The Big Question: Why We Can’t Stop Talking About Science, Faith and God

by Alister E. McGrath

Richard Dawkins's groundbreaking book The God Delusion created an explosion of interest in the relation of science and faith. This often troubled relationship between science and religion was seemingly damaged by the rise of the New Atheism, which insisted that science had essentially disproved not just God but also the value of religion. There is increasing skepticism towards its often glib and superficial answers; and the big questions about faith, God and science haven't gone away--in fact, we seem to talk about them more than ever.

Alister McGrath's The Big Question is an accessible, engaging account of how science relates to faith, exploring how the working methods and assumptions of the natural sciences can be theologically useful. McGrath uses stories and analogies, as well as personal accounts, in order to help readers understand the scientific and theological points he makes, and grasp their deeper significance. An extremely accomplished scientist and scholar, McGrath criticizes the evangelism of the New Atheists and paves a logical well-argued road to the compatibility between science and faith.

Some of his main discussion points include:
1. There is much more convergence between science and faith than is usually appreciated
2. How the three great models of scientific explanation can be adapted to religious belief
3. Belief in God provides a 'big picture' of reality, making sense of science's successes

Genres: Nonfiction, Religion, Science, Philosophy, Theology, Christianity, Spirituality

272 pages, Hardcover

First published November 3, 2015

About the author

Alister Edgar McGrath is a Northern Irish theologian, priest, intellectual historian, scientist, and Christian apologist. He currently holds the Andreas Idreos Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford, and is Professor of Divinity at Gresham College. He was previously Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at King's College London and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture, Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, and was principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, until 2005. He is an Anglican priest and is ordained within the Church of England.

Aside from being a faculty member at Oxford, McGrath has also taught at Cambridge University and is a Teaching Fellow at Regent College. McGrath holds three doctorates from the University of Oxford, a DPhil in Molecular Biophysics, a Doctor of Divinity in Theology and a Doctor of Letters in Intellectual History.

McGrath is noted for his work in historical theology, systematic theology, and the relationship between science and religion, as well as his writings on apologetics. He is also known for his opposition to New Atheism and antireligionism and his advocacy of theological critical realism. Among his best-known books are The Twilight of Atheism, The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, and A Scientific Theology. He is also the author of a number of popular textbooks on theology.

Reviews

[Joan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite predictions by outspoken atheists that belief in God would fade away, it hasn't. Why?

Science has its limits, McGrath says. It can't answer questions like why we are here, or what the point of life is. We humans want answers to those questions so there is a deeper quest – the quest for God.

McGrath shares his own progression, his “growing realization that belief in God made a lot more sense of things than my atheism.” (8) He rejects the dogmatic view that one must choose science over religion, based mostly on historical myths. He offers an alternative approach that welcomes the confluence of science and faith.

I like his approach to science, quoting Eugenie Scott, then director of the National Center for Science Education, “'Science neither denies nor opposes the supernatural, but ignores the supernatural for methodological reasons.'” (19)

McGrath asks us to consider another way of thinking about science and faith. He has found it to be deeply satisfying and says it is worth exploring. He shares his own quest for an integrated understanding of reality. He writes about the personal nature of scientific knowledge and how Christian faith made far more sense of what he saw around him than atheism did.

Some criticize Christian faith because it is untestable. McGrath identifies scientific theories that explain but are untestable, like M-theory and the multiuniverse theory. Such theories are valued (though debated) because they provide a way of seeing things that makes sense of observations. (72) He notes the parallel to Christianity – untestable but explaining our observations.

Some said Darwinism was a way to finally get rid of God. McGrath reviews the major themes from Darwin's work, including the idea that humans are more than their components. He writes about the limits of science, such as it not being able to inform us about morality. Science is a tool used for specific purposes, he says. When used for something else it does not work.

McGrath emphasizes that he is not trying to defend either science or Christianity. He is rather encouraging readers to see how they might intertwine and interconnect. “This book,” he writes, “represents a plea for dialogue, opening the door to an enriched vision of reality.” (207) There is much yet to discuss, he says. This book paints with a broad brush and there are many important questions that still need to be investigated.

I highly recommend this book to those seeking to find and explore a coherent and satisfying understanding of the world in which we live, learning from the strengths and weaknesses of both science and faith. (11)

Food for thought:
“And like it or not, the idea of God remains one of the simplest, most elegant and most satisfying ways of seeing our world.” (89)
“Science is a vitally important tool for investigating our world and living within it. But it illuminates only part of the picture, not the whole picture. To think otherwise is a delusion. And we need that whole picture if we are to live authentic and meaningful lives.” (182)

[Charlie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is probably my favorite McGrath book so far. He is uniquely qualified on this subject (he holds Oxford doctorates in both science and theology). He engages with the critics of his position, including Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Hawking, and Lawrence Krauss, and he backs up his positions with a wide array of supporting evidence.

Very good read, highly recommend for anybody interested in religion and especially Christianity and science.

[Per Kraulis · Rating 1 out of 5]

Finally! I've managed to get through this rather tedious and badly organized book. In the process I have become allergic to the phrases "enriched view", "recent scholarship" and "surely it is time to move on", which are repeated ad nauseam.

I intend to write more about the arguments and views of this book elsewhere, suffice it to say that it does not convince. The idea that science is enriched by religion is stated multiple times, but nowhere is any credible example given.

Also, it is rather strange in this day and age to read a book that equates religion with Christianity. As far as I can tell, only hinduism and buddhism are mentioned (both in a derogatory context), and islam not at all. How can this kind of myopia still persist?

[Jeanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is an invitation to journey along another road. The questions that was faced and what was found helpful. Another way to think about science and faith that holds them together that is both rationally satisfying and imaginatively exciting. Science and faith can provide complementary maps of human identity. It is worth exploring and reasoning.

I have to admit that I am not a science expert or a science nerd. However, faith is very important to me and to how I look and live life. In light of that, this book was heavy on the science side and the failings that science has when it comes to moral issues. It weighed heavy on science and atheism which is something I long to understand. This is not a book to debunk science but to look at science in a different lens. Issues like the meaning of life, evil, and humanity can make the world uncertain when we all long for certainty. Can science fulfill that need? It is Christianity that gives us those answers. It is science that made the atomic bomb and it is Christanity that reveals men’s heart against a holy God and against each other

The narrative of Alister McGrath own journey of reconciling faith and science together is prevalent in this read and is one that will give a student of theology and science an appreciation for both. It is respecting the limits of science that science keeps its integrity and gives the bigger picture.

A read for the mind that questions, seeks, and reasons.

A Special Thank You to St. Martins Press and Netgalley for the ARC and the opportunity to post an honest review.

[Stephen Bedard · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not really a book on Christian apologetics, although it has apologetic value. Rather it is a plea to see science and Christianity not as enemies but as truth that is interconnected. I thoroughly enjoyed the book. McGrath's passion for both science and the Christian faith shine forth.

[Yupa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Vago, troppo vago

Forse è perché il tema sarebbe davvero ampio e l'autore sceglie di toccare tanti dei punti sul rapporto tra religione e scienza in un libro di poco più di 260 pagine (di cui una sessantina di note e bibliografia), ma il suo peggior difetto, e quello che mina la solidità dei ragionamenti e delle conclusioni, è la vaghezza. Appena pochi capitoli, a volte pochi paragrafi, per affrontare con poca profondità i punti di cui sopra e subito si passa ad altro, e per giunta molto di cui potrebbe parlare non lo nomina nemmeno.
Il maggior pregio del libro, per me che comunque non ne condivido né gli assunti né le conclusioni, è di porre dei dubbî su come viene raccontato il rapporto scienza-fede, che a suo dire storicamente sarebbe stato meno improntato al conflitto di quanto si pensi. Ad esempio descrive nel dettaglio lo sviluppo del darwinismo e le risposte che ad esso sono state date da esponenti religiosi, affermando che il conflitto tra i due campi sarebbe stato meno aspro di quanto si ritenga e confinato solo a determinate frange del fondamentalismo statunitense. Ovviamente io non essendo esperto nel settore non posso contestare quanto riportato dall'autore. Però un po' mi si rizzano le antenne quando, in un altro punto, afferma che il caso di Galileo Galilei, quello che portò al famoso processo e all'abiura sotto minaccia di tortura, sarebbe stato "mistificato" dalla storiografia anticlericale. Ecco, purtroppo qui l'autore non spiega quale sarebbe questa "mistificazione", cosa che invece sarebbe stata molto utile, specie considerando quanto vuole sostenere.
Tuttavia io continuo a pensare due cose: la prima è che, proprio tenendo in mente il caso di Galileo, forse il rapporto tra scienza e fede non è stato così irenico come tenta di presentare l'autore. Fino a quando il cristianesimo è stato religione dominante in Europa la libertà di parola e di pensiero non esistevano o erano comunque molto ridotte rispetto a oggi e la pena capitale per eresia è un fatto storico e non una mistificazione. Darwin scrive a metà Ottocento, quando la religione è ormai in arretramento da tempo, e non certo per sua gentile concessione ma in seguito a una lotta serrata da parte di chi ha propugnato secolarizzazione e laicità. Fosse per pura ipotesi vissuto nel '500, al padre dell'evoluzionismo sarebbe spettato il rogo, magari preceduto dalla tortura. Inoltre, altra cosa molto discutibile, l'autore è di quelli che sostengono che la scienza moderna sarebbe stata resa possibile da determinate innovazioni concettuali del cristianesimo (come un Mondo intelligibile creato da uno dio razionale), ma qui io obietto che se fosse così non si capisce perché la scienza avrebbe impiegato mille e passa anni per affermarsi dopo l'avvento della religione cristiana: forse il nesso non è così scontato, o forse non esiste?
In secondo luogo il punto non è tanto come siano andate storicamente le cose, ma se e quanto determinati risultati ottenuti tramite la scienza vadano effettivamente a minare le dottrine della religione. Ed è qui che, secondo me, casca l'asino, perché le dottrine religiose sono in arretramento da almeno cinquecento anni rispetto alle scoperte scientifiche.
L'autore affronta alcuni snodi classici del rapporto tra scienza e religione, ma secondo me in modo alquanto banale e superficiale. Spiega come si sarebbe affermata la teoria del Big Bang a scapito di quella, precedente, dell'universo stazionario, e qui tira fuori la solita idea che, be', se c'è stato un Big Bang magari a innescarlo c'è stata la manina di dio. E questo proprio quando nello stesso libro afferma due cose: la prima è che lui non vuole propugnare un "dio dei vuoti" ("God of the gaps"), cioè infilare dio nelle cose che la scienza non è (per ora!) in grado di spiegare; la seconda è che le teorie scientifiche per loro natura non sono definitive e potrebbero venire smentite in qualunque momento futuro. E allora, poste queste due premesse, ha senso affermare che sia stato un principio divino (e magari proprio quello di cui parla il cristianesimo) a dar vita all'universo?
La stessa debolezza si riscontra nei capitoli sulla teoria dell'evoluzione. Qui l'autore saggiamente rifiuta il creazionismo del peggior fondamentalismo americano, quello che vuole il Mondo antico seimila anni e Adamo ed Eva storicamente esistiti, poi però afferma che nulla vieta di ipotizzare che al principio di tutto ci sia comunque dio e che la vicenda dell'evoluzione sia una precisa esplicazione di un suo progetto iniziale. Ma l'autore liquida tutto ciò in poche righe, e ignora bellamente di riflettere, se la sua ipotesi fosse vera, di quale immagine ci restituirebbe del creatore considerare cos'è stato e cos'è l'evoluzione della vita sulla Terra: un processo basato sull'esistenza di soli organismi monocellulari per centinaia di milioni di anni, di altre centinaia di milioni di anni in cui si sono succedute tantissime specie solo per andare estinte, e di un incessante mangiare ed essere mangiati nei modi più crudeli possibili. E tutto questo solo per veder nascere, dopo oltre quattro miliardi di anni e una quantità incalcolabile di creature morti e sofferenti, l'essere umano. E tutto questo l'avrebbe voluto un dio sommamente sapiente, provvidente e misericordioso? A questo punto verrebbe da dire che è più coerente la concezione di chi vuole la Terra creata seimila anni fa...
A proposito della faccenda dei seimila anni, l'autore afferma che comunque la religione non deve restare ostinata nelle sue posizioni quando la scienza raggiunge dei risultati che le negano. Dice che se si dimostra che il Mondo non ha seimila anni, la religione, se è onesta, deve accettarlo. Poi però afferma a più riprese che scienza e religione giocano in campi sì contigui, ma non sovrapponibili: la scienza ci spiega com'è fatto il Mondo, ma la religione qual è il suo senso. Ora, a parte il fatto che la religione fino alla modernità e anche oltre (e in certi paesi anche attualmente), ha preteso di metter bocca in qualunque àmbito della conoscenza umana, a tutt'oggi conserva nella sua dottrina elementi che presenta come dati di fatto, e sui la scienza avrebbe molto da obiettare. Insomma, dire che la religione parli solo del senso del Mondo o del significato della vita e non dei fatti del Mondo lo trovo assai riduttivo. Come la mettiamo con dogmi quali la resurrezione dai morti del profeta ebraico Gesù o la sua nascita tramite un parto verginale? Sono o non sono fatti concreti come l'idea che la Terra avesse seimila anni, ovvero fatti su cui si può benissimo essere scettici proprio perché in contrasto con la realtà materiale come la conosciamo? Non parliamo poi di presunte reliquie, dei miracoli dei santi e via dicendo...
Stessa cosa riguardo all'immortalità dell'anima: qui l'autore compie una sorta di arrampicata sugli specchî affermando in maniera fumosa che l'anima umana di cui parla il cristianesimo in realtà sarebbe una forma di relazione dell'individuo con dio e non, come pensavano invece i greci pagani o il filosofo Cartesio, una sostanza indipendente dal corpo. Ok, ma allora secoli e secoli di fede sull'anima immortale o sul destino a essa cui va incontro post mortem dove li mettiamo?
Il fatto è che l'autore ha gioco facile quando parla di religione e scienza finché può permettersi di restare sul vago, e non affronta mai un punto invece cruciale: quale religione? Quale delle centinaia che si sono succedute e che ancora adesso pullulano sul pianeta? L'autore continua a parlare del cristianesimo, le altre religioni le nomina di sfuggita in due o tre righe, e sembra quindi dare per scontato che solo il cristianesimo possa colmare il bisogno umano di senso e solo esso si attagli alle scoperte prodotte dalla scienza. Non parla mai di tutto il lungo corredo di credenze che invece comporta l'essere cristiani, anche e soprattutto in tema di morale, proprio quelle che generano gli scontri anche feroci a cui a tutt'oggi assistiamo con le altre religioni. A me sembra che, se si vuole perorare la validità della religione a fronte di un Mondo in cui la scienza ha tanta parte, non basta parlare vagamente di un dio creatore ignorando tutte le spinose questioni che mettono in conflitto quasi tutte le religioni, quale più quale meno, con la realtà moderna.
Insomma, l'autore non dice perché, una volta accettato che occorre una religione per colmare il bisogno di senso dell'uomo, si dovrebbe scegliere una religione piuttosto che un'altra. Ma questo l'autore non può dirlo per i suoi stessi presupposti, perché più volte afferma chiaramente che è la scienza che funziona con dei criterî empirici e concreti, mentre la religione parla un altro linguaggio, che va al di là della ragione. Ma allora con quale criterio dovrei scegliere il cristianesimo piuttosto che l'islam o il buddhismo piuttosto che l'induismo? Sarebbe stato bello se l'autore stesso, quando parla a più riprese della sua conversione dall'ateismo al cristianesimo avvenuta in gioventù, avesse spiegato perché proprio questa religione e non altre.
Altrettanto debole però è il discorso a monte, ovvero che la religione sia necessaria perché è un bisogno radicato nella natura umana. Potrebbe essere, potrebbe benissimo essere che la grande maggioranza degli uomini abbia insito quel bisogno di senso a cui solo una visione religiosa può rispondere. L'autore afferma anche che è questa risposta che ci può dare una vita piena, il benessere, una visione arricchita del Mondo. Ma qui si nasconde quasi una concezione strumentale della religione: bisogna solo credere perché altrimenti si sarebbe più tristi? Ma soprattutto non è detto che la presenza di un bisogno deponga a favore dell'esistenza di ciò che potrebbe colmare quel bisogno. Io posso sentire ardere dentro di me la necessità, perché la mia vita si dica compiuta, di vedere unicorni rosa volare in cielo, ma questa esigenza, che può pure essere profondissima, non dice nulla sull'esistenza di tali mitiche bestie.
Sono tuttavia d'accordo con un punto su cui l'autore insiste, ovvero che non può essere la scienza a dirci come comportarci bene nella vita che trascorriamo sul Mondo. Questo è vero. La scienza può solo dirci, con approssimazioni più o meno buone, com'è fatto il Mondo, ma com'è noto l'etica appartiene a un altro àmbito. Ma resto perplesso quando si voglia ancorare un'etica universale alla religione, anche solo perché, cosa che (mi ripeto) l'autore ignora, di religioni ce ne sono sin troppe e troppo contraddittorie tra loro. Se davvero si vuole costruire un'etica per l'umanità, dovrebbe essere una che parta ammettendo la la realtà di questi diversi punti prospettici (e anche di quelli di chi non ha una religione) e che elabori dei modi perché le diverse prospettive convivano senza che ci si faccia male, o perlomeno non troppo male.
Ma questo è un discorso che ovviamente esula completamente dal libro in questione...

[Brian Chilton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent book. Honestly, it was underwhelming for me. I was a fan of the first half of the book, but the lack of commitment to any particular view, coupled with the disparaging remarks made toward creationists really irritated me and began to change my views about the book.

The chapter on the soul was quite insufferable. On the one hand, he adopted the false view that the Bible does not teach the concept of the immortal soul, while quoting from Augustine in the same chapter, a Christian theologian who strongly advocated for the immortal soul. Ironically, in my devotions, I read 2 Corinthians 5-6, which included Paul’s classic teaching on being “absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” The chapters speak of the immaterial human soul. From that point onward, the book lost its luster.

The best parts of the book for me were the author’s interactions with the New Atheists and his exposition on the limitations of science and evidence. Those sections were really good and commendable.

[Chelsey Faith · Rating 5 out of 5]

As an atheist but someone who is very interested in religion, science and the connection thereof, I generally find it difficult to listen or read from christian apologists. They are usually boring, not as well versed in their topic as they should be, do not seem to understand the other side at all, and come across as very angry and intolerant towards other beliefs.

Alister McGrath fits none of these stereotypes. He is a brilliant man who fully understands the atheist point of view and defends his objections to that viewpoint, as well as his own personal beliefs, very well. He commands respect by his thoughtful answers and gives the reader plenty of food for thought, regardless of their pre-existing beliefs.

I have read several of his books, but this remains my favorite. He addresses all of the main points from leading thoroughly, points out the short comings in both science and religion quite well, and admits that he doesn't not know the actual answer to the questions posed but has instead found a working hypothesis that seems to do the trick better than any alternative, which emphasizes his humility.

I recommend this book to everyone interested in the God and science questions, regardless of their belief or non-belief in the matter. It is hard to find a modern day apologetic piece worth considering nowadays, but McGrath delivers his message with as much insight as Wilberforce, Lewis, and Chesterton before him, making him a great apologist that will indubitably stand the test of time.

[Ben McFarland · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the kind of book one should expect from Alister McGrath: pellucid, distilled, organized, somewhat reserved, and focused on, as the title would indicate, big questions. McGrath maintains his knack for finding a perfect quote -- one by CS Lewis summarizes a 600-page book I just read in a sentence -- and for pointing all aspects of big questions I haven't thought of. For example, I've been thinking a lot about how Christianity paved the way for science, but hadn't realized how the doctrine of Original Sin specifically led to an empirical, experiment-based natural philosophy. I appreciate this book but it isn't McGrath's best, because (as he acknowledges directly) he's not good at conveying his own inner sense of wonder and fitness. He's telling, not showing, because that's the kind of writer he is. I also wish his critique of Sam Harris's moral philosophy in a late chapter was a little more pointed. The fact of the matter is that McGrath focuses on explaining, not entertaining, and I appreciate how he does that once again here. I personally prefer his books written to Christians to ones like this written to a more general audience is all.

[Kate Belt · Rating 4 out of 5]

McGrath went off to Oxford as an atheist and while there discovered that science doesn't have all the answers, in fact cannot answer, questions beyond what can be measured empirically, and even that is subject to error. Oxford seems to have that effect on people (such as C.S. Lewis, G K. Chesterton, Carolyn Weber). As is obvious to most Christians, the stories in the Bible were not told around the camp fire as science lessons nor did early church leaders, such as Augustine, attempt to teach them that way. The author does a wonderful job of illustrating the cherry picking in Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great. Religion, of course, does not have all the answers either, but acknowledges that our understanding is imperfect and incomplete.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alister McGrath is a rigorous academic with incredibly fluid writing, that makes his deep theological and scientific background accessible to readers. I found "The Big Question" to be a highly enjoyable and beneficial read. McGrath has a way of framing things that are continuously thought provoking. I recommend this book to three categories of people: theologians who enjoy reading things like this for fun, and those who find themselves either aggressively anti-theist or religiously anti-scientific. "The Big Question" is a book that has the ability to engage readers in thought provoking ideas without being a take it or leave it propaganda piece. Very glad I read it!

[Antonio Gallo · Rating 4 out of 5]

È una domanda profondissima che ha attraversato millenni di riflessione filosofica, antropologica e linguistica. Come docente e linguista, ho notato come il linguaggio religioso permei le culture umane in modo quasi universale, indipendentemente dalle specificità storiche e geografiche.

Dal punto di vista antropologico, sembra che l'homo sapiens abbia sviluppato una peculiare capacità - forse necessità - di interrogarsi su ciò che trascende l'esperienza immediata. Già nelle prime testimonianze archeologiche troviamo tracce di comportamenti rituali e simbolici che suggeriscono una dimensione del sacro.

Linguisticamente, è notevole come ogni tradizione culturale abbia elaborato un vocabolario specifico per l'ineffabile, creando paradossalmente un linguaggio per ciò che dichiarava indicibile. Questo fenomeno rivela forse un bisogno cognitivo fondamentale: l'essere umano sembra strutturalmente incapace di accettare il silenzio di fronte ai grandi interrogativi esistenziali.

Potremmo considerare diverse prospettive: quella evoluzionistica vede nella religiosità un vantaggio adattivo per la coesione sociale; quella psicologica la interpreta come risposta all'angoscia esistenziale; quella fenomenologica la considera espressione di un'apertura costitutiva dell'essere umano verso l'Altro.

Forse la questione non è tanto perché parliamo di Dio, quanto perché siamo gli unici esseri che si pongono questa domanda sul perché ne parlano. È questo meta-interrogarsi che ci caratterizza come specie simbolica per eccellenza.

Alister McGrath in "La grande domanda" offre una riflessione profonda e personale sul rapporto tra scienza e fede, partendo dalla sua stessa esperienza biografica di biologo convertito dall'ateismo al cristianesimo. È un libro che si distingue nel panorama del dibattito scienza-religione per il suo approccio equilibrato e metodologicamente rigoroso.

Il testo sviluppa quella che McGrath definisce una "terza via" in riferimento alla possibilità di sposare un criterio di pensiero secondo il quale "la scienza e la fede possono fornirci mappe diverse ma potenzialmente complementari dell'identità umana". L'autore rifiuta sia il riduzionismo scientista che vede nella scienza l'unica forma valida di conoscenza, sia il fondamentalismo religioso che misconosce la validità del metodo scientifico.

McGrath affronta con particolare acutezza il tema dei limiti epistemologici: "la scienza e la religione ci offrono visioni della realtà e risposte agli interrogativi della vita su piani diversi. Il quadro della realtà più completo è quello che intreccia in maniera coerente il numero massimo di fili esplicativi". Questa prospettiva richiama la teoria delle "finestre multiple" di Mary Midgley, sottolineando come l'essere umano necessiti di narrazioni interconnesse per comprendere la complessità del reale.

Il libro tocca questioni cruciali: dall'evoluzionismo darwiniano all'etica, dalla concezione dell'anima ai fondamenti della morale. Particolarmente interessante è la critica al "nuovo ateismo" di Dawkins, dove McGrath dimostra come certi attacchi alla religione si basino spesso su una comprensione superficiale della teologia.

La forza del testo risiede nel suo carattere testimoniale: McGrath non propone soluzioni astratte ma condivide un percorso esistenziale e intellettuale che dalla meraviglia conduce a una sintesi armonica tra ricerca scientifica e fede religiosa, mostrando come entrambe possano "influenzarsi e illuminarsi a vicenda".

[Brandon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a good book on the relationship of science and faith, written by Alister McGrath an Oxford professor with academic credentials in science and theology (so he is someone qualified to talk about this subject).

McGrath argues for the compatibility of modern science and classical Christianity.

The book explores a number of issues: how reality leads us to ask the big questions about God, meaning etc (chapter 1); narratives about what science is, particularly in relationship to faith (chapter 2); how we know (chapter 3); cosmology/astrophysics in relationship to religion (chapter 4); evolution and religion (chapter 5); the identity of humans (chapter 6); science and the meaning of life (chapter 7); science and ethics (chapter 8); the need for science and faith (chapter 9).

Subject matter-wise, the first three chapters may prove to abstract for some readers, but I do think chapters 4-9 could be digested even by a lay audience that is interested in the relationship of science and faith.

McGrath's foils are the New Atheists, especially Richard Dawkins, who argue that religion must be left behind for the sake of science.

Of note, McGrath seems to defend a version of evolution as compatible with Christianity, he also argues at one point (pg. 170) for an essentially classical/evidentialist perspective that Christianity can only be shown to be probable. This is a bit short of presuppositionalism's "the impossibility of the contrary."

Overall, the book is very good and I will be returning to it many times.

[Paul Coletti · Rating 2 out of 5]

Perhaps it was my fault for not doing my research beforehand, but I was very caught off guard while reading this. The subtitle of this book was not at all indicative of its content. This is not a sociological book about why humans are fascinated by and cannot seem to stop discussing the meaning of life. Rather, it tries to be a book about why we mustn't stop talking about faith in the midst of what the author perceives to be a New Atheistic revolution. And frankly, it comes up way short in accomplishing what it has set out to do: the author spends most of the book simply pulling quotes from famous atheists about why science is in itself sufficient, and using silly or semantic arguments to claim their invalidity. He claims he is painting a picture for why humans require both faith and science to explain the mysteries of the universe, but it comes across more like a scrappy attempt to re-insert Christianity into a discourse from which it was never fully ousted in the first place.
I am happy for Mr. McGrath, who opens the book with a memory of his own atheism and his joyous conversion moment, but as a Christian myself, I did not see any tremendous value in (or need for) the arguments he was putting forth.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have to admit that not everything in this book made total and complete sense to me because I’m not really a scientist and I’m not really a theologian. But I understood enough of it to get the jest. I also recommend taking this book in small bites because it is quite a bit to process all at once. I found the authors logic very compelling and his discussions on religion and his own personal experience to converting from atheism to Christianity fascinating. Describing this book is very difficult especially given that, as I said before, I didn’t understand all of the language in the book. But what I did understand is his Honest commitment to his believes. He gave some very good examples and made some excellent quotes about the state of science and religion as well as its relation to social Darwinism and morality. It was quite distant from “proving Christianity is right” and was a little bit farther removed from what I would have liked to of read but the content was still interesting.

[Kenneth Litwak · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book. It raises tough questions for readers to answer in their own lives. It challenges modern myths about the so-called conflict between science and faith. It shows that these two things can go together, and refutes arguments that this is not possible. McGrath adds personal background information, which makes for a more interesting narrative. I highly recommend this, especially if you think people like Richard Dawkins are correct about the conflict. McGrath encourages readers to read the writings of those who are critiqued by the New Atheists to escape sound bites and find what people actually think, including reading the Bible without Dawkins' commentary. He clearly has not read the Bible thoroughly or seriously tried to understand it. McGrath wants readers to not do as Dawkins does. I highly recommend this book,

[HobbesR · Rating 2 out of 5]

So I was pretty interested in the book given the title and after reading the God Delusion. It was supposed to be an answer to it but somehow it falls short. Don't get me wrong, this covers some interesting points and answers to Dawkins but it is not convincing and falls short.
Ultimately the point around getting both of science and religion as separate inputs is clear but the book brings little to either case. I feel than Heschel in his book Man is not alone makes a better point.

Overall this is an interesting read but it feels that this is trying to have a conversation between arguments that don't want to converse rather than add to either fields.

[Bill Johnson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don' t think McGrath was really tackling the really "big question" for me. I was hoping the big question would involve a serious look at mind consciousness, quantum physics, and process theology. In my opinion, McGrath achieved his stated goal of speaking against recent writers who espouse atheism. I was just looking for another book. That said, there isn't much new in this volume.

[Nancy McQueen · Rating 2 out of 5]

The title caught me, yet once I opened it, I couldn't get past the first chapter.

[Jack Hollingsworth · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting and thought provoking. I’m a scientist not a philosopher so it was challenging at times to get through some of the jargon but other than that I enjoyed it.

[Antonio · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found it an okay book. Did have some good points in helping resolve the science vs faith issue, but other points seem like McGrath is digressing from what the chapter is truly all about.

[Lynne]

I really wanted to get through this book..but it got highly repetitious, saying the same thing repeatedly with a different reference or different adjectives.

[Dahlia · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s a shame because it was written very well (even though it was a bit repetitive), he did not show how religion can coexist with science.

[Andréa]

Note: I received a digital review copy of this book from the publisher through NetGalley.

[Richard Worden · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent read with insights to Dawkins and Hitchens not previously considered. Especially enjoyed McGrath's explanation of Darwin.

[Patrick Walsh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Science has progressed to the point that it can explain the origins of the universe, life, intelligence, and even ethics and morality by exclusive recourse to natural phenomena. In so doing, science has freed intelligent beings from the tyranny of the theistic superstitions that dominated our benighted past. So say the New Atheists, at least.

Not so fast. So might Alister McGrath say, although he does not do so in those words. Science provides us with deeper knowledge and understanding of the universe and the part of it that humanity inhabits with every passing year. For that, and for so much more that scientists do we should render due recognition and appreciation. But science does not prove the nonexistence of God, just as it cannot prove God’s existence. “Science is a non-theistic, not an anti-theistic, way of engaging reality.” (page 19; emphasis in original) Science instead supports and enhances the sense of wonder and awe that humans experience as we explore and interact with the universe. Alister McGrath shares his awe and wonder with the reader. He also shares how science can come alongside theistic faith to help us come to terms with our place and purpose in the universe.

Throughout this book Alister McGrath engages with the writing of such prominent atheists as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. I have not read these authors, so I am relying on Alister McGrath to represent their arguments fairly and not to set up straw men. Similarly, I have not read Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge by Edward O. Wilson. I know of it and of Wilson’s arguments only through reading the response written by Wendell Berry, Life is a Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition. So I have some reading to do if I am going to be completely thorough in my approach to The Big Question.

With regard to Edward O. Wilson, Alister McGrath mentions him and Sam Harris in his discussion of ethics and morality. Science and specifically evolutionary biology cannot by themselves explain the rise of ethics and moral principles. What is ethical or moral is not simply a matter of what behaviors will enable our species to survive or thrive. Notions of what constitutes ethical behavior transcend the common good and come from humanity’s interaction with a source outside of the physical universe.

When shopping for books online, readers are often able to read samples. The samples often come from the beginning of the book. It might be better in this case if the sample were the final chapter. That would reveal whether or not the butler did it, of course, but this final chapter encapsulates Alister McGrath’s thinking on the relationship between science and faith and it is worth working through the other 200+ pages to get to that summary.

[Frank Peters · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alister McGrath is an author that I mostly respect and have followed for many years. His background in science and theology has many parallels in my own life, and as a result I am drawn to his essays and books. Too many of his books I find overly dry and boring, while I typically find his essays to be brilliant. This book puts both together, as it reads as a collection of interwoven essays. Unlike too many of his books, he writes this one with humility and grace and this was greatly appreciated. The book is not a book on science, not on philosophy or theology. Instead it provides a discussion on the intersections between the three. Yet, while I really enjoyed it, now that I am finished, I cannot really point to anything that I have learned or will want to go back to. I would certainly recommend the book for those who are interested in the intersection between faith and science, even if they are new to this area of discussion. Well done Prof. McGrath. I hope to read more books of yours that have been written with the same spirit.

[Bryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty good book on how science and religion can coexist, and have coexisted, together. Takes on a lot of Richard Dawkins conclusions in the God Delusion and refutes them. There will never be a last word in this argument, but still interesting to read the latest well reasoned argument on the subject.

[Jim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book. Would have given it 4 stars except it is written like a college thesis. Very tiring to read. Could have presented the same worthwhile ideas in a format that was geared more toward public consumption. Sometimes simple is good when trying to make a point.

[Connie · Rating 3 out of 5]

FTC Disclosure: I received this book free from Goodreads hoping I would review it.