Paths From Science Towards God: The End of all Our Exploring

by Arthur Peacocke

In this ground-breaking work, biochemist, priest and 2001 Templeton Prize winner Arthur Peacocke offers a uniquely balanced evaluation of the science-religion debate.

Genres: Science

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2001

About the author

British theologian and biochemist. Taught Biochemistry at the University of Birmingham and the University of Oxford. In 1971 he was ordained Anglican priest. Winner of the 1983 Lecomte du Noüy Prize and the 2001 Templeton Prize. In 1993 he was appointed Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A PRIEST AND BIOCHEMIST PROVIDES AN “OVERVIEW AND JUDGEMENT” OF SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY

Arthur Robert Peacocke (1924 – 2006) was an Anglican priest, theologian, and biochemist. He wrote in the Preface to this 2001 book, “For myself---nearly thirty years after taking the plunge from a full-time scientific career into the turbulent stream of science-and-religion---this seems an appropriate point at which to survey where we are in our explorations from the world of science towards God. There are particular issues about which I have written in the past that I need to revisit… So I hope the book will prove to be a useful overview and judgement on the field of science-and-theology by one who has been much involved in its explosive and dynamic growth over the last thirty years.” (Pg. xiv-xv)

He continues, “The broad aim of this book is to expound how science has opened up fresh vistas on God for human perception and life. All religious thinking, and notably Christian theology, is challenged by these new vistas, which afford a unique opportunity to weld together the human search for meaning through religion and the human quest for intelligibility through science… The modes of inquiry that characterize the theological enterprise have an unfavorable academic reputation compared with those of science… It therefore behooves theology to attempt to satisfy the proper demand for reasonableness by inferring the best explanation of the variety of data available. In this book I make a preliminary examination of the implications of this for theology.” (Pg. xvi-xvii)

He explains in the first chapter, “The impact of science is primarily a challenge to theology, which is concerned with the articulation and justification of religious assertions about God and about God’s relation to nature and humanity. This will be the centre of our concerns here. Not that the application of science, especially at present the biological sciences, does not raise profound ethical issues and have implications for the practice, norms and injunctions of religious communities---but that will not be the focus of this work.” (Pg. 15)

He notes, “The bridge model for science-and-theology must go, and be replaced by that of a joint exploration by IBE [“Inference to the Best Explanation”] into a common reality, some aspects of which will prove, in the end, to be ultimate---and pointer to the divine. Let us now look at how theology is actually practiced… What do we find? A variety of theological procedures that do not meet the above criteria: 1. Reliance on an authoritative book. ‘The Bible says.’ Even those not given to biblical literalism and fundamentalism still have a habit of treating the contents of the Bible… as a kind of oracle, as if quotations from past authorities could settle questions in our times… 2. Reliance on an authoritative community: ‘The Church says.’ … Here the religious community listens and talks only to itself… 3. Reliance on a priori truth.” (Pg. 30-32)

He suggests, “We should aim... To be explicit when our language is metaphorical, and not be afraid to be agnostic when the evidence does not warrant positive assertions… Not to be selective of our science, choosing the parts favourable to our theologies… Not to claim for theology credibility based on its long history---it has to meet today’s challenge… To recognize that much religious language is functional in society rather than referential, as it should be in theology.” (Pg. 34-35)

He asserts, “The best explanation to be inferred from the very existence of the world and of the fundamental laws of physics which it instantiates is that the whole process, with all its emerging entities, is grounded in some other reality which is the source of its actual existence. Such a reality… must be self-existent, the only reality with the source of its being in itself, the Ground of Being… That such an Ultimate Reality is and was and always will be is, I am urging, the best explanation of the very existence of all-that-is… But what this Other, this Ultimate Reality, is, is bound to be inexpressible and of a nature that, by definition, can be referred to only by metaphor, model, analogy and extrapolation.” (Pg. 39-40)

He asks, “But WHY should the world possess this embedded rationality amenable to the most comprehensive analysis of which the human mind is capable … the Ultimate Reality, must possess something akin to, but far surpassing, human rationality---must be supremely and unsurpassedly rational.” (Pg. 41)

He admits, “God has to be conceived of as relating to the continuously unfolding panorama of events and entities at all levels and so to have changing relations with them… In this regard, God is not immutable or timeless. However… God can be regarded as unchanging in purpose and disposition towards creation… this tradition has looked forward to a state in cosmic history in which time as we know it will cease and in which God’s purposes for the created order and for humanity will be consummated… What this consummation … might consist in has been the subject of much speculation… I prefer to be judiciously agnostic about its nature and to rely entirely on the character of God… for the source of Christian hope rests only on the steadfastness and faithfulness of the God who is revealed as Love.” (Pg. 47-48)

He endorses Panentheism, which “is the belief that the Being of God includes and penetrates all-that-is, so that every part of it exists in God and… God’s Being is more than it and is not exhausted by it… The problem of God’s interaction with the world, if not the intractable problem of evil, is illuminated by such a panentheistic understanding of God’s relation to the world… God is the immanent creator creating in and through the processes of the natural order.” (Pg. 57-58) Much later, he adds, “the panentheistic model allows one to combine a strengthened emphasis on the immanence of God in the world with God’s ultimate transcendence over it… it is also more consistent with those reflections on the implications of scientific perspectives…” (Pg. 141)

He argues, “God is omniscient, with only a probabilistic knowledge of the outcomes of some events. Clearly this postulate depends on the belief that God also does not know the future… God can only do what is consistent with God’s nature as Love. The will of created human beings is free so that, in particular, God has let Godself not have coercive power over human actions...” (Pg. 59)

He asks, “hundreds of millions (if not billions) of species have come and gone… is it permissible to regard these myriads of species other than Homo sapiens … as simply byproducts in a process aimed at producing human beings? Or do they have value to God as Creator in and for themselves?... surely we now have to escape from our anthropocentric myopia and affirm that God as Creator takes what we can only call delight in the rich variety and individuality of other organisms for their own sake...” (Pg. 72-73)

He says, “the believer in God as Creator has to view biological evolution through natural selection, and other operating processes, as simply the means whereby God has been, and is, creating. God does not make things, but makes things who make themselves. Their existence is inherently transformative.” (Pg. 75) Later, he adds, “there is no need to postulate any special action---any non-natural agent pushing, or pulling, or luring by, say, some divine manipulation of mutations at the quantum level---to ensure that persons emerge in the universe, and in particular on Earth. Not to coin a phrase, ‘I have no need of that hypothesis.’” (Pg. 83)

He addresses the problem of evil: “there are inherent constraints on how even an omnipotent Creator… could bring about the existence of a law-like creation that is to be a cosmos and not a chaos… the ubiquity of pain, predation, suffering and death… entails, for any concept of God to be morally acceptable and coherent … that God suffers in, with and under the creative processes of the world with their costly unfolding in time… God purposes to bring about a greater good thereby, namely, the kingdom of free-willing, loving persons in communion with God and with each other.” (Pg. 85-86)

He contends, “the postulate of the kind of God here depicted… is still only the best explanation. One cannot deny the existence of other possible, competing explanations… However, I do argue that the proposed inferences about God, if taken together, are cumulative in their effect and make a more convincing case than any of the rival explanations---especially that of atheism… which asserts… that the world just happens to be rational and to display the emergence in and from matter of persons who possess values and creativity.” (Pg. 130-131)

He proposes, “to be truly evangelical and catholic in its impact and function, the church of the new millennium will need a theology that… will have to be more genuinely open, radical and liberal. For such a Christian theology to have any viability, it may well have to be stripped down to newly conceived basic essentials. Only then will Christian theology … command respect as a PUBLIC truth.” (Pg. 133) He adds, “Jesus represents the consummation of the evolutionary creative process that God has been effecting in and through the world of matter.” (Pg. 148)

He also acknowledges, “I prefer to be non-assertive about the nature of any differentiation within the divine Being and Becoming, willing to accept that it is threefold but not to speculate about the relationship of the three to each other." (Pg. 167-168)

Theologically conservative Christians may be dismayed by a number of Peacocke’s positions; but more theologically “progressive” persons may find a great deal to ponder and appreciate in his books.

[Abolfazl · Rating 3 out of 5]

در جستجوی خدا، غایت کاوش های علمی بشر
نویسنده: آرتور رابرت پیکاک
مترجم: علی بازیاری شورابی
ناشر: سبزان
این کتاب شرحی است راجع به سفری پژوهشی از جهان علم به سمت خدا.
واسه من که خیلی گنگ و مبهم بود و پراکنده مباحث مطرح شد، شاید بعدا با دوباره خواندن آن واضحتر بشود، نویسنده به دنبال این بود که از یافته های علمی مانند تکامل، فیزیک کوانتوم به خدا برسد و به جای اینکه نظریات اش رو مطرح و نتیجه گیری رو به خواننده واگذار کند، خودش نتیجه می گیرد که خدا هست.

[Roddy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite academic and generally hard work. More for the serious student than the general, well educated reader. I often feel that with books like this there should be an appendix entitled: “What this book is saying - for 16 year olds”.

[Eppursimuov3 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Arthur Peacocke’s book ranks as one of the classics on the discussion between science and religion. It begins with an analysis of the state of science and religion in today’s world, followed by a sweeping overview of what science has uncovered about the world in which we live. He then sets out to rethink theology in light of what we know through the sciences, introducing the concepts of panentheism and emergence along the way. While we are introduced to all these new ways of thinking about God and his relation to the world, we are whisked back to right where we started to ‘know the place for the first time’, as Arthur Peacocke reminds us that these new ideas are not that far from traditional Christian thought.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty readable attempt to do science and theology with integrity. Not encyclopedic, more a personal point of view regarding approaches and specific questions the author considered most important.

Well- written, particularly the start on naturalism and the need to reject supernaturalism. Peacocke is an old style liberal and has no time for non rational or post modern approaches to religion.

Rather more dense on the specific matter of theories about divine-human interaction. On this his preferred solution is panentheism. Some final suggestions about two particular scientifically habitable images in scripture: logos and wisdom.

[Bryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciate Peacocke's open approach to the problem of reconciling religion and science, but this book, although it had some good points, kind of fell flat for me. Basically, Peacocke's conclusion is to see God from a panentheistic perspective, which I find helpful, but then he seems to limit God's ability to interact with His creation, on one level, while saying that He is immanent and pervasively involved on another level. He basically dismisses Intelligent Design, out of hand, and sees the origin of life and evolution as completely naturalistic processes, set in motion and sustained by God, but without any specific input to the process.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am reading along with John Lull on this book. I have not finished it yet. I'll update all once I do finish.