What do you think?
Rate this book
Evolución espiritual: Diez cientifícos escriben sobre su fe
Un libro que recoge los testimonios de diez grandes científicos internacionales -astrónomos, físicos, filósofos, matemáticos y médicos- Grandes profesores, penadores e investigadores que han crecido en los descubrimientos de la Ciencia y de la Fé, y que son capaces de reconocer unas prácticas espirituales que permiten comprender el ámbito de lo divino desde las perspectivas de las ciencias.
200 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1998
7 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 17, 2024
TEN SHORT ESSAYS BY NOTED SCIENTISTS ABOUT THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
John Marks Templeton’s Introduction to this 1998 book explains, “In planning this book, we invited a number of distinguished figures in the world of science, each known to be a believer in a Divine being, to write about the experience or experiences that led then to this belief. We received acceptances from figures representing such areas of scientific interest as astronomy, biology, chemistry, genetics, medicine, physics, and zoology from Australia, England, Germany, and the United States… None of the writers in this volume attest to … a ‘road to Damascus’ experience. Their experience of belief varies, ranging from childhood influences to adult intellectual processes. And the form that belief takes also varies. Most of the writers speak to membership in mainstream Christian churches. We were, unfortunately, unable to find fundamentalist Christian or non-Christian scientists to participate, but we do no doubt that such scientists exist. This book, then, is testimony to the fact that belief in God does not conflict with the rigid principles by which the men and women of science must test the truths of their scientific discoveries. Science and religion can and do coexist and their convergence offers mutual benefits.”
One of the scientists recounts his encounter with geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky: “Dobzhansky was a challenge to my thinking. He was a strict Darwinian and famous as such. But all the time lurking in the back of his mind was his upbringing in Russia in the Orthodox Church. How could he link the two?... He was not enthusiastic about the synthesis of science and religion… He was more interested in the synthesis of Teilhard de Chardin… He was drawn to the Omega notion of Teilhard that there was a final goal to which cosmic evolution moved. However, he rejected Teilhard’s central tenet.. of a ‘within of things.’ … I persuaded Dobzhansky to come with me to some lectures by Paul Tillich. He immediately became attracted to Tillich’s concept of ‘ultimate concern,’ which is essentially Tillich’s synonym for the word God. Dobzhansky asked, could human concern for ultimate concern have evolved? Dobzhansky was struggling, as was I, with the problem of the evolution of the subjective… Dobzhansky argued that the subjective (such as mentality) emerged at some stage in the evolution of the animals.” (Pg. 9-10)
The essay by Larry Dossey observes, “When religion and scientific materialism collide, it is usually religion that gets the worst of it. So it was in my experience. I set aside my previous religious leanings and became thoroughly agnostic. At the time, I mistook the enthusiasm of the scientists who were my teachers for reason. I assumed their hostile stance toward spiritual values was based on a careful assessment of fact. I overlooked the obvious fact---and was not told---that science does not have a God meter; that everything that counts cannot be counted; that some areas of existence lie, in principle, beyond science and are off limits to the dissections of the intellect.” (Pg. 29)
He adds, “Currently, almost all scientists subscribe to a view of consciousness in which the mind is equated with the electrochemical processes of the brain. This materialistic view of consciousness is dismal, and is one of the major barriers preventing a meaningful dialogue between science and religion. It leads to the conclusion that death is final, that notions of the soul are illusory, and that the experience of ‘the spiritual’ is nothing more than a result of the behavior of atoms in the brain. An impressive body of evidence suggests that this view is simply wrong. The actions of consciousness cannot be accounted for by ascribing them only to brain processes… the evidence from consciousness research indicates that consciousness can do things that brains can’t do. The brain… cannot account for the findings of scores of investigators in laboratories all over the world that consciousness can manifest NONLOCALLY, at remote distances from the brain, without the mediation of any known form of conventional energy.” (Pg. 33)
Owen Gingerich comments, “With respect to religious belief at a secular university, there is a curious but well-established asymmetry. Atheist professors can and frequently do voice their personal views in their courses, but to mention one’s Christian beliefs in a comparably forcible way would no doubt bring charges of proselytizing. However, the traditional but sparsely attended ‘morning prayers’ at Harvard do allow a pulpit for one’s religious convictions, and I have spoken there almost annually since the 1960s.” (Pg. 47)
Peter C. Hodgson says, “There are, of course, differences between physical and moral laws. Physical laws can be subjected to accurate numerical tests… It is, however, also possible to test moral laws simply by living by them and seeing the consequences. The experiment takes longer but is just as divisive… These are obvious facts. No one indulges in emotional rhetoric against the law of gravitation; it is a matter of accepting reality. It is often exceedingly painful to obey moral laws, but there is nothing else to do but just put up with it… However well religion is taught, each person has to assimilate it, to make it his or her own. Whatever is learned must be tested against the demands of reason and of experience; is it logically coherent, does it make sense of my experiences, and can I live by it?” (Pg. 58)
