What do you think?
Rate this book
The Return to Cosmology: Postmodern Science and the Theology of Nature
Examines the changing relations between religion and the contemporary natural sciences in the debate over the nature of the universe
- GenresPhilosophy
285 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1982
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 18, 2014
Toulmin asks whether religion-philosophy and science can be brought together on the question regarding the nature and meaning of life. This book is a collection of Toulmin’s writings on this topic. He spends most of his effort on critiquing the failure of various writers on evolutionary theory to bridge that gap and he argues that the particular writers he looks at (e.g., Koestler, Teilhard de Chardin, Monod, Jacob, Sagan, Bateson) have created their own mythology. Hence, the title of this book, the title of Part One of this collection (“Scientific Mythology”) and “The Limits of Cosmology” essay in that collection.
In Part Three, Toulmin moves toward the possibility that there can be a reunification “between natural science and natural religion.” The reference to natural “religion” is odd as a science-based cosmology need not be termed a “religion” at all. Yet, Toulmin nevertheless asks, “Just how far along the road to a theology of nature can scientific disciplines like ecology take us?” Again, there’s the expression “theology of nature”. Why taint evolutionary theory and scientific ecology with theology? Or, why does ecology need to be reconciled with theology? Toulmin persists. He holds the two together and calls for “scientists, theologians, and philosophers…to sit down together and follow their joint discussion where it leads.” This tame recommendation about how to move forward might very well be the logical result of a Wittgenstein-trained philosopher who is adverse to the possibility of a global worldview.
In one of Toulmin’s essays on Jacques Monod and his “Chance and Necessity” (1971), Toulmin states that Monod is good at his science, but “out of his depth” on philosophy when he, Monod, attempts to tie his science into a new biologically-based “natural philosophy.” Monod’s book is, in Toulmin’s point of view, “a debacle” for it comes across in “a tone of bland arrogance that only serves to expose Monod’s ignorance both of the history of philosophy and of the character of philosophical issues themselves.” That characterization is over the top. Monod reasonably speculates on the philosophical implications of his scientific work. In calling for a new ethic of objective knowledge, whose only value is objective knowledge itself, Monod puts philosophy and religion under an “animist” category. In making his argument, Monod is modest in his language. He recognizes that his perspective likely differs from others and he invites criticism and debate. While there’s plenty to disagree with, it is a vast stretch to call (name call) Monod a nature theologian. And, in his various references to amateurs with no formal training engaging in his field of philosophy, Toulmin comes across as one who is too prone to pull rank.
In Part Three, Toulmin moves toward the possibility that there can be a reunification “between natural science and natural religion.” The reference to natural “religion” is odd as a science-based cosmology need not be termed a “religion” at all. Yet, Toulmin nevertheless asks, “Just how far along the road to a theology of nature can scientific disciplines like ecology take us?” Again, there’s the expression “theology of nature”. Why taint evolutionary theory and scientific ecology with theology? Or, why does ecology need to be reconciled with theology? Toulmin persists. He holds the two together and calls for “scientists, theologians, and philosophers…to sit down together and follow their joint discussion where it leads.” This tame recommendation about how to move forward might very well be the logical result of a Wittgenstein-trained philosopher who is adverse to the possibility of a global worldview.
In one of Toulmin’s essays on Jacques Monod and his “Chance and Necessity” (1971), Toulmin states that Monod is good at his science, but “out of his depth” on philosophy when he, Monod, attempts to tie his science into a new biologically-based “natural philosophy.” Monod’s book is, in Toulmin’s point of view, “a debacle” for it comes across in “a tone of bland arrogance that only serves to expose Monod’s ignorance both of the history of philosophy and of the character of philosophical issues themselves.” That characterization is over the top. Monod reasonably speculates on the philosophical implications of his scientific work. In calling for a new ethic of objective knowledge, whose only value is objective knowledge itself, Monod puts philosophy and religion under an “animist” category. In making his argument, Monod is modest in his language. He recognizes that his perspective likely differs from others and he invites criticism and debate. While there’s plenty to disagree with, it is a vast stretch to call (name call) Monod a nature theologian. And, in his various references to amateurs with no formal training engaging in his field of philosophy, Toulmin comes across as one who is too prone to pull rank.
Displaying 1 of 1 review