What do you think?
Rate this book
The Big Questions in Science and Religion
Can religious beliefs survive in the scientific age? Are they resoundingly outdated? Or, is there something in them of great importance, even if the way they are expressed will have to change given new scientific context? These questions are among those at the core of the science-religion dialogue.In The Big Questions in Science and Religion, Keith Ward, an Anglican priest who was once an atheist, offers compelling insights into the often contentious relationship between diverse religious views and new scientific knowledge. He identifies ten basic questions about the nature of the universe and human life. Among these
•Does the universe have a goal or purpose?•Do the laws of nature exclude miracles?•Can science provide a wholly naturalistic explanation for moral and religious beliefs?•Has science made belief in God obsolete? Are there any good science-based arguments for God?With his expertise in the study of world religions, Ward considers concepts from Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity, while featuring the speculations of cosmologists, physicians, mathematicians, and philosophers. In addition, Ward examines the implications of ancient laws and modern theories and evaluates the role of religious experience as evidence of a nonphysical reality.
Writing with enthusiasm, passion, and clarity, Keith Ward conveys the depth, difficulty, intellectual excitement, and importance of the greatest intellectual and existential questions of the modern scientific age.
•Does the universe have a goal or purpose?•Do the laws of nature exclude miracles?•Can science provide a wholly naturalistic explanation for moral and religious beliefs?•Has science made belief in God obsolete? Are there any good science-based arguments for God?With his expertise in the study of world religions, Ward considers concepts from Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity, while featuring the speculations of cosmologists, physicians, mathematicians, and philosophers. In addition, Ward examines the implications of ancient laws and modern theories and evaluates the role of religious experience as evidence of a nonphysical reality.
Writing with enthusiasm, passion, and clarity, Keith Ward conveys the depth, difficulty, intellectual excitement, and importance of the greatest intellectual and existential questions of the modern scientific age.
288 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 1, 2008
15 people are currently reading
122 people want to read
About the author
Keith Ward
155 books53 followersKeith Ward was formerly the Regius Professor of Divinity and Head of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oxford. A priest of the Church of England and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, he holds Doctor of Divinity degrees from Cambridge and Oxford Universities. He has lectured at the universities of Glasgow, St. Andrew's and Cambridge.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
July 13, 2010
I've read read quite a few books in the area of science and religion. The majority of these authors are scientists -- there are not very many on the theological side.
So I'll come to the point: Keith Ward's book "The Big Questions in Science and Religion" is arguably the very best single work in the field at the present time.
Ward frames his discussion by posing and discussing 10 key questions of science and religion, ranging from "How did the universe begin? to "Does science allow for revelation and divine action?". Each of these is discussed with a high level of intellectual skill, scientific accuracy and remarkable impartiality. Although the author is nominally affiliated with the Anglican Church, he presents, in a very even-handed and skillful manner, viewpoints of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, even Buddhist and other eastern faiths.
The author appears to be very well versed on fundamental science topics. Most books of this genre have several "howlers" of scientific error, but, as far as I could tell, this work is free from such flaws. Perhaps he was assisted by some scientific colleagues in preparation of this book, but he clearly understands these issues (ranging from fundamental physics and cosmology to biology) to a degree that is without peer in this literature.
The author writes with eloquence and sensitivity, and does not ignore the moral dimensions of these questions. As a single example, he mentions Dawkins' comment that "We alone, on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.", then adds, "Humans are free and responsible, and that means we can change our conduct for reasons, and do not have to do just what the laws of physics make us do." [pg. 202:].
Don't just sit there -- read this book!
So I'll come to the point: Keith Ward's book "The Big Questions in Science and Religion" is arguably the very best single work in the field at the present time.
Ward frames his discussion by posing and discussing 10 key questions of science and religion, ranging from "How did the universe begin? to "Does science allow for revelation and divine action?". Each of these is discussed with a high level of intellectual skill, scientific accuracy and remarkable impartiality. Although the author is nominally affiliated with the Anglican Church, he presents, in a very even-handed and skillful manner, viewpoints of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, even Buddhist and other eastern faiths.
The author appears to be very well versed on fundamental science topics. Most books of this genre have several "howlers" of scientific error, but, as far as I could tell, this work is free from such flaws. Perhaps he was assisted by some scientific colleagues in preparation of this book, but he clearly understands these issues (ranging from fundamental physics and cosmology to biology) to a degree that is without peer in this literature.
The author writes with eloquence and sensitivity, and does not ignore the moral dimensions of these questions. As a single example, he mentions Dawkins' comment that "We alone, on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.", then adds, "Humans are free and responsible, and that means we can change our conduct for reasons, and do not have to do just what the laws of physics make us do." [pg. 202:].
Don't just sit there -- read this book!
September 2, 2019
Dense, readable, fascinating and fun to argue about
I very much enjoyed reading this book because Christian theologian and philosopher Keith Ward is that rare person who is not only an expert in his field, the philosophy of religion, but is also very knowledgeable about science and religions other than his own. Such wide knowledge is necessary to presume to write such a book as this, and only a few people could justify the effort. Ward writes without cant and goes to great lengths to air out conflicting points of view. He is as fair to science as one can be who obviously believes in some non-scientific ideas such as the divinity of Jesus, the reality of miracles, and the notion of "purpose" in the universe. He has heard all the arguments and has read all the great names in science and religion and has spent decades thinking about these questions. So regardless of how the individual reader may feel about his conclusions or lack thereof, Ward is clearly worth reading. I believe he has gone a long way in this very interesting book toward clarifying the issues involved, if not in resolving them!
Professor Ward posits ten questions beginning with "How Did the Universe Begin?" through "What is the Nature of Space and Time?" and ending with "Does Science Allow for Revelation and Divine Action?" Each question has a subtext question, e.g., under "How Did the Universe Begin?" Ward asks, "Is There an Ultimate Explanation for the Universe?" Each couplet of questions has its own separate chapter so that there are ten chapters in all.
Sometimes the subtext question changes the enquiry considerably. In Chapter 6, for example, Ward asks, "Is it Still Possible to Speak of the Soul? along with "Does Science Allow the Possibility of Life after Death?" Clearly one may speak of the soul both metaphorically from a psychological point of view and idealistically from a philosophic point of view without bringing science into the discussion at all. But this example illustrates Professor Ward's intent. He, like the Templeton Foundation which sponsored this book, is intent on bringing about a consilience and understanding between science and religion.
I think this is an admirable and absolutely necessary endeavor if humanity is to find peace with itself; and indeed, such a meeting of the minds may be essential for long term human survival. Right now much of the conflict in the world is based on differences between religions or between a religious worldview and one based on empirical science. Unlike Richard Dawkins and others who feel that never the twain shall meet, Ward and the Templeton Foundation believe that science can be made compatible with religion and vice-versa. There is a third view, of course, that science is just another--albeit very powerful--religion itself.
I am brought to a sense of something close to melancholy when I think about the questions being asked in this book. Such questions as "How Will the Universe End?" (Chapter 2) with its subtitle "(Does the Universe Have a Goal or Purpose?)" leave me exasperated, in awe, humbled, and much diminished. I cannot think of a purpose or a goal that the universe may have, but Ward posits the idea that from a religious point of view a purpose might be "to generate many forms of goodness and many beings who can appreciate and create such forms of goodness." (p. 57) From a scientific point of view a goal might have "to do with the increase of knowledge, freedom, and intelligent life." (p. 58) From my point of view, "goodness" is hopelessly anthropomorphic while "freedom" is a puzzle, and "knowledge" and intelligence beg the question of knowledge and intelligence for what? As ends in themselves?
Furthermore it is difficult for me to imagine that we have a real understanding of some of the most basic ideas that necessarily come up in this book, such as infinity, randomness, eternity, the extent of the universe, being, nonbeing, God, etc. The God that is worthy of being the creator of the universe or outside of it or both seems to me to be completely beyond our understanding--which, by the way, is one of the reasons there is the idea of "faith" in religion.
I didn't care much for Ward's dismissal of David Hume's position on miracles, and was surprised at the vehemence he showed toward the great empirical philosopher (see pp. 92-93). I thought Ward misunderstood Hume, almost willfully. Hume's position is clear: when he says that miracles are impossible he means that if it happened, it wasn't a miracle. I don't think Hume contradicted himself. I think the source of Ward's disagreement is in not fully realizing the extent Hume's empirical realism. Clearly as a Christian Ward wants to believe in miracles, and apparently does.
I also didn't care much for his discussion of time. I think that time has all the reality of a mathematical point and has no existence outside of matter and energy. The same can be said for space, or more properly spacetime. Ward seems to think that time "flows" and has a reality independent of events--or perhaps it is not clear what Ward thinks about time. In fact, so carefully does Ward present the various points of view on the various subjects that sometimes it is not clear where the general or historical view ends and his point of view begins! (Or perhaps I need to read more carefully.) At any rate, in Chapter 5 he writes "I am not opposed to putting logical limitations on divine omnipotence…" (p. 115); but later on intones, "God's acts fall under no general law…God just does not fit into our equations." (p. 264)
Can God square the circle? On the one hand, no, on the other, who are we to put limitations on what God can do? Our logic, Boolean or fuzzy or whatever, is surely a frail thing with which to constrain the might of an ineffable God.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
I very much enjoyed reading this book because Christian theologian and philosopher Keith Ward is that rare person who is not only an expert in his field, the philosophy of religion, but is also very knowledgeable about science and religions other than his own. Such wide knowledge is necessary to presume to write such a book as this, and only a few people could justify the effort. Ward writes without cant and goes to great lengths to air out conflicting points of view. He is as fair to science as one can be who obviously believes in some non-scientific ideas such as the divinity of Jesus, the reality of miracles, and the notion of "purpose" in the universe. He has heard all the arguments and has read all the great names in science and religion and has spent decades thinking about these questions. So regardless of how the individual reader may feel about his conclusions or lack thereof, Ward is clearly worth reading. I believe he has gone a long way in this very interesting book toward clarifying the issues involved, if not in resolving them!
Professor Ward posits ten questions beginning with "How Did the Universe Begin?" through "What is the Nature of Space and Time?" and ending with "Does Science Allow for Revelation and Divine Action?" Each question has a subtext question, e.g., under "How Did the Universe Begin?" Ward asks, "Is There an Ultimate Explanation for the Universe?" Each couplet of questions has its own separate chapter so that there are ten chapters in all.
Sometimes the subtext question changes the enquiry considerably. In Chapter 6, for example, Ward asks, "Is it Still Possible to Speak of the Soul? along with "Does Science Allow the Possibility of Life after Death?" Clearly one may speak of the soul both metaphorically from a psychological point of view and idealistically from a philosophic point of view without bringing science into the discussion at all. But this example illustrates Professor Ward's intent. He, like the Templeton Foundation which sponsored this book, is intent on bringing about a consilience and understanding between science and religion.
I think this is an admirable and absolutely necessary endeavor if humanity is to find peace with itself; and indeed, such a meeting of the minds may be essential for long term human survival. Right now much of the conflict in the world is based on differences between religions or between a religious worldview and one based on empirical science. Unlike Richard Dawkins and others who feel that never the twain shall meet, Ward and the Templeton Foundation believe that science can be made compatible with religion and vice-versa. There is a third view, of course, that science is just another--albeit very powerful--religion itself.
I am brought to a sense of something close to melancholy when I think about the questions being asked in this book. Such questions as "How Will the Universe End?" (Chapter 2) with its subtitle "(Does the Universe Have a Goal or Purpose?)" leave me exasperated, in awe, humbled, and much diminished. I cannot think of a purpose or a goal that the universe may have, but Ward posits the idea that from a religious point of view a purpose might be "to generate many forms of goodness and many beings who can appreciate and create such forms of goodness." (p. 57) From a scientific point of view a goal might have "to do with the increase of knowledge, freedom, and intelligent life." (p. 58) From my point of view, "goodness" is hopelessly anthropomorphic while "freedom" is a puzzle, and "knowledge" and intelligence beg the question of knowledge and intelligence for what? As ends in themselves?
Furthermore it is difficult for me to imagine that we have a real understanding of some of the most basic ideas that necessarily come up in this book, such as infinity, randomness, eternity, the extent of the universe, being, nonbeing, God, etc. The God that is worthy of being the creator of the universe or outside of it or both seems to me to be completely beyond our understanding--which, by the way, is one of the reasons there is the idea of "faith" in religion.
I didn't care much for Ward's dismissal of David Hume's position on miracles, and was surprised at the vehemence he showed toward the great empirical philosopher (see pp. 92-93). I thought Ward misunderstood Hume, almost willfully. Hume's position is clear: when he says that miracles are impossible he means that if it happened, it wasn't a miracle. I don't think Hume contradicted himself. I think the source of Ward's disagreement is in not fully realizing the extent Hume's empirical realism. Clearly as a Christian Ward wants to believe in miracles, and apparently does.
I also didn't care much for his discussion of time. I think that time has all the reality of a mathematical point and has no existence outside of matter and energy. The same can be said for space, or more properly spacetime. Ward seems to think that time "flows" and has a reality independent of events--or perhaps it is not clear what Ward thinks about time. In fact, so carefully does Ward present the various points of view on the various subjects that sometimes it is not clear where the general or historical view ends and his point of view begins! (Or perhaps I need to read more carefully.) At any rate, in Chapter 5 he writes "I am not opposed to putting logical limitations on divine omnipotence…" (p. 115); but later on intones, "God's acts fall under no general law…God just does not fit into our equations." (p. 264)
Can God square the circle? On the one hand, no, on the other, who are we to put limitations on what God can do? Our logic, Boolean or fuzzy or whatever, is surely a frail thing with which to constrain the might of an ineffable God.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
May 1, 2014
I decided to use this book for a class and was very disappointed overall. I've decided to never trust a book that has no footnotes. He just makes many sweeping claims without any evidence or note to say (but look at such and such for a different view). I think the problem was that it was written for a general audience so maybe his other work is not this bad.
Read
November 11, 2008What I'm learning (so far) is that, even though a lot of it is review from all the philosophy courses I took as a philosophy major, what my philosophy lecturers failed to mention was the possibility for a reconciliation between religion and science in the human condition. I think, in retrospect, they had a huge bias toward atheism, which is fine, due to them being in a State University (these University types must just flock to State/Land-Grant Universities because they can get away with murder!) Anyway, enough of my critique of biased education, this book explores the BIG questions:
1. How did the universe begin? What or who created the "Big Bang"?
2. How do we know or believe that the universe will end?
3. Is Evolution compatible with creation?
4. Do the laws of nature exclude miracles?
5. What is the nature of space and time? Does God exist AS space and time or WITHIN space in time, if indeed, God exists at all.
6. Is it still possible to speak of the soul in the modern world?
7. Is science the only sure path to truth? How can faith alone get us closer to the truth?
8. can science provide a wholly naturalistic explanation for moral and religious beliefs?
9. Has science made belief in God obsolete? Are there any GOOD science-based arguments for the existence of God?
Anyway, all these questions can amount to billions of paragraphs of responses that have troubled human thinkers since the beginnings of civilization when people were drawing paintings on cave walls.
It's amazing how short life is, and how difficult it is, during this very short time, we have to answer the above questions. Answers are comfortable, they reduce fear and anxiety. Answers make us feel safe and protected from an apparent cruel world. Children ask questions for a reason, and if everything happens for a reason, then maybe, just maybe, the answers to the BIG questions are kept from us by design. Why? Well, perhaps to keep us humble. Perhaps so that we don't kill each other due to polemical differences. The functions of doubt are numerous, but for the philosopher, the functions of doubt are "life-sustaining", and NOTHING should be taken for granted.
1. How did the universe begin? What or who created the "Big Bang"?
2. How do we know or believe that the universe will end?
3. Is Evolution compatible with creation?
4. Do the laws of nature exclude miracles?
5. What is the nature of space and time? Does God exist AS space and time or WITHIN space in time, if indeed, God exists at all.
6. Is it still possible to speak of the soul in the modern world?
7. Is science the only sure path to truth? How can faith alone get us closer to the truth?
8. can science provide a wholly naturalistic explanation for moral and religious beliefs?
9. Has science made belief in God obsolete? Are there any GOOD science-based arguments for the existence of God?
Anyway, all these questions can amount to billions of paragraphs of responses that have troubled human thinkers since the beginnings of civilization when people were drawing paintings on cave walls.
It's amazing how short life is, and how difficult it is, during this very short time, we have to answer the above questions. Answers are comfortable, they reduce fear and anxiety. Answers make us feel safe and protected from an apparent cruel world. Children ask questions for a reason, and if everything happens for a reason, then maybe, just maybe, the answers to the BIG questions are kept from us by design. Why? Well, perhaps to keep us humble. Perhaps so that we don't kill each other due to polemical differences. The functions of doubt are numerous, but for the philosopher, the functions of doubt are "life-sustaining", and NOTHING should be taken for granted.
November 6, 2018
Can't speak highly enough of this book, I think I may have to go re-read it. Ward, not a scientist, not a theologian but an enthusiast in both takes on some of the most challenging questions where the two pursuits have trod on each other's territory and does so gracefully.
He does make his position very clear up front so you know where his dog is in the fight, but still tackles the issues fairly.
I'd recommend this to anyone who has ever wondered about the conflicts that arise between science and religion.
He does make his position very clear up front so you know where his dog is in the fight, but still tackles the issues fairly.
I'd recommend this to anyone who has ever wondered about the conflicts that arise between science and religion.
July 28, 2008
Keith Ward, philosopher-theologian-priest, brings his knack for clarity and logic to bear on the questions where science and religion overlap and (at least seem to) conflict. Ward shows that ways in which science is popularly thought to undermine religion are overblown. A non-fundamentalist faith can absorb and be enriched by the established findings of science.
April 12, 2017
How does Keith Ward manage to write on a subject I find so fascinating and still manage to send me straight to sleep so quickly? How has he been so successful? My mind boggles. The content is not so bad, but it feels like the author is determined to stop you finding it interesting at all costs...
Want to read
April 12, 2016address gap in collection, rec'ed by Barb. cath.
Intro to a lot of big questions: universe beginning and ending, evolution reconciled with Good God, miracles, space and time, etc. I've read it in a group and it provoked great discussions. Barbara
Intro to a lot of big questions: universe beginning and ending, evolution reconciled with Good God, miracles, space and time, etc. I've read it in a group and it provoked great discussions. Barbara
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews