Religion and Science

by Ian G. Barbour

Religion and Science is a definitive contemporary discussion of the many issues surrounding our understanding of God and religious truth and experience in our understanding of God and religious truth and experience in our scientific age. This is a significantly expanded and feshly revised version of Religion in an Age of Science, winner of the American Academy of Religion Award for Excellence and the Templeton Book Award. Ian G. Barbour--the premier scholar in the field--has added three crucial historical chapters on physics and metaphysics in the seventeenth century, nature and God in the eighteenth century, and biology and theology in the nineteenth century. He has also added new sections on developments in nature-centered spirituality, information theory, and chaos and complexity theories.

Genres: Science, Philosophy, Religion, Theology, History, Nonfiction, Academic

384 pages, Paperback

First published August 2, 1997

Reviews

[Rick Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

1. What is this?

A detailed explanation on issues, models, of Science and Religion.
It is a challenging read, I got exposed to new authors.

2. So, What is he trying to say?

Barbour pins four models between Science and Religion.

I appreciate, how he is bringing everything that he learnt in this interesting book.

a) Conflict Model
b) Independence Model
c) Dialogue/Complementary Model
d) Coherent or Integration

3. What did I learn?

I learnt that different fields of Inquiry in Science are persuading, inspiring another field of inquiry.

He shares Newtonian mechanics, Darwinism changing paradigms within field of scientific inquiry.

He also goes on to talk about Structure of Science, And Structure of Religion, showing both to be similar.

The recommended book to read on, Religion and Science.

Deus Vult,
Gottfried

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am a bit torn on how to rate this in terms of star ratings. If I look at it as an argument and a work of philosophy then I give it three stars but if I look at it as a history of the tensions between science and religion then I give it four. Since the latter is what is promised by the title that is what I am going with, but not without some reservations.

As far as the science goes, there is definitely more interesting stuff when it comes to the philosophy of science. Barbour rejects what he calls "naive realism" in favor of "critical realism" and is influenced a lot by Thomas Kuhn. I do not agree with his points on many issues but I cannot deny it is well argued. I do think he ignores some of the criticisms by "postmodernists" but when he even brings radical feminist thought to the table, that is more than most philosophers of science ever do.

The theology parts are not as strong. Barbour presents a God so weak that it often seems like he is merely trying to shoehorn him in. He does address many different views on the religious issues however, some I think are stronger than his own, so a reader can get an idea of what other theologians might argue, whether they are sympathetic to the arguments or not.

There really is some fantastic history and framing of historical issues in this book. That is where it really shines. So I will definitely keep this book around as a reference for those reasons, even if its arguments are not as strong as I would like them to be in some places.

[Daniel Arter · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings about this book (and let me clarify that I do not agree with his conclusions).

Personally, I found it relatively easy to read considering it’s a book about science, religion, and philosophy. However, I don’t think he does justice to Christianity through his theological ideology (he definitely doesn’t do much exegesis through the text) and in not doing justice to Christianity, he’s actually revealed a god that doesn’t look much like the God of the Bible. I also wonder if his primary argument is shrouded by secondary arguments and the historical aspects of the book.

Now, on the flip side, I think he does great at pointing out the difficulties that many experience when reconciling opposing viewpoints even if his method for reconciliation is one I disagree with.

It’s definitely an influential book, but I’m not sure that it’s as logical as it purports to be.

[Seyed Morakabi · Rating 5 out of 5]

می‌خواستم بنویسم الهام‌بخش اما دیدم دست کم برای ما خواندنش ناگزیر است؛ برای ما که در چنگال سوء تفاهم گیر افتاده‌ایم. باربور در این کتاب چهار نسبت را میان زبان علم و زبان دین ممکن می‌شمارد و سپس از این چهار نگرگاه به گزاره‌های دینی و قلمروهای علمی مانند فیزیک، کوانتم، عصب‌شناسی، تکامل و... می‌نگرد. این چهار نسبت عبارت‌اند از تعارض، استقلال، آمیختگی و دیالوگ. ایستادن در هر یک از این چهار ایستار و آن‌گاه نگریستن به مجموعه‌ی گزاره‌های علمی و تعالیم ادیان شرقی و غربی هم بسیار شیرین است و هم الهام‌بخش.

[Zach Waldis · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this as part of a course at Asbury. The coverage of science here seems sound; I was out of my depth particularly in the biology section. Barbour is unapologetic in favoring process theology, which I am told is quite philosophically satisfying. I demur, and while this is a worthy book, I'm not sure it would be the first I would turn to in the science/religion conversation.

[Ave Mets · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked that he is critical about many sweeping parallels drawn by other thinkers. But I was still left asking why must something named 'god' be assumed to exist without second thought.

[Tiffany · Rating 3 out of 5]

This wasn't quite what I was expecting, but it was decent anyway. The book looks to answer questions in the God vs. science debate, including how God does or doesn't relate to the ideas of free will, chance, physics, chemistry, evil, etc.

The book seems to be more about science than religion (there's a lot of history of the study of science, and different fields of science), and even when Barbour actually goes into the Religion/God (While he does touch on other religions every now and then, Barbour mostly focuses on the Christian and Jewish version of religion and God) vs. Science sections, it doesn't seem to be as deep as I was expecting it to be. It's a whole lot of Science *or* Religion, and not as much Science *and* Religion, and how they relate to each other. It was a good study of the history of science and a good study of religion, but there wasn't as much about Science+Religion as I was expecting there to be. But it does do a decent job of laying out and explaining different schools of thought concerning how God/God's actions are related to scientific topics.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

reading this for my "Religion and Science" class with Haltenberger...
Unimpressed with the originality of the title, but have enjoyed the first chapter so far.

[Belle Meade School]

215