What do you think?
Rate this book
Religion in an Age of Science
- GenresPhilosophy
Unknown Binding
14 people want to read
About the author
Edwin Arthur Burtt
26 books13 followersEdwin Arthur Burtt (1892 – September 6, 1989) was an American philosopher who wrote extensively on the philosophy of religion. His doctoral thesis published as a book under the title The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science has had a significant influence upon the history of science that is not generally recognized, according to H. Floris Cohen. He was educated at Yale University, Union Theological Seminary and Columbia University. He became the prestigious Susan Linn Sage Professor of Philosophy at Cornell University in 1941. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Ar...)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 23, 2025
Most of this book, according to the foreword, was first presented in lecture form and later printed as part of a larger series with the title, "Religion and the Modern Age." Burtt's goal in this book was to sketch some requirements for a religion that wants to reconcile with science and not have to keep ceding their beliefs and updating their interpretations in the light of new scientific discoveries. (He assumes that a religion already wants to reconcile with science.)
At the start, Burtt wants to be clear that we shouldn't be too biased against religion at the outset and that, "religion is certainly a hoary means for the satisfaction of persistent human needs. May we not agree, in fact, at the start that both religion and science are seriously practiced techniques for attaining something that people want."
Burtt makes the point that science isn't very clearly understood and, "Most people know science as they know God, by works rather than by intimate vision. When asked what science means to them, they will reply by pointing to the more or less startling discoveries offered on the authority of men of science."
To most people it is the fruits of science, the new technologies and inventions, and improvement of daily life that science is about: "It is evidently [science's] business to attain a kind of knowledge whose possession is indispensable in the race for power and prosperity. Indeed, none of us moderns would really be willing to surrender what science has secured and attempt to get along without it; accordingly, the man who recognizes this fact, even though he have no more lucid vision of what science stands for, will find himself in a sense irrevocably committed to it." Someone would be hard pressed to deny that science has benefitted humanity.
It seems like Burtt's considers the main conflict between science and religion can be attributed to this: "The average man, then, accepts science without understanding much more about it than that it reaches results which cannot be contradicted and are often of help in attaining coveted goals. But this is a rather external and superficial notion of what science means. Its stauncher effect on life may be almost completely escaped when we regard it simply as a set of results about the nature of the world to be appropriated and applied when they have become duly attested. Especially will its bearing on religion be quite missed. Science has never made any discovery, nor is likely to make any, that religious faith cannot in time be brought, however grudgingly, to adopt. Every generation sees some religious dogma surrendered because it conflicts with scientific truth. But no such retreat brings about a transformation in the relations of science and religion thorough-going enough to make future surrenders no longer necessary. And it is surely clear that until such a situation is reached religion and science have not been really reconciled. If we would reach the heart of the conflict we must find in science something more that this popular view admits."
In order to try to reconcile the two, Burtt gives outline to the history of religion, the history of early science and their intimate relations. An example is a "response to the injunction of St. Paul to 'give a reason for the faith that is in you.'" Which seems to be rather scientific in character.
Burtt also makes the point that one of science's central emphases is social, "to be scientific is to care more to establish values that can be universally embraced and used than those which are the objects of desire simply for an individual or limited group. Science reflects the attainment of a settled faith that is is more important to secure trustworthy means for realizing the ends of others that gods that can be monopolized by oneself. To be a scientist is to prize more the understanding and formulation of the conditions required for solving the problems of others than the solution of any given problem of oneself; or rather it is to make one's own guiding problem the general difficulty that is met when anybody attacks the solution of any problem." Verification by other people in the scientific community is one of the central characteristics of a scientific finding. A finding is hardly scientific if nobody else can replicate or otherwise verify it.
__________
This book made some great points about the nature and aims of science in contrast the aims of religion. I would definitely recommend it to someone who is interested in the conflict between science and religion and wanted religion to be described without contempt.
At the start, Burtt wants to be clear that we shouldn't be too biased against religion at the outset and that, "religion is certainly a hoary means for the satisfaction of persistent human needs. May we not agree, in fact, at the start that both religion and science are seriously practiced techniques for attaining something that people want."
Burtt makes the point that science isn't very clearly understood and, "Most people know science as they know God, by works rather than by intimate vision. When asked what science means to them, they will reply by pointing to the more or less startling discoveries offered on the authority of men of science."
To most people it is the fruits of science, the new technologies and inventions, and improvement of daily life that science is about: "It is evidently [science's] business to attain a kind of knowledge whose possession is indispensable in the race for power and prosperity. Indeed, none of us moderns would really be willing to surrender what science has secured and attempt to get along without it; accordingly, the man who recognizes this fact, even though he have no more lucid vision of what science stands for, will find himself in a sense irrevocably committed to it." Someone would be hard pressed to deny that science has benefitted humanity.
It seems like Burtt's considers the main conflict between science and religion can be attributed to this: "The average man, then, accepts science without understanding much more about it than that it reaches results which cannot be contradicted and are often of help in attaining coveted goals. But this is a rather external and superficial notion of what science means. Its stauncher effect on life may be almost completely escaped when we regard it simply as a set of results about the nature of the world to be appropriated and applied when they have become duly attested. Especially will its bearing on religion be quite missed. Science has never made any discovery, nor is likely to make any, that religious faith cannot in time be brought, however grudgingly, to adopt. Every generation sees some religious dogma surrendered because it conflicts with scientific truth. But no such retreat brings about a transformation in the relations of science and religion thorough-going enough to make future surrenders no longer necessary. And it is surely clear that until such a situation is reached religion and science have not been really reconciled. If we would reach the heart of the conflict we must find in science something more that this popular view admits."
In order to try to reconcile the two, Burtt gives outline to the history of religion, the history of early science and their intimate relations. An example is a "response to the injunction of St. Paul to 'give a reason for the faith that is in you.'" Which seems to be rather scientific in character.
Burtt also makes the point that one of science's central emphases is social, "to be scientific is to care more to establish values that can be universally embraced and used than those which are the objects of desire simply for an individual or limited group. Science reflects the attainment of a settled faith that is is more important to secure trustworthy means for realizing the ends of others that gods that can be monopolized by oneself. To be a scientist is to prize more the understanding and formulation of the conditions required for solving the problems of others than the solution of any given problem of oneself; or rather it is to make one's own guiding problem the general difficulty that is met when anybody attacks the solution of any problem." Verification by other people in the scientific community is one of the central characteristics of a scientific finding. A finding is hardly scientific if nobody else can replicate or otherwise verify it.
__________
This book made some great points about the nature and aims of science in contrast the aims of religion. I would definitely recommend it to someone who is interested in the conflict between science and religion and wanted religion to be described without contempt.
Displaying 1 of 1 review