Later, he adds, “One frequently hears talk about the role of chance in our lives… Thus Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is taken to mean that the microworld is inherently fuzzy and governed by chance, and indeed Heisenberg went so far as to say that the law of causality had bene definitely disproved. Further arguments for the indeterminacy of the world are based on chaos theory. This is all profoundly mistaken; when we speak of chance we mean that so far we do not know the cause… we have free will and are not wholly part of the natural world. Our lives are not governed by chance; whatever happens to us is known to God and permitted by Him.” (Pg. 64)
Stanley Jaki asserts, “First, therefore the createdness of the universe. Recognition of this is the minimum without which there can be no religion that includes a prayer to a personal Creator. If the theologian is learned and logical… he must assert that reason may safely infer the existence of the Creator… The word ‘inference’ is crucial, because all human knowledge that relates not to realities directly experienced… realities grasped by climbing mentally… So much for the assertion that much of our knowledge and is such long before God, the ultimate, becomes the object of one’s reasoned inference.” (Pg. 72-73)
He reveals, “My life, or rather my lifelong experience concerning the relation of religion and science, has to be told largely in references to my books. In a sense they are my life story… writing has become a sort of obsession…” (Pg. 86) Later, he adds, “I hope and pray that God will give me the strength to write a summary of my views on science and religion, the thrust of which may easily be gathered from this brief essay.” (Pg. 94)
He suggests, “When cut to bare bones, exact science is nothing more, nothing less than a system of equations. There would be no conflict whatever between science and theology were scientists truly mindful of this truth… Unfortunately, theologians, believing themselves to be in possession of eternal truths, are prone to discourse about mere temporalities, such as the physical universe, about whose measures, large and small, science is the sole arbiter.” (Pg. 95)
Arthur Peacocke notes, “Any scientist, especially if connected with biology, who professes any attachment to the Christian faith is liable to encounter incredulity on the part of many acquaintances whose received mythology is that of the ‘warfare between science and religion.’ Although this mythology is well entrenched in the media, the fact is that, in recent decades and in spite of this cultural pressure, many of those engaged in the scientific enterprise have been able with intellectual integrity to follow the Christian ‘Way’… Among these I include myself… So any scientist who espouses the Christian faith in any of its variegated forms must be perennially engaged in a continuous dialogue between his or her science and faith. Some are, some aren’t!” (Pg. 99)
He acknowledges, “Looking back at my time as a graduate student in physical chemistry I am just amazed how arrogantly I assumed I could learn little from the theologically informed minds all within half a mile of my and plowed my own furrow, reading my own books without asking any of the learned people around me what they thought about these matters. Perhaps one has to make one’s own way, however meandering. It will always be one’s own and maybe there are no short cuts.” (Pg. 104)
He recounts, “I had begun to think of ordination to the priesthood [he is an Anglican priest] as a ‘worker-priest’… in my case, a ‘priest-scientist’… During my years at Cambridge, I found something about myself which I have not previously been totally aware, namely, that the scientific ‘me’ could not be totally absorbed without remainder into the priest, even one working on the relation of science and faith… because I was free from faculty pressure to publish conventional papers … I was able to explore widely, in a way I was never able to do while heading a scientific research group, into new developments… in physiochemical theory that ere beginning to look exceedingly promising… I brought together many previously unconnected developments in mathematics, kinetics, and thermodynamics and I hope made a contribution to our understanding of the wonder of biological complexity in the natural world.” (Pg. 106-107)
John Polkinghorne says, “I do not for a moment suggest that this scientific insight is sufficient to remove the agony and anger parents might feel at seeing their child die of leukemia. The Christian answer to the problem of suffering is much more profound than that. The Christian God is not a benevolent spectator of the agony of creation but a fellow-sufferer of it… This world by itself does not make total sense, but the resurrection of Christ is the seed from which a transformed and healed new creation has begun to grow. These mysterious and moving thoughts are central to my own Christian belief and hope. They make religious belief possible for me.” (Pg. 119)
Russell Stannard observes, “I am deeply aware that no one ever gets ARGUED into a loving relationship with God---any more than one can expect to be argued into a loving relationship with one’s future wife or husband. Getting to know and to love God is not like that. Arguing about religion can only be ever a first step, a means of clearing obstacles from one’s path, obstacles to taking religion seriously. As such it clearly can have its uses.” (Pg. 130)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the relation of religion and science.
John Marks Templeton’s Introduction to this 1998 book explains, “In planning this book, we invited a number of distinguished figures in the world of science, each known to be a believer in a Divine being, to write about the experience or experiences that led then to this belief. We received acceptances from figures representing such areas of scientific interest as astronomy, biology, chemistry, genetics, medicine, physics, and zoology from Australia, England, Germany, and the United States… None of the writers in this volume attest to … a ‘road to Damascus’ experience. Their experience of belief varies, ranging from childhood influences to adult intellectual processes. And the form that belief takes also varies. Most of the writers speak to membership in mainstream Christian churches. We were, unfortunately, unable to find fundamentalist Christian or non-Christian scientists to participate, but we do no doubt that such scientists exist. This book, then, is testimony to the fact that belief in God does not conflict with the rigid principles by which the men and women of science must test the truths of their scientific discoveries. Science and religion can and do coexist and their convergence offers mutual benefits.”
One of the scientists recounts his encounter with geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky: “Dobzhansky was a challenge to my thinking. He was a strict Darwinian and famous as such. But all the time lurking in the back of his mind was his upbringing in Russia in the Orthodox Church. How could he link the two?... He was not enthusiastic about the synthesis of science and religion… He was more interested in the synthesis of Teilhard de Chardin… He was drawn to the Omega notion of Teilhard that there was a final goal to which cosmic evolution moved. However, he rejected Teilhard’s central tenet.. of a ‘within of things.’ … I persuaded Dobzhansky to come with me to some lectures by Paul Tillich. He immediately became attracted to Tillich’s concept of ‘ultimate concern,’ which is essentially Tillich’s synonym for the word God. Dobzhansky asked, could human concern for ultimate concern have evolved? Dobzhansky was struggling, as was I, with the problem of the evolution of the subjective… Dobzhansky argued that the subjective (such as mentality) emerged at some stage in the evolution of the animals.” (Pg. 9-10)
The essay by Larry Dossey observes, “When religion and scientific materialism collide, it is usually religion that gets the worst of it. So it was in my experience. I set aside my previous religious leanings and became thoroughly agnostic. At the time, I mistook the enthusiasm of the scientists who were my teachers for reason. I assumed their hostile stance toward spiritual values was based on a careful assessment of fact. I overlooked the obvious fact---and was not told---that science does not have a God meter; that everything that counts cannot be counted; that some areas of existence lie, in principle, beyond science and are off limits to the dissections of the intellect.” (Pg. 29)
He adds, “Currently, almost all scientists subscribe to a view of consciousness in which the mind is equated with the electrochemical processes of the brain. This materialistic view of consciousness is dismal, and is one of the major barriers preventing a meaningful dialogue between science and religion. It leads to the conclusion that death is final, that notions of the soul are illusory, and that the experience of ‘the spiritual’ is nothing more than a result of the behavior of atoms in the brain. An impressive body of evidence suggests that this view is simply wrong. The actions of consciousness cannot be accounted for by ascribing them only to brain processes… the evidence from consciousness research indicates that consciousness can do things that brains can’t do. The brain… cannot account for the findings of scores of investigators in laboratories all over the world that consciousness can manifest NONLOCALLY, at remote distances from the brain, without the mediation of any known form of conventional energy.” (Pg. 33)
Owen Gingerich comments, “With respect to religious belief at a secular university, there is a curious but well-established asymmetry. Atheist professors can and frequently do voice their personal views in their courses, but to mention one’s Christian beliefs in a comparably forcible way would no doubt bring charges of proselytizing. However, the traditional but sparsely attended ‘morning prayers’ at Harvard do allow a pulpit for one’s religious convictions, and I have spoken there almost annually since the 1960s.” (Pg. 47)
Peter C. Hodgson says, “There are, of course, differences between physical and moral laws. Physical laws can be subjected to accurate numerical tests… It is, however, also possible to test moral laws simply by living by them and seeing the consequences. The experiment takes longer but is just as divisive… These are obvious facts. No one indulges in emotional rhetoric against the law of gravitation; it is a matter of accepting reality. It is often exceedingly painful to obey moral laws, but there is nothing else to do but just put up with it… However well religion is taught, each person has to assimilate it, to make it his or her own. Whatever is learned must be tested against the demands of reason and of experience; is it logically coherent, does it make sense of my experiences, and can I live by it?” (Pg. 58)
Later, he adds, “One frequently hears talk about the role of chance in our lives… Thus Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is taken to mean that the microworld is inherently fuzzy and governed by chance, and indeed Heisenberg went so far as to say that the law of causality had bene definitely disproved. Further arguments for the indeterminacy of the world are based on chaos theory. This is all profoundly mistaken; when we speak of chance we mean that so far we do not know the cause… we have free will and are not wholly part of the natural world. Our lives are not governed by chance; whatever happens to us is known to God and permitted by Him.” (Pg. 64)
Stanley Jaki asserts, “First, therefore the createdness of the universe. Recognition of this is the minimum without which there can be no religion that includes a prayer to a personal Creator. If the theologian is learned and logical… he must assert that reason may safely infer the existence of the Creator… The word ‘inference’ is crucial, because all human knowledge that relates not to realities directly experienced… realities grasped by climbing mentally… So much for the assertion that much of our knowledge and is such long before God, the ultimate, becomes the object of one’s reasoned inference.” (Pg. 72-73)
He reveals, “My life, or rather my lifelong experience concerning the relation of religion and science, has to be told largely in references to my books. In a sense they are my life story… writing has become a sort of obsession…” (Pg. 86) Later, he adds, “I hope and pray that God will give me the strength to write a summary of my views on science and religion, the thrust of which may easily be gathered from this brief essay.” (Pg. 94)
He suggests, “When cut to bare bones, exact science is nothing more, nothing less than a system of equations. There would be no conflict whatever between science and theology were scientists truly mindful of this truth… Unfortunately, theologians, believing themselves to be in possession of eternal truths, are prone to discourse about mere temporalities, such as the physical universe, about whose measures, large and small, science is the sole arbiter.” (Pg. 95)
Arthur Peacocke notes, “Any scientist, especially if connected with biology, who professes any attachment to the Christian faith is liable to encounter incredulity on the part of many acquaintances whose received mythology is that of the ‘warfare between science and religion.’ Although this mythology is well entrenched in the media, the fact is that, in recent decades and in spite of this cultural pressure, many of those engaged in the scientific enterprise have been able with intellectual integrity to follow the Christian ‘Way’… Among these I include myself… So any scientist who espouses the Christian faith in any of its variegated forms must be perennially engaged in a continuous dialogue between his or her science and faith. Some are, some aren’t!” (Pg. 99)
He acknowledges, “Looking back at my time as a graduate student in physical chemistry I am just amazed how arrogantly I assumed I could learn little from the theologically informed minds all within half a mile of my and plowed my own furrow, reading my own books without asking any of the learned people around me what they thought about these matters. Perhaps one has to make one’s own way, however meandering. It will always be one’s own and maybe there are no short cuts.” (Pg. 104)
He recounts, “I had begun to think of ordination to the priesthood [he is an Anglican priest] as a ‘worker-priest’… in my case, a ‘priest-scientist’… During my years at Cambridge, I found something about myself which I have not previously been totally aware, namely, that the scientific ‘me’ could not be totally absorbed without remainder into the priest, even one working on the relation of science and faith… because I was free from faculty pressure to publish conventional papers … I was able to explore widely, in a way I was never able to do while heading a scientific research group, into new developments… in physiochemical theory that ere beginning to look exceedingly promising… I brought together many previously unconnected developments in mathematics, kinetics, and thermodynamics and I hope made a contribution to our understanding of the wonder of biological complexity in the natural world.” (Pg. 106-107)
John Polkinghorne says, “I do not for a moment suggest that this scientific insight is sufficient to remove the agony and anger parents might feel at seeing their child die of leukemia. The Christian answer to the problem of suffering is much more profound than that. The Christian God is not a benevolent spectator of the agony of creation but a fellow-sufferer of it… This world by itself does not make total sense, but the resurrection of Christ is the seed from which a transformed and healed new creation has begun to grow. These mysterious and moving thoughts are central to my own Christian belief and hope. They make religious belief possible for me.” (Pg. 119)
Russell Stannard observes, “I am deeply aware that no one ever gets ARGUED into a loving relationship with God---any more than one can expect to be argued into a loving relationship with one’s future wife or husband. Getting to know and to love God is not like that. Arguing about religion can only be ever a first step, a means of clearing obstacles from one’s path, obstacles to taking religion seriously. As such it clearly can have its uses.” (Pg. 130)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the relation of religion and science.
August 8, 2012
Good, though predictable sometimes. You have GOT to read Larry Dossey! His essay here is by far the best of the bunch.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews