pluralism calls into question exclusive claims for any one religious tradition or theological viewpoint... 5. The Ambiguous Power of Technology... The control and direction of technology involves ethical values such as justice, freedom, and environmental stewardship..." (Pg. xiii-xv)
He states in the first chapter, "Historians have wondered why modern science arose in the Judeo-Christian West among world cultures. A good case can be made that the doctrine of creation helped to set the stage for scientific activity. Both Greek and biblical thought asserted that the world is orderly and intelligible... Only biblical thought held that the world's order is contingent rather than necessary... We must be careful not to overstate the case for the role of Christian thought in the rise of science. Arab science made significant advances in the Middle Ages, while science in the West was often hampered by an otherworldly emphasis... I believe the case for the historical contribution of Christianity to the rise of science is convincing. But once science was well established, its own success was sufficient justification for many scientists, without the need for religious legitimation." (Pg. 17)
He acknowledges, "I am in basic agreement with the `Theology of Nature' position, coupled with a cautious use of process philosophy... the center of the Christian life is an experience of reorientation, the healing of our brokenness in new wholeness, and the expression of a new relationship to God and to the neighbor... But the centrality of redemption need not lead us to belittle creation, for our personal and social lives are intimately bound to the rest of the created order. We are redeemed in and with the world, not from the world. Part of our task, then, is to articulate a theology of nature, from which we will have to draw from both religious and scientific sources." (Pg. 30)
He explains, "I defend a `critical realism' that takes religious models seriously but not literally. They are ... human constructs that help us interpret experience by imagining what cannot be observed... The sense of awe and mystery associated with numinous experience is an additional safeguard against literalism. But we do not have to go to the opposite extreme and take religious models as psychologically useful fictions whose only function is to express and evoke distinctive ethical attitudes..." (Pg. 45)
He outlines, "We have traced a number of polarities ... in science and ... in religion... which... were found to be present in both fields: objectivity and subjectivity; rationality and personal judgment; universality and historical conditioning; criticism and tradition; and tentativeness and commitment. But some features of religion seem to be without parallel in science: the role of story and ritual; the noncognitive functions of religious models in evoking attitudes and encouraging personal transformation; the type of personal involvement characteristic of religious faith; and the idea of revelation in historical events." (Pg. 65)
He states, "I cannot agree with those postmodernist feminists who recommend that we should reject objectivity and accept relativism. Western thought has indeed been dualistic, and men have perhaps been particularly prone to dichotomize experience. But the answer is surely to try to avoid dichotomies, not merely to relativize them." (Pg. 79)
He goes on, "I disagree with those radical feminists who perpetuate dualistic thinking by inverting the prevailing cultural dualisms... Absolutizing the feminine seems as dubious as absolutizing the masculine. Surely the goal should be for each of us as men and women to express all our diverse capacities, whether stereotyped in our culture as male or female---and to symbolize the same diversity of creative characteristics in our models of God." (Pg. 81)
He admits, "I believe that the Christian tradition has the potential to meet those criteria better than other traditions, but I have to acknowledge that it has seldom lived up to this potential. I can learn from other traditions, coming to appreciate some of their ethical sensitivities, meditation practices, and models of God, which can be part of my life... I am not in a position to pass judgement on them. If I take a confessional stance, I can only witness to what has happened in my life and in that of the Christian community; my main task is to respond to the deepest insights of my own heritage." (Pg. 90)
He is critical of Fritjof Capra's book The Tao of Physics: "Capra is particularly enthusiastic about bootstrap theory... which proposes that there are no smallest components of matter but only a network of mutual relations... This section of Capra's book shows the dangers of tying religious beliefs too closely to particular scientific theories that may turn out to be rather short-lived. In general, I think Capra has overstressed the similarities and virtually ignored the DIFFERENCES between the two disciplines. [religion and science]... I believe the relation between TIME and TIMELESSNESS is also significantly different in physics and in mysticism... Capra ignores the diversity among and within Eastern religions and says nothing about Western mysticism." (Pg. 119-120)
He states, "Some atheistic or agnostic astronomers feel more comfortable with the idea of an infinite series of oscillations, just as some theists welcome a beginning of time. But I would say it is equally difficult to imaging a beginning of time or an infinite span of time. Both are unlike anything we have experienced. Both start with an unexplained universe... If a single, unique Big Bang continues to be the most convincing scientific theory, the theist can indeed see it as an instant of divine origination. But I will suggest that this is not the main concern expressed in the religious notion of creation." (Pg. 129)
He argues, "How then are we to understand the opening chapter of Genesis? A literal interpretation of the seven days would conflict with many fields of science.... The attempt to find scientific information in Genesis is dubious theology as well as dubious science. By treating it as if it were a book of science ahead of its times, we tend to neglect both the human experiences that lie behind it and the theological affirmations it makes." (Pg. 133)
He observes, "I suggest, however, that one could interpret many-worlds hypotheses THEISTICALLY... One might ... hold that God created many universes in order that life and thought would occur in this one. Admittedly... it involves a colossal waste and inefficiency if there are many lifeless universes. But then again, one might reply that for God neither space not time is in short supply, so efficiency is a dubious criterion." (Pg. 137-138)
He suggests, "in an evolutionary perspective we may view both the human and the divine activity in Christ as a continuation and intensification of what had been occurring previously. We can think of him as representing a new stage in evolution and a new stage in God's activity. Christ as a person... was part of the continuous process that runs back through Australopithecus ... to those atoms formed in primeval stars." (Pg. 211) Later, he adds, "I submit that it is the biblical idea of the SPIRIT that we find the closest parallels to the process understanding of God's presence in the world and in Christ." (Pg. 236)
He concludes, "In the PROCESS MODEL, God is a creative participant in the cosmic community. God is like a teacher, leader, or parent... Such an understanding of God... expresses many features of religious experience and the biblical record, especially the life of Christ and the motif of the cross... Process thought... gives the strongest endorsement of environmental responsibility. Process thought represents God's action as Creator and Redeemer within a single conceptual scheme... We can therefore tell an overarching story that includes within it the story of the creation of the cosmos, from elementary particles to the evolution of life and human beings, continuing in the stories of covenant and Christ... The process model thus seems to have fewer weaknesses than the other models considered here. But... all models are limited and partial... the use of diverse models can keep us from the idolatry that occurs when we take any one model of God too literally. Only in worship can we acknowledge the mystery of God and the pretensions of any system of thought claiming to have mapped out God's ways." (Pg. 269-270)
Barbour's unique status (he has a Ph.D. in physics, as well as a degree in divinity) makes him one of the most interesting of contemporary commentators on science and religion. This book (as well as his other books) will be "must reading" for anyone seriously studying the relation of science and religion.
Ian Graeme Barbour (1923-2013) was an American scholar specializing on the relationship between science and religion, who taught at Carleton College beginning from 1955 until his retirement in 1986. He was awarded the 1999 Templeton Prize.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1990 book, "Five features of our scientific age set the agenda for this volume: 1. The Success of the Methods of Science... Science as a method constitutes the first challenge to religion in a scientific age. 2. A New View of Nature: Many of the sciences show us domains of nature with characteristics radically different from those assumed in previous centuries... What do these discoveries tell us about the nature of life and mind?... 3. A New Context for Theology: ... I will develop a relational and multilevel view of reality... [in which] interdependent systems and larger wholes influence the behavior of lower-level parts. Such an interpretation provides an alternative to both the classical dualism of spirit and matter... and the materialism that often replaced it... 4. Religious Pluralism in a Global Age... Religious pluralism calls into question exclusive claims for any one religious tradition or theological viewpoint... 5. The Ambiguous Power of Technology... The control and direction of technology involves ethical values such as justice, freedom, and environmental stewardship..." (Pg. xiii-xv)
He states in the first chapter, "Historians have wondered why modern science arose in the Judeo-Christian West among world cultures. A good case can be made that the doctrine of creation helped to set the stage for scientific activity. Both Greek and biblical thought asserted that the world is orderly and intelligible... Only biblical thought held that the world's order is contingent rather than necessary... We must be careful not to overstate the case for the role of Christian thought in the rise of science. Arab science made significant advances in the Middle Ages, while science in the West was often hampered by an otherworldly emphasis... I believe the case for the historical contribution of Christianity to the rise of science is convincing. But once science was well established, its own success was sufficient justification for many scientists, without the need for religious legitimation." (Pg. 17)
He acknowledges, "I am in basic agreement with the `Theology of Nature' position, coupled with a cautious use of process philosophy... the center of the Christian life is an experience of reorientation, the healing of our brokenness in new wholeness, and the expression of a new relationship to God and to the neighbor... But the centrality of redemption need not lead us to belittle creation, for our personal and social lives are intimately bound to the rest of the created order. We are redeemed in and with the world, not from the world. Part of our task, then, is to articulate a theology of nature, from which we will have to draw from both religious and scientific sources." (Pg. 30)
He explains, "I defend a `critical realism' that takes religious models seriously but not literally. They are ... human constructs that help us interpret experience by imagining what cannot be observed... The sense of awe and mystery associated with numinous experience is an additional safeguard against literalism. But we do not have to go to the opposite extreme and take religious models as psychologically useful fictions whose only function is to express and evoke distinctive ethical attitudes..." (Pg. 45)
He outlines, "We have traced a number of polarities ... in science and ... in religion... which... were found to be present in both fields: objectivity and subjectivity; rationality and personal judgment; universality and historical conditioning; criticism and tradition; and tentativeness and commitment. But some features of religion seem to be without parallel in science: the role of story and ritual; the noncognitive functions of religious models in evoking attitudes and encouraging personal transformation; the type of personal involvement characteristic of religious faith; and the idea of revelation in historical events." (Pg. 65)
He states, "I cannot agree with those postmodernist feminists who recommend that we should reject objectivity and accept relativism. Western thought has indeed been dualistic, and men have perhaps been particularly prone to dichotomize experience. But the answer is surely to try to avoid dichotomies, not merely to relativize them." (Pg. 79)
He goes on, "I disagree with those radical feminists who perpetuate dualistic thinking by inverting the prevailing cultural dualisms... Absolutizing the feminine seems as dubious as absolutizing the masculine. Surely the goal should be for each of us as men and women to express all our diverse capacities, whether stereotyped in our culture as male or female---and to symbolize the same diversity of creative characteristics in our models of God." (Pg. 81)
He admits, "I believe that the Christian tradition has the potential to meet those criteria better than other traditions, but I have to acknowledge that it has seldom lived up to this potential. I can learn from other traditions, coming to appreciate some of their ethical sensitivities, meditation practices, and models of God, which can be part of my life... I am not in a position to pass judgement on them. If I take a confessional stance, I can only witness to what has happened in my life and in that of the Christian community; my main task is to respond to the deepest insights of my own heritage." (Pg. 90)
He is critical of Fritjof Capra's book The Tao of Physics: "Capra is particularly enthusiastic about bootstrap theory... which proposes that there are no smallest components of matter but only a network of mutual relations... This section of Capra's book shows the dangers of tying religious beliefs too closely to particular scientific theories that may turn out to be rather short-lived. In general, I think Capra has overstressed the similarities and virtually ignored the DIFFERENCES between the two disciplines. [religion and science]... I believe the relation between TIME and TIMELESSNESS is also significantly different in physics and in mysticism... Capra ignores the diversity among and within Eastern religions and says nothing about Western mysticism." (Pg. 119-120)
He states, "Some atheistic or agnostic astronomers feel more comfortable with the idea of an infinite series of oscillations, just as some theists welcome a beginning of time. But I would say it is equally difficult to imaging a beginning of time or an infinite span of time. Both are unlike anything we have experienced. Both start with an unexplained universe... If a single, unique Big Bang continues to be the most convincing scientific theory, the theist can indeed see it as an instant of divine origination. But I will suggest that this is not the main concern expressed in the religious notion of creation." (Pg. 129)
He argues, "How then are we to understand the opening chapter of Genesis? A literal interpretation of the seven days would conflict with many fields of science.... The attempt to find scientific information in Genesis is dubious theology as well as dubious science. By treating it as if it were a book of science ahead of its times, we tend to neglect both the human experiences that lie behind it and the theological affirmations it makes." (Pg. 133)
He observes, "I suggest, however, that one could interpret many-worlds hypotheses THEISTICALLY... One might ... hold that God created many universes in order that life and thought would occur in this one. Admittedly... it involves a colossal waste and inefficiency if there are many lifeless universes. But then again, one might reply that for God neither space not time is in short supply, so efficiency is a dubious criterion." (Pg. 137-138)
He suggests, "in an evolutionary perspective we may view both the human and the divine activity in Christ as a continuation and intensification of what had been occurring previously. We can think of him as representing a new stage in evolution and a new stage in God's activity. Christ as a person... was part of the continuous process that runs back through Australopithecus ... to those atoms formed in primeval stars." (Pg. 211) Later, he adds, "I submit that it is the biblical idea of the SPIRIT that we find the closest parallels to the process understanding of God's presence in the world and in Christ." (Pg. 236)
He concludes, "In the PROCESS MODEL, God is a creative participant in the cosmic community. God is like a teacher, leader, or parent... Such an understanding of God... expresses many features of religious experience and the biblical record, especially the life of Christ and the motif of the cross... Process thought... gives the strongest endorsement of environmental responsibility. Process thought represents God's action as Creator and Redeemer within a single conceptual scheme... We can therefore tell an overarching story that includes within it the story of the creation of the cosmos, from elementary particles to the evolution of life and human beings, continuing in the stories of covenant and Christ... The process model thus seems to have fewer weaknesses than the other models considered here. But... all models are limited and partial... the use of diverse models can keep us from the idolatry that occurs when we take any one model of God too literally. Only in worship can we acknowledge the mystery of God and the pretensions of any system of thought claiming to have mapped out God's ways." (Pg. 269-270)
Barbour's unique status (he has a Ph.D. in physics, as well as a degree in divinity) makes him one of the most interesting of contemporary commentators on science and religion. This book (as well as his other books) will be "must reading" for anyone seriously studying the relation of science and religion.
October 8, 2012
Started somewhat interesting and potentially useful. Then drifted into philosobabble. Stopped 20% of the way through.
Read
August 19, 2026A quick note. While its title says "Religion", the book is predominantly focused on Christianity. The author discusses and acknowledges this limitation, but it should be noted.
With this out of the way, this book is a collection of lectures. The first few are quite interesting, showing overlaps between Christian and scientific thought, how they have interacted and continue to interact, both in substance and in "thought on thought". It is compelling and accessible regardless of one's familiarity with scientific thought or Christian theology. I appreciate how terms and ideas are defined in an understandable way, while also not being surface level. The latter lectures are a bit weaker, becoming too shallow and broad compared to what comes earlier.
Still, this book has a lot of ideas worth consideration, and it has a noble goal of reconciling a conflict of the last few/several centuries.
With this out of the way, this book is a collection of lectures. The first few are quite interesting, showing overlaps between Christian and scientific thought, how they have interacted and continue to interact, both in substance and in "thought on thought". It is compelling and accessible regardless of one's familiarity with scientific thought or Christian theology. I appreciate how terms and ideas are defined in an understandable way, while also not being surface level. The latter lectures are a bit weaker, becoming too shallow and broad compared to what comes earlier.
Still, this book has a lot of ideas worth consideration, and it has a noble goal of reconciling a conflict of the last few/several centuries.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews