Questions of Truth: Difference between revisions
Dewey 215 = "science and religion" |
→Reviews: "remarkably even-handed... a valuable lesson... a splendid read... the perfect Christmas present..." |
||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
[[A. C. Grayling]], in the [[New Humanist]], criticised the authors for "cherry-pick[ing] which bits of scripture and dogma are to be taken as symbolic and which as literally true," and described the [[Royal Society]]'s decision to allow its premises to be used for the launch of this "weak, casuistical and tendentious pamphlet" as a "scandal." <ref name="NH">A. C. Grayling: [http://newhumanist.org.uk/1998 Book Review: Questions of Truth]. ''New Humanist'' 124 (2), March/April 2009.</ref> |
[[A. C. Grayling]], in the [[New Humanist]], criticised the authors for "cherry-pick[ing] which bits of scripture and dogma are to be taken as symbolic and which as literally true," and described the [[Royal Society]]'s decision to allow its premises to be used for the launch of this "weak, casuistical and tendentious pamphlet" as a "scandal." <ref name="NH">A. C. Grayling: [http://newhumanist.org.uk/1998 Book Review: Questions of Truth]. ''New Humanist'' 124 (2), March/April 2009.</ref> |
||
''[[Physics World]]'' |
''[[Physics World]]'' commends the authors for handling the diverse readership, skeptics and believers, in a "remarkably even-handed way", but laments that concerns with specifics of Christian doctrine may limit the books appeal; however, scientifically minded readers may find the extensive appendices a good starting point. The reviewer concludes that the book provides valuable insight for those interested in the science and religion debate.<ref name="PWorld"/> |
||
In a review published by ''[[The Guardian]]'', Ian Sample criticized the book's description of a hidden, infinite God as being "a bit patronising".<ref name=guardian>{{cite web | work=The Guardian | last=Sample | first=Ian | accessdate=19 January 2010 | date=9 April 2009 | title=Can science be used to prove the existence of God? | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/apr/09/religion-controversiesinscience}}</ref> |
In a review published by ''[[The Guardian]]'', Ian Sample criticized the book's description of a hidden, infinite God as being "a bit patronising".<ref name=guardian>{{cite web | work=The Guardian | last=Sample | first=Ian | accessdate=19 January 2010 | date=9 April 2009 | title=Can science be used to prove the existence of God? | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/apr/09/religion-controversiesinscience}}</ref> |
||
Revision as of 20:45, 25 January 2010
| Author | Polkinhorne, John Beale, Nicholas |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Subject | Science and Religion |
| Genre | Science and Theology |
| Publisher | Westminster John Knox |
Publication date | 2009 |
| ISBN | 0664233511 |
| OCLC | 229467436 |
| 215 | |
| LC Class | BT77 .P65 |
Questions of Truth is a book by John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale which offers their responses to 51 questions about science and religion. The foreword is contributed by Antony Hewish.
The book was launched at a workshop at the 2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting in Chicago,[1] and then in the UK at a discussion at the Royal Society chaired by Onora O'Neill, in a week when it was also featured on the Today Programme.[2]
Key Themes and Ideas
This book grew out of questions generated at a Web site that organized to communicate Polkinghorne's ideas. It organizes selected questions under seven topics[3]:
- Leading Questions which gives an overview of Polkinghorne's views on 9 questions ranging from Science and Religion, The Existence of God to Atheism.
- The Concept and Existence of God begins with "Can God's Existence be Proved" and addresses The God Delusion, Omniscience, Predestination and The Trinity.
- The Universe considers Big Bang, the Anthropic Principle and a Theory of Everything.
- Evolution starts with "Is Evolution a Fact or a Theory?", discusses Intelligent Design, which is deemed an unfortunate use of language and a theological mistake[4], and explores whether the Mind can be explained by Evolution.
- Evil suggests that "The evil that is not the result of human sin seems to be the result of the workings out of the natural laws of physics and biology"[5] and considers the Devil, Cancer and Original Sin
- Human Being suggests that Adam and Eve refer to the first spiritually conscious human beings, that the Soul is something logically distinct from the body but not a separate physical entity, and that Conscience is "our deepest understanding of right and wrong"[6]
- Religion begins with "Is Atheism a Form of Faith?", suggests that "For each part of the Bible you have to ask what kind of writing it is and what God is trying to tell us through it"[7], considers the Resurrection and that "God will not force us to accept his love... [but] will save everyone he can - no-one will be excluded because God did not want them"[8].
Each question is followed by the responses of Beale and Polkinghorne, sometimes as a single answer and sometimes by the authors individually. Its three appendixes are substantial, constituting a third of the book[3]
- Anthropic Fine-Tuning draws on Martin Rees's book Just Six Numbers to illustrate the point that if the fundamental constants of physics were slightly different then no intelligent life could exist in the Universe. It then considers Multiverse ideas and especially Lee Smolin's Cosmological natural selection, which, it suggests, has problems from Physics and Evolutionary Dynamics. It also discusses notions of complexity and improbability[9]
- Brain and Consciousness suggests that "pretty much everything in the universe has a physical aspect and an informational aspect"[10] and that informational entities like the Mass in B Minor cannot be considered as material objects. It proposes that the mind is the informational aspect of the brain, and that the inherent uncertainties of neuron firing mean that the brain is not fully deterministic[11]
- Evolution begins by pointing out that since Augustine Christians have not taken the Genesis creation accounts "literally"[12] and that key developers of the current theory were Christians[13], suggests that there is no conflict between Christianity and Evolution, that small genetic changes can have big effects, that genetic determinism is mistaken, and that there are evolutionary benefits to religion[14]
Reviews
Publishers Weekly said, "Many readers will welcome this accessible format, but some may find the blurring of science and theology confusing."[15] The Library Journal described it as intriguing and a thought-provoking work, and said that John Polkinghorne was a “a kind of antidote to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris for the intellectual theist or Christian."[16]
Julian Baggini, writing in the Financial Times, said that Polkinghorne has no problems reconciling his faith with his science and suggests that "despite the complexity of some of the scientific issues discussed", the book "is a commendably clear read". He says "it is a pity that the people most likely to buy this book are those simply seeking intellectual reassurance that their faith is not irrational. Those who would most benefit from reading it are in fact fundamentalists who think that evolutionary science must be wrong, and overconfident atheists who believe that the religious are manifestly irrational.” [17][18]
Episcopal Life says the book offers "some interesting conclusions".[19]
A. C. Grayling, in the New Humanist, criticised the authors for "cherry-pick[ing] which bits of scripture and dogma are to be taken as symbolic and which as literally true," and described the Royal Society's decision to allow its premises to be used for the launch of this "weak, casuistical and tendentious pamphlet" as a "scandal." [20]
Physics World commends the authors for handling the diverse readership, skeptics and believers, in a "remarkably even-handed way", but laments that concerns with specifics of Christian doctrine may limit the books appeal; however, scientifically minded readers may find the extensive appendices a good starting point. The reviewer concludes that the book provides valuable insight for those interested in the science and religion debate.[3]
In a review published by The Guardian, Ian Sample criticized the book's description of a hidden, infinite God as being "a bit patronising".[21]
Notes & References
- ^ AAAS Annual Meeting 2009 Workshop Program
- ^ Interview with John Polkinghorne by John Humphrys BBC Today Programme 2-Mar-09
- ^ a b c One Scientist's Faith review in Physics World April-2009
- ^ op. cit. p57
- ^ pop. cit. p64
- ^ op. cit. p77
- ^ op. cit. p 86
- ^ 'op. cit' p 92
- ^ op. cit. pp 99-116
- ^ op. cit. p 118
- ^ op. cit. pp. 130-134
- ^ op. cit. p 139 citing Augustine of Hippo in his Treatise against Felix the Manichean 404
- ^ op. cit. p141, mentioning Mendel, Fisher, Dobzhansky, Simon Conway-Morris and Martin Nowak
- ^ op. cit. pp 151-152
- ^ Publishers Weekly Review
- ^ Library Journal Review
- ^ Julian Baggini "A Twist of Faith: How to reconcile religious belief with science" Financial Times Life and Arts p16 21 Feb 09
- ^ see also Baggini's additional comments on his talkingphilosophy site and the subsequent discussion
- ^ Episcopal Life 3-Mar-09
- ^ A. C. Grayling: Book Review: Questions of Truth. New Humanist 124 (2), March/April 2009.
- ^ Sample, Ian (9 April 2009). "Can science be used to prove the existence of God?". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 January 2010.