What do you think?
Rate this book
How Large Is God: The Voices of Scientists and Theologians
Scientists and theologians ponder the question in their contributions.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 1996
9 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
February 9, 2025
A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS BY THEOLOGIANS AND SCIENTISTS
John Marks Templeton (1912-2008) was an investment fund manager, and great philanthropist, who also in 1972 established the ‘Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities.’ He wrote in the Introduction of this 1997 collection of essays, “This book, I hope, will help bring more people to the realization that we know very little---probably less than 1 percent of what can be discovered---about God and fundamental spiritual principles. In recent years, scientific research has revealed that the universe is staggering in its immensity and intricacy, and some scientists are now suggesting that a much larger God than we previously imagined may be its source…
“Yet, as a member of the board of trustees of Princeton Theological Seminary… I gradually realized that… even highly trained theologians… seem to have … restricted views of who God is and what his purposes are in creating this amazing universe… my colleagues and I began many new projects to further the goal of increasing spiritual information and research … we established the John Templeton Foundation, the central aim of which is for humanity to gain the benefits of new spiritual information through science… these nine essays [are written] by some of the scientists and theologians who have been our advisors… of the development of the foundation’s programs." (Pg. 3-4)
Owen Gingerich observes, “One thing seems entirely certain: We live in a vast and very old universe, but a universe that has a history, including a sudden, cataclysmic birth and a slow, majestic evolution as the elements necessary for life on Earth was gradually formed in the giant cauldrons of stellar interiors. A small minority of astronomers envision a universe that has gone on forever, but even they must concede that our part of the universe---the observable part---gives every evidence of a creation at a particular moment in time past. Without this scenario, scientists are unable to understand the observed distribution of atomic elements in the cosmos.” (Pg. 41)
Freeman Dyson suggests, “Science the religion give us views of the universe that are both illuminating and … to some degree, true. But they cannot be seen simultaneously… Why are we unable to look through both windows simultaneously? Because the rules of the two games are different. The essence of religion is faith and the essence of science is doubt… People must doubt everything before they can embark on scientific enquiry.” (Pg. 49) Later, he adds, “God is in the richness of the phenomena, not in the details of the science. The phenomena are God’s business, the science is ours. Science-worship is a new form of an old idolatry, putting a man-made image in the place of God… In truth, the glory of science lies in the clever use of tools, and the glory of religion lies in the poetry of worship. The two glories may co-exist in the same human soul, but they are not the same.” (Pg. 64-65)
F. Russell Stannard observes, “there is nothing new about suffering. The problem of evil and suffering have been with us since time immemorial… some suffering arises directly out of evil acts or from wanton unwillingness to help those in need. But not all suffering arises in this way…there is suffering through natural causes such as earthquakes, flood, and failure of crops. A partial explanation might lie in the need for rigid laws of nature to hold sway so that we can exercise free will in an environment in which we know what the outcome of our actions will be…. One also has to accept that in a hypothetical world where there was no suffering, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate one’s love for another … But having said that, the sheer DEGREE of suffering in the world always has appeared to some to be excessive. Now, on top of that, we have to come to terms with the fact that the very process by which intelligent beings evolve incorporates by its very nature an unavoidable degree of intense suffering, Why did God choose evolution by natural selection? Was there no other way? Clearly, we still have much to learn about the mind of God in this matter.” (Pg. 83-84)
Howard J. Van Till says of the ‘universe from nothing’ concept: “Can one reasonably presume that that which is properly named ‘absolute nothing’ nonetheless is gifted with the astounding capacities to transform its nothingness into something?... the proposition… ‘from nothing, nothing comes’ …remains as reasonable a proposition now… as it was in antiquity… One might well propose the eternal existence of a something that possesses the capacities to transform itself or to bring something else into being, but to propose that ‘absolutely nothing’ produces, by any means, any form of something strikes me as a singularly vacuous proposal.” (Pg. 116)
Martin E. Marty summarizes, “the basic question of all the contributors of this book is ‘How large is God?’ in any real, answerable sense. Instead it is, ‘How rich are the imaginations and wills of the people who deal with .. the concept of God? Here is where humility enters the picture for all the disciplines. Those who have been critical of theologians, historians, philosophers, and other humanists have, in most cases, been criticizing them for confining their imaginations in dated models of talking about God or of being obedient to hierarchies or habits that do not let their imaginations go unfettered.” (Pg. 167)
John D. Barrow states, “In practice, we have learned that the outcomes of the laws of nature are invariably far more complicated than the laws themselves because they do not have to possess the same symmetries as the underlying laws. However, we must appreciate that the human brain has evolved its repertoire of conceptual and analytical abilities in response to the specific challenges proposed by the tropical savannah environments which our ancient ancestors developed over half a million years ago. There would seem to be no evolutionary need for an ability to understand elementary particle physics, black holes, of the ultimate laws of nature. Indeed, it is not even clear that something as simple as rationality was selected in the evolutionary process.” (Pg. 205-206)
This book [which has more ‘theological’ content than others of Templeton’s edited essay collections] will be of keen interest to those wanting to reconcile religion and scientific progress.
John Marks Templeton (1912-2008) was an investment fund manager, and great philanthropist, who also in 1972 established the ‘Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities.’ He wrote in the Introduction of this 1997 collection of essays, “This book, I hope, will help bring more people to the realization that we know very little---probably less than 1 percent of what can be discovered---about God and fundamental spiritual principles. In recent years, scientific research has revealed that the universe is staggering in its immensity and intricacy, and some scientists are now suggesting that a much larger God than we previously imagined may be its source…
“Yet, as a member of the board of trustees of Princeton Theological Seminary… I gradually realized that… even highly trained theologians… seem to have … restricted views of who God is and what his purposes are in creating this amazing universe… my colleagues and I began many new projects to further the goal of increasing spiritual information and research … we established the John Templeton Foundation, the central aim of which is for humanity to gain the benefits of new spiritual information through science… these nine essays [are written] by some of the scientists and theologians who have been our advisors… of the development of the foundation’s programs." (Pg. 3-4)
Owen Gingerich observes, “One thing seems entirely certain: We live in a vast and very old universe, but a universe that has a history, including a sudden, cataclysmic birth and a slow, majestic evolution as the elements necessary for life on Earth was gradually formed in the giant cauldrons of stellar interiors. A small minority of astronomers envision a universe that has gone on forever, but even they must concede that our part of the universe---the observable part---gives every evidence of a creation at a particular moment in time past. Without this scenario, scientists are unable to understand the observed distribution of atomic elements in the cosmos.” (Pg. 41)
Freeman Dyson suggests, “Science the religion give us views of the universe that are both illuminating and … to some degree, true. But they cannot be seen simultaneously… Why are we unable to look through both windows simultaneously? Because the rules of the two games are different. The essence of religion is faith and the essence of science is doubt… People must doubt everything before they can embark on scientific enquiry.” (Pg. 49) Later, he adds, “God is in the richness of the phenomena, not in the details of the science. The phenomena are God’s business, the science is ours. Science-worship is a new form of an old idolatry, putting a man-made image in the place of God… In truth, the glory of science lies in the clever use of tools, and the glory of religion lies in the poetry of worship. The two glories may co-exist in the same human soul, but they are not the same.” (Pg. 64-65)
F. Russell Stannard observes, “there is nothing new about suffering. The problem of evil and suffering have been with us since time immemorial… some suffering arises directly out of evil acts or from wanton unwillingness to help those in need. But not all suffering arises in this way…there is suffering through natural causes such as earthquakes, flood, and failure of crops. A partial explanation might lie in the need for rigid laws of nature to hold sway so that we can exercise free will in an environment in which we know what the outcome of our actions will be…. One also has to accept that in a hypothetical world where there was no suffering, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate one’s love for another … But having said that, the sheer DEGREE of suffering in the world always has appeared to some to be excessive. Now, on top of that, we have to come to terms with the fact that the very process by which intelligent beings evolve incorporates by its very nature an unavoidable degree of intense suffering, Why did God choose evolution by natural selection? Was there no other way? Clearly, we still have much to learn about the mind of God in this matter.” (Pg. 83-84)
Howard J. Van Till says of the ‘universe from nothing’ concept: “Can one reasonably presume that that which is properly named ‘absolute nothing’ nonetheless is gifted with the astounding capacities to transform its nothingness into something?... the proposition… ‘from nothing, nothing comes’ …remains as reasonable a proposition now… as it was in antiquity… One might well propose the eternal existence of a something that possesses the capacities to transform itself or to bring something else into being, but to propose that ‘absolutely nothing’ produces, by any means, any form of something strikes me as a singularly vacuous proposal.” (Pg. 116)
Martin E. Marty summarizes, “the basic question of all the contributors of this book is ‘How large is God?’ in any real, answerable sense. Instead it is, ‘How rich are the imaginations and wills of the people who deal with .. the concept of God? Here is where humility enters the picture for all the disciplines. Those who have been critical of theologians, historians, philosophers, and other humanists have, in most cases, been criticizing them for confining their imaginations in dated models of talking about God or of being obedient to hierarchies or habits that do not let their imaginations go unfettered.” (Pg. 167)
John D. Barrow states, “In practice, we have learned that the outcomes of the laws of nature are invariably far more complicated than the laws themselves because they do not have to possess the same symmetries as the underlying laws. However, we must appreciate that the human brain has evolved its repertoire of conceptual and analytical abilities in response to the specific challenges proposed by the tropical savannah environments which our ancient ancestors developed over half a million years ago. There would seem to be no evolutionary need for an ability to understand elementary particle physics, black holes, of the ultimate laws of nature. Indeed, it is not even clear that something as simple as rationality was selected in the evolutionary process.” (Pg. 205-206)
This book [which has more ‘theological’ content than others of Templeton’s edited essay collections] will be of keen interest to those wanting to reconcile religion and scientific progress.
October 29, 2025
A little out of date.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews