What do you think?
Rate this book
One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology
My impression is that scientists are as likely to be religious believers as any other section of the community. Nevertheless there is a feeling abroad that somehow science and religion are opposed to each other. This book is written to defend that thesis.
152 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 1, 1987
16 people are currently reading
138 people want to read
About the author
John C. Polkinghorne
63 books124 followersJohn Charlton Polkinghorne is an English theoretical physicist, theologian, writer and Anglican priest. A prominent and leading voice explaining the relationship between science and religion, he was professor of Mathematical physics at the University of Cambridge from 1968 to 1979, when he resigned his chair to study for the priesthood, becoming an ordained Anglican priest in 1982. He served as the president of Queens' College, Cambridge from 1988 until 1996.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
February 23, 2018
3.5 Stars.
It was glorious book But some things were missing that's the reason I've given such rating.
Overall it merely comprised great facts along with lovely improvisation among all the chapters.
I liked the writing style of the book.
It;s very peculiar book I've read after so long time.
Wonderful contents.
It was glorious book But some things were missing that's the reason I've given such rating.
Overall it merely comprised great facts along with lovely improvisation among all the chapters.
I liked the writing style of the book.
It;s very peculiar book I've read after so long time.
Wonderful contents.
January 15, 2025
Fun read.
October 12, 2014
There seems to me a Religion-Science scale. We have atheist like Dawkins who see no place whatsoever for religion, I put them on the far left. Then we have agnostics like Gould and Liberal theologians, who say science is the absolute authority on all matters of reality, but morality, however is the domain of religion. They posit that the religious should admit that science proves that the universe and all life is merely the product of purposeless, undirected and naturalistic causes and miracles do not and cannot happen. I would place Polkinghorne a spot further on the right in the scale, embracing for the most part the “scientific world-view”, he is comfortable with the just-so naturalistic stories of how the cosmos, life and consciousness came about. But he does believe in God, who might even possibly work in the world, if I remember right, maybe in the quantum realm.
I personally think really bad explanations are embrace and accepted by the science community, merely because they are purely naturalistic. Of course, the job of scientist is to only look for the natural causes, their methodology excludes teleological and personal explanations. But I think their naturalistic methodology has became for many their grand metaphysical view of all reality—resulting a mythology of the how everything came to be. But I want to insist, that if there is a God, that means the universe ISN'T merely a closed system, It also means one must also consider the possibility of personal and teleological explanations.
Just b/c someone comes along and gives a naturalistic explanation for something, that was once assumed to have teleological explanations for, doesn't mean the materialistic explanation is TRUE. For example, lets say a 1,000 years in the future the faces in the rock of Mount Rushmore remain, but all American history has been destroyed. Now when people see Mount Rushmore, lets say people look at the design and are convinced that the ancients carved the faces in the rock a long time ago. The design leads them to assume a teleological explanation. But lets say we have some man who comes along and points out that purely natural forces of wind, water and erosion over millions of years could fully account for the appearance of design on the rocks. Now imagine that almost the entire educated community joyfully discards the teleological explanations, claiming that the naturalistic explanation completely does away with any need of an intelligence.
This is what I feel Polkenhorn is doing, affirming the orthodox naturalistic explanations. It irritates me that people say the idea that God had any part in the vast amount of information and complexity of the design of life was dashed on the rocks of Darwinism. Darwin did nothing more than someone coming along and showing how wind and erosion could have carved the faces out in the rock, it doesn't PROVE wind and rocks carved the faces in the rocks. In fact, the teleological explanation is FAR more likely. Just because some scientist can think of supposed ways that random mutations and natural selection can result in complex information, doesn't mean they now know how it happened. One could say all of Shakespeare's work was the result of Monkey's pecking on the type-writers and human agents acting as natural selection, selected the letters that accidentally formed a word. They could then claim from mere randomness and natural selection is responsible for all that Shakespeare wrote, that no intelligence was involved. This is indeed an explanation, but I insist the teleological explanation is FAR better.
But yeah, from this review it seems I reacted negatively to the book, but in actuality I enjoyed it and for the most part I liked Polkinghorne. It is easiest to write on areas of disagreement though, this is what often gets the fingers typing
I personally think really bad explanations are embrace and accepted by the science community, merely because they are purely naturalistic. Of course, the job of scientist is to only look for the natural causes, their methodology excludes teleological and personal explanations. But I think their naturalistic methodology has became for many their grand metaphysical view of all reality—resulting a mythology of the how everything came to be. But I want to insist, that if there is a God, that means the universe ISN'T merely a closed system, It also means one must also consider the possibility of personal and teleological explanations.
Just b/c someone comes along and gives a naturalistic explanation for something, that was once assumed to have teleological explanations for, doesn't mean the materialistic explanation is TRUE. For example, lets say a 1,000 years in the future the faces in the rock of Mount Rushmore remain, but all American history has been destroyed. Now when people see Mount Rushmore, lets say people look at the design and are convinced that the ancients carved the faces in the rock a long time ago. The design leads them to assume a teleological explanation. But lets say we have some man who comes along and points out that purely natural forces of wind, water and erosion over millions of years could fully account for the appearance of design on the rocks. Now imagine that almost the entire educated community joyfully discards the teleological explanations, claiming that the naturalistic explanation completely does away with any need of an intelligence.
This is what I feel Polkenhorn is doing, affirming the orthodox naturalistic explanations. It irritates me that people say the idea that God had any part in the vast amount of information and complexity of the design of life was dashed on the rocks of Darwinism. Darwin did nothing more than someone coming along and showing how wind and erosion could have carved the faces out in the rock, it doesn't PROVE wind and rocks carved the faces in the rocks. In fact, the teleological explanation is FAR more likely. Just because some scientist can think of supposed ways that random mutations and natural selection can result in complex information, doesn't mean they now know how it happened. One could say all of Shakespeare's work was the result of Monkey's pecking on the type-writers and human agents acting as natural selection, selected the letters that accidentally formed a word. They could then claim from mere randomness and natural selection is responsible for all that Shakespeare wrote, that no intelligence was involved. This is indeed an explanation, but I insist the teleological explanation is FAR better.
But yeah, from this review it seems I reacted negatively to the book, but in actuality I enjoyed it and for the most part I liked Polkinghorne. It is easiest to write on areas of disagreement though, this is what often gets the fingers typing
August 9, 2025
"One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology" è un libro scritto dal biologo evoluzionista John Polkinghorne, in cui esplora il rapporto tra scienza e teologia. Polkinghorne è un fisico teorico che ha lavorato anche come sacerdote anglicano, ed è noto per aver cercato di integrare le conoscenze scientifiche e religiose.
Nel libro, Polkinghorne sostiene che scienza e teologia possano coesistere e collaborare, poiché entrambe cercano di capire il mondo in cui viviamo. Egli afferma che la scienza fornisce una descrizione dettagliata della natura dell'universo, mentre la teologia offre una comprensione del significato e del valore della vita umana.
Polkinghorne sottolinea anche l'importanza di una conversazione aperta tra scienziati e teologi, che possono imparare l'uno dall'altro e arricchirsi reciprocamente. Egli sostiene che sia la scienza che la teologia hanno bisogno di un atteggiamento di umiltà e di una forte motivazione alla ricerca della verità.
Il libro di Polkinghorne ha ricevuto ampi consensi per la sua capacità di creare un ponte tra la scienza e la teologia, contribuendo a un dialogo costruttivo tra questi due campi. Ha anche sollevato importanti questioni sul rapporto tra scienza e fede, e ha incoraggiato una maggiore comprensione reciproca tra scienziati e teologi.
Il libro di Polkinghorne "One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology" è stato pubblicato nel 1986 ed è diventato rapidamente un punto di riferimento per il dibattito sul rapporto tra scienza e teologia. Il libro presenta un approccio interdisciplinare che cerca di superare le divisioni tra questi due campi, evidenziando le loro complementarità e la loro capacità di arricchirsi reciprocamente.
Polkinghorne sostiene che la scienza e la teologia non sono campi completamente separati, ma piuttosto due modi diversi di esplorare il mondo e di fornire una comprensione della realtà. Egli afferma che la scienza fornisce una descrizione dettagliata della natura dell'universo, mentre la teologia offre una comprensione del significato e del valore della vita umana. Polkinghorne riconosce che la scienza e la teologia possono avere punti di vista divergenti, ma sostiene che queste divergenze possono essere superate attraverso un dialogo aperto e un atteggiamento di umiltà.
Il libro di Polkinghorne ha ricevuto ampi consensi per la sua capacità di creare un ponte tra la scienza e la teologia, contribuendo a un dialogo costruttivo tra questi due campi. Ha sollevato importanti questioni sul rapporto tra scienza e fede, e ha incoraggiato una maggiore comprensione reciproca tra scienziati e teologi. Il libro ha avuto un impatto significativo sulla discussione pubblica sul rapporto tra scienza e teologia, e ha ispirato molti altri studiosi ad affrontare questa questione in modo interdisciplinare.
Nel libro, Polkinghorne sostiene che scienza e teologia possano coesistere e collaborare, poiché entrambe cercano di capire il mondo in cui viviamo. Egli afferma che la scienza fornisce una descrizione dettagliata della natura dell'universo, mentre la teologia offre una comprensione del significato e del valore della vita umana.
Polkinghorne sottolinea anche l'importanza di una conversazione aperta tra scienziati e teologi, che possono imparare l'uno dall'altro e arricchirsi reciprocamente. Egli sostiene che sia la scienza che la teologia hanno bisogno di un atteggiamento di umiltà e di una forte motivazione alla ricerca della verità.
Il libro di Polkinghorne ha ricevuto ampi consensi per la sua capacità di creare un ponte tra la scienza e la teologia, contribuendo a un dialogo costruttivo tra questi due campi. Ha anche sollevato importanti questioni sul rapporto tra scienza e fede, e ha incoraggiato una maggiore comprensione reciproca tra scienziati e teologi.
Il libro di Polkinghorne "One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology" è stato pubblicato nel 1986 ed è diventato rapidamente un punto di riferimento per il dibattito sul rapporto tra scienza e teologia. Il libro presenta un approccio interdisciplinare che cerca di superare le divisioni tra questi due campi, evidenziando le loro complementarità e la loro capacità di arricchirsi reciprocamente.
Polkinghorne sostiene che la scienza e la teologia non sono campi completamente separati, ma piuttosto due modi diversi di esplorare il mondo e di fornire una comprensione della realtà. Egli afferma che la scienza fornisce una descrizione dettagliata della natura dell'universo, mentre la teologia offre una comprensione del significato e del valore della vita umana. Polkinghorne riconosce che la scienza e la teologia possono avere punti di vista divergenti, ma sostiene che queste divergenze possono essere superate attraverso un dialogo aperto e un atteggiamento di umiltà.
Il libro di Polkinghorne ha ricevuto ampi consensi per la sua capacità di creare un ponte tra la scienza e la teologia, contribuendo a un dialogo costruttivo tra questi due campi. Ha sollevato importanti questioni sul rapporto tra scienza e fede, e ha incoraggiato una maggiore comprensione reciproca tra scienziati e teologi. Il libro ha avuto un impatto significativo sulla discussione pubblica sul rapporto tra scienza e teologia, e ha ispirato molti altri studiosi ad affrontare questa questione in modo interdisciplinare.
May 21, 2020
A fairly straightforward read, with some scientific description but not so much or so complicated that the 'lay' reader would be put off. Also need to read it bearing in mind it was written over thirty years ago.
December 10, 2017
Veľmi dobrá kniha, čo sa týka témy... úžasne spracovaná, systematicky..
Dobré je, že sa autor naozaj v tejto problematike vyzná, keďže je zároveň fyzikom a aj kňazom. Teda rieši problematiku vzájomného pôsobenia vedy a teológie kriticky a z rôznych uhlov pohľadu.
Dobré je, že sa autor naozaj v tejto problematike vyzná, keďže je zároveň fyzikom a aj kňazom. Teda rieši problematiku vzájomného pôsobenia vedy a teológie kriticky a z rôznych uhlov pohľadu.
December 26, 2017
Science is not so distant from theology although their object of interest differs. They enrich one another with their point of view.
Author demonstrates that physics has also dogmas and its crucial tradition and the act of faith is needed in science as well. What's more, mathematics, using the pure logic, also expects faith in their most primary statements (as Godel's theorem alleged).
Or you can find there hints how to recognize God in the world e.g. through moral necessity, beauty, religious experience or rationality of the universe and physical laws...
Really spellbinding reading.
Author demonstrates that physics has also dogmas and its crucial tradition and the act of faith is needed in science as well. What's more, mathematics, using the pure logic, also expects faith in their most primary statements (as Godel's theorem alleged).
Or you can find there hints how to recognize God in the world e.g. through moral necessity, beauty, religious experience or rationality of the universe and physical laws...
Really spellbinding reading.
January 13, 2009
Probably my favorite Polkinghorne work to date and I think it was instrumental in him winning the Templeton Prize if I'm not mistaken.
September 24, 2014
Sort of understood the theology, less so the physics!
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